Making AS legal???

[Spidey]

Part of the reason I wrote LEGAL MUSCLE was to provide a referenced, supported authority for what's wrong with our steroid laws. Chapter by chapter, my goal was to build a compelling case for the conclusion that we've made a terrible mistake in our approach.

OKOK. I am sold; I'll buy the book as soon as I can afford to, LOL. In the meantime, can you tell me:

1. Has anyone challanged steroid possesion laws as unconstitutional?

2. What do you think would happen if such a case made it to the supreme court?

 

[wit]

My question was a serious one. Why can't the AS laws be challanged on constitutional grounds?

What the Constitution means is determined by what the Supreme Court says it means. Almost from the start of this nation, certain things were curtailed, banned and criminalized and the SC explicitly agreed that it is within the Fed, State, or Local government's right to do so. Certain regulations needed to be changed, altered, or rewritten to comply with the Constitution, and many were completely struck down over the years, but curtailment of "freedom and happiness" is just a legal fact of life.

On the Federal level, many years ago FDA's authority to regulate drugs was challenged before the SC. The SC heard, reviewed and upheld FDAs authority. Likewise, the SC heard, reviewed, and upheld DEAs authority and has dealt with many controlled substance cases over the years.

Currently, one of the most interesting cases _expected_ to be brought to the SC's attention deals with search and seizure issues of some drug offenders. What is happening is that some of the arrested drug offenders' assets are being auctioned off even _before_ his or her guilt has been determined.

What usually happens is that an organization like ACLU will shop around for the "perfect test case" and then throw all their resources and support to launch a respectable judicial battle all the way to the SC.

Similarly, in determining which cases it wants to hear, the SC will consider whether a particular case has notable repeated impact on society, whether a given case is infact a good case/demostration of a particular law/constitutional concern, and whether the case will clarify or cloud existing legal precedent.

-wit

 

[liftsiron]

Zyg everything you have said in your numerous posts on this thread is regretably true. Steroids should never have been criminalized and placed on schedule, they do not meet the criteria. If it about keeping americians safe, you make a good point with tobacco which kills over 1100 people each day in our country, or even tylonal with contributes to more than 400 deaths in our country each year. And Bulldog you are a good guy but as Zyg said are missing the point, you state that making prohormones illegal is ok, because you don't use them but on the other hand eph should not be banned, because it seems that you use it. That thread is about our freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for are being stripped by over zealous pricks.

One more point couldn't the near 65 billon spent in Iraq have been better spent in the USA, especially now that the truth is out, we went to war based on lies.