New legal steroids?

[macrophage69alpha]

bill,

never said that 1-test was not a steroid, just that it was not comparable to widely used anabolic steroids.

in fact.. all of the PH, PS etc... are in fact steroids from dhea on down the line.

the term PH and PS are a "trick" to convince people that they are not steroids(as steroids carry a stigma. as well as legal significance).. though the new PS title is intended to say "legal" but as good as the "real" stuff.. as steroids have become socially more acceptable than they were 5 or 6 years ago.(or at least people realized that they work and that the MERCK MANUAL was "lying") (though that is just a guess.. how exactly the terms evolved.. is probably a bit more involved.. though would guess that the reasoning went somewhat along those lines)

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

bill,

never said that 1-test was not a steroid, just that it was not comparable to widely used anabolic steroids.

I'd have to disagree. In my experience it is more potent that primo or nandrolone mg for mg for sure, and for me personally ethergels have outperformed many of the low to moderate dosed cycles I have done. It is like trying to say what is more potent, deca or anavar? At a given dose level, either can outperform the other. Anavar and Deca are still in the same "steroid" ballpark, and 1-Test is as well. The only issue is getting enough of it in your body.

the term PH and PS are a "trick" to convince people that they are not steroids(as steroids carry a stigma. as well as legal significance).. though the new PS title is intended to say "legal" but as good as the "real" stuff.. as steroids have become socially more acceptable than they were 5 or 6 years ago

Agreed. But I would have opted for the "Legal Steroid" title if I could, as it is most appropriate. However, I think it would be a little too "in your face" to the FDA for comfort. Maybe with all the media attention we shouldn't even bother with the "prosteroid" term anymore?

 

[Testoman]

so again,

what are the chances of survival for the various prohormones and prosteroids???

 

[javaguru]

I don't think it would have mattered whether 1-test had been marketed or not. Every article mentions androstenedione and Mark Mcgwire. Likewise, they always seem to mention the conversion to steroids, which isn't the intended method of action for 1-test. It's not likely the public or media will be educated enough to even know the difference and congressmen are some of the biggest idiots in the US, I have acquaintances who have worked as staff on various campaigns and during their terms and they have some pretty funny stories about their stupidity.

 

[yosh]

I tried 1-ad. I was not impressed. But it did work. a little.

I will not be using it gain though. It was not worth the money. I can get real steroids cheaper.

 

[pa1ad]

Agreed. But I would have opted for the "Legal Steroid" title if I could, as it is most appropriate. However, I think it would be a little too "in your face" to the FDA for comfort. Maybe with all the media attention we shouldn't even bother with the "prosteroid" term anymore? [/B]

Too late. Everyone thought it was such a nifty idea about a year ago didn't they? "Pro-steroid" "legal loophole" "active steroid". Now its maybe we shouldn't oughta done that.

 

[pa1ad]

I don't think it would have mattered whether 1-test had been marketed or not. Every article mentions androstenedione and Mark Mcgwire. .

No, it matters immensely. How do we now use the defense now of differentiating prohormones which need conversion in the body, from real anabolic steroids?? All they need to do is point to 1-test, 4-hydroxytest etc. and say "look, these compounds are real anabolic steroids, even the manufacturers say so!!"

All they have to do is throw all the advertisements and promotional materials for pro-steroids down in front of the congressman and its right there in black and white. And then they will vote to get rid of everything (not just prosteroids) right down to DHEA.

Pro-steroids made it immensely easier to sell the propaganda campaign against these products. No longer was the ambiguity there. ProSteroids and the unashamed marketing of prosteroids offended and incensed the government.

You say every article mentions Mark Maguire. So what? Mark Maguire and prohormones have been around for years. No one gives a shit. It was not until the blatant marketing of real anabolic steroids happened that the critical mass was reached.

 

[javaguru]

In an article I read Osbourne said, " These prohormones convert to controlled substances in the human body, we're just closing a loophole." It looks like he was specifically thinking of prohormones when he sponsored the bill as there was no other reference to intrinsically active compounds in this or any other piece I've read about the legislation.

I don't believe a congressman or the average person would really care about the distinction between something converting to a controlled substance or acting directly as a controlled substance. The average person on the streets considers steroid use in the same category as heroin use. For example, product A is converted by the body into heroin but product B intrinsically acts like heroin when ingested. All they are hearing is that people, particularly children, have access to heroin over the counter. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the distinction but all they'll hear is that children have OTC access to steroids.

Let's also not forget they'll be thinking of all the horrible steroid side effects. Their children's genitalia shrinking and falling off, ravening 280 lb sixteen year olds ripping schools apart from roid rage and then dying of brain cancer three weeks later. The demise of the pro-hormone market was guaranteed the moment a congressman needed a "no brainer" grass roots issue to make a name for himself, the hero that kept our children off steroids.

 

[bbkingpin]

Have there been any lawsuits filed for misleading claims and failure to warn of gyno in the case of androsten -dione, -diol, etc.?

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

In an article I read Osbourne said, " These prohormones convert to controlled substances in the human body, we're just closing a loophole." It looks like he was specifically thinking of prohormones when he sponsored the bill as there was no other reference to intrinsically active compounds in this or any other piece I've read about the legislation.

I don't believe a congressman or the average person would really care about the distinction between something converting to a controlled substance or acting directly as a controlled substance. The average person on the streets considers steroid use in the same category as heroin use. For example, product A is converted by the body into heroin but product B intrinsically acts like heroin when ingested. All they are hearing is that people, particularly children, have access to heroin over the counter. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the distinction but all they'll hear is that children have OTC access to steroids.

Let's also not forget they'll be thinking of all the horrible steroid side effects. Their children's genitalia shrinking and falling off, ravening 280 lb sixteen year olds ripping schools apart from roid rage and then dying of brain cancer three weeks later. The demise of the pro-hormone market was guaranteed the moment a congressman needed a "no brainer" grass roots issue to make a name for himself, the hero that kept our children off steroids.

Very good post.