proud13
New member
I'm sure some of you may know this already or read this very same article but for those of you that haven't...pay attention.
==============================================
The New Steroid/Prohormone Law
An Update from Rick Collins, J.D.
The new federal steroid law has been passed! On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, scheduled to take effect 90 days later. The law adds 26 compounds to the existing 1990 list of steroids that are classified as Schedule III controlled substances. Possession of a single andro or other prohormone tablet, for example, will be a federal crime punishable by up to one year in jail; distributing will be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison for a first offense.
The 26 newly added compounds are androstanediol; androstanedione; androstenediol; androstenedione; bolasterone; calusterone; *1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. “1-testosterone”); furazabol; 13b-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one; 4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-4-ene; 17a-methyl-4-hydroxynandrolone; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone; 17a-methyl-*1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. “17-a-methyl-1-testosterone”); norandrostenediol; norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; normethandrolone; stenbolone; and tetrahydrogestrinone. Some of these substances have been marketed as dietary supplements. Others are actually old pharmaceutical steroids that were missed in the original federal law. The law permits the continued sale of DHEA as a dietary supplement.
The law changes the required elements of an anabolic steroid. The “promotes muscle growth” language is now removed from the statute, simplifying the process by which a newly created “designer” steroidal compound may be scheduled by the Attorney General under 21 U.S.C. § 811. No longer must the Attorney General prove that the compound is anabolic. The law also fixes some of the mistakes in the 1990 law (although at least one new typographical error appears). Among other quirks in the new law, the word “isomer” has been removed from the catch-all provision, replaced by “ether.” Instead, the law includes specific isomers of selected compounds.
What can we expect from the new law? The politicians behind it apparently believe that it will curtail steroid use in athletics. While their hopes are well-intentioned, if past experience serves, such hopes seem doubtful. The original 1990 law was pitched to the public as a solution to steroids in sports. However, not only has steroid use by athletes continued, but judging from the unprecedented frenzy over the issue this past year the problem appears much bigger than ever.
Here’s what we can expect: the law will put an end to most legal steroidal dietary supplements, leaving black market steroids as the predominant option. Don’t be surprised if we see a dramatic rise in the use of illegal steroids. In response, expect a newly invigorated anti-steroid enforcement crusade by the DEA. [Even before the President signed the new law, DEA was sounding a war cry. “We are now focused on steroid trafficking and abuse as never before,” warned Michele Leonhart, deputy administrator with DEA, at an October steroids summit in Los Angeles]. Expect individual states to review their own codes in an effort to harmonize their steroid laws with the new federal statute. Once new state laws are enacted, expect state and local police to boost their enforcement efforts against steroid users. As steroid usage is driven further underground, expect the health risks to be compounded as fewer users than ever seek physician monitoring. Finally, expect confusion by consumers and law enforcement authorities alike, because not all prohormone products fall under the new law, nor do all conceivable anabolic steroids.
The backers of this bill say it’s about “values.” But neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution says anything at all about preserving the “purity” of athletes’ urine. There were alternative means to protect our teens and to prevent sports doping without criminalizing mature, health-conscious American consumers and bringing the War on (Some) Drugs into health food stores. Freedom of choice and personal liberty are the values this nation was founded upon, and don’t let them tell you otherwise.
Suspected steroid users, most specifically adult bodybuilders, have become prime targets for criminal investigation and arrest. But the many thousands of dollars needed in the course of sending federal agents across the country, of conducting interrogations, of serving subpoenas and summonses, of convening grand juries, and of dragging dozens of hapless bodybuilders to testify before those grand juries is a terribly misguided allocation of our hard-earned -- and limited -- tax dollars. Gee, shouldn't the government be dedicating its available resources to finding Osama?"
© 2004, Rick Collins, J.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Patriot Act and You
By Rick Collins, J.D.
What if Government authorities develop an interest in you? What if they focus on your online activities, and decide to develop a profile on your habits and contacts? They seek to identify your associates through the email addresses of those you’ve corresponded with.
One surveillance approach the Government has used in recent years has been to apply pen registers and trap and trace devices to the Internet. Pen registers are devices that capture the telephone numbers dialed on outgoing calls; trap and trace devices capture the numbers on incoming calls. These devices don’t disclose the contents of the communications, or even whether the parties actually speak – just that one phone dialed another phone. A list of every phone number dialed and the source of every call received can establish a comprehensive profile of a suspect’s contacts, affiliations and activities. Think about how useful these devices are in the investigation of racketeering conspiracies: “Hey, the target calls a number registered to ‘Jimmy Potts’ twice a day. Let’s do some surveillance on this guy Jimmy and see what develops…”
It’s been estimated that federal law enforcement agencies conduct roughly ten times as many pen/trap surveillances as they do “Title III” wiretaps (the kind that allows them to listen to content, such as by bugging rooms or eavesdropping on phone conversations). The beauty of pen/trap surveillance to law enforcement is that, unlike wiretaps, they can be obtained very easily. The Government simply has to certify to a judge that the information likely to be obtained by the surveillance is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation – even if the target is not a suspect in that investigation. By comparison, for the Government to get a Title III wiretap, they have to meet the high standard of showing probable cause to believe that the target committed one of a list of severe crimes. So, pen/trap surveillance can help the Government fish around for evidence against people it has no proof against. Also, the feds don’t need to report their findings back to the court like they have to with traditional wiretaps, so there’s little chance of oversight of potential abuses.
Before the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 [Oct. 26, 2001]), some judges were already authorizing the use of pen/trap surveillance to capture the source and destination information for emails. But the PATRIOT Act furthered things along by explicitly applying pen/trap surveillance to the Internet by federal statute. While it does not permit the feds to read any of the contents of the emails, including the subject line, with a pen/trap order, it can be argued that pen/trap surveillance on the Internet is more intrusive and personally revealing than on telephones because email addresses are unique to individual users while many individuals may share one telephone number. Further, there remain serious questions in situations involving Web “addresses” and other URLs identifying particular content.
The PATRIOT Act also diminishes online privacy by changing the law to increase how much information the Government can get about Internet users from their Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or others who handle and store their online communications. It allows ISPs to voluntarily turn over all “non-content” information to Government agencies without a court order or subpoena. It also broadens the types of records that the Government can seek with a subpoena and without a judge’s review.
All in all, while the PATRIOT Act may be terrific when applied to combat terrorism, some of you may not like it in other contexts. For example, if Congress passes the proposed amendments to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, will the suggested harsher treatment for steroids and prohormones motivate the Government to monitor those they may suspect are conducting transactions online? In the absence of comprehensive judicial oversight, just how expansively might the Government apply this law?
Rick Collins, J.D., is a veteran lawyer and bodybuilder. He is the founder of www.SteroidLaw.com and the author of the groundbreaking blockbuster LEGAL MUSCLE: Anabolics in America
==============================================
The New Steroid/Prohormone Law
An Update from Rick Collins, J.D.
The new federal steroid law has been passed! On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, scheduled to take effect 90 days later. The law adds 26 compounds to the existing 1990 list of steroids that are classified as Schedule III controlled substances. Possession of a single andro or other prohormone tablet, for example, will be a federal crime punishable by up to one year in jail; distributing will be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison for a first offense.
The 26 newly added compounds are androstanediol; androstanedione; androstenediol; androstenedione; bolasterone; calusterone; *1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. “1-testosterone”); furazabol; 13b-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one; 4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-4-ene; 17a-methyl-4-hydroxynandrolone; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone; 17a-methyl-*1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. “17-a-methyl-1-testosterone”); norandrostenediol; norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; normethandrolone; stenbolone; and tetrahydrogestrinone. Some of these substances have been marketed as dietary supplements. Others are actually old pharmaceutical steroids that were missed in the original federal law. The law permits the continued sale of DHEA as a dietary supplement.
The law changes the required elements of an anabolic steroid. The “promotes muscle growth” language is now removed from the statute, simplifying the process by which a newly created “designer” steroidal compound may be scheduled by the Attorney General under 21 U.S.C. § 811. No longer must the Attorney General prove that the compound is anabolic. The law also fixes some of the mistakes in the 1990 law (although at least one new typographical error appears). Among other quirks in the new law, the word “isomer” has been removed from the catch-all provision, replaced by “ether.” Instead, the law includes specific isomers of selected compounds.
What can we expect from the new law? The politicians behind it apparently believe that it will curtail steroid use in athletics. While their hopes are well-intentioned, if past experience serves, such hopes seem doubtful. The original 1990 law was pitched to the public as a solution to steroids in sports. However, not only has steroid use by athletes continued, but judging from the unprecedented frenzy over the issue this past year the problem appears much bigger than ever.
Here’s what we can expect: the law will put an end to most legal steroidal dietary supplements, leaving black market steroids as the predominant option. Don’t be surprised if we see a dramatic rise in the use of illegal steroids. In response, expect a newly invigorated anti-steroid enforcement crusade by the DEA. [Even before the President signed the new law, DEA was sounding a war cry. “We are now focused on steroid trafficking and abuse as never before,” warned Michele Leonhart, deputy administrator with DEA, at an October steroids summit in Los Angeles]. Expect individual states to review their own codes in an effort to harmonize their steroid laws with the new federal statute. Once new state laws are enacted, expect state and local police to boost their enforcement efforts against steroid users. As steroid usage is driven further underground, expect the health risks to be compounded as fewer users than ever seek physician monitoring. Finally, expect confusion by consumers and law enforcement authorities alike, because not all prohormone products fall under the new law, nor do all conceivable anabolic steroids.
The backers of this bill say it’s about “values.” But neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution says anything at all about preserving the “purity” of athletes’ urine. There were alternative means to protect our teens and to prevent sports doping without criminalizing mature, health-conscious American consumers and bringing the War on (Some) Drugs into health food stores. Freedom of choice and personal liberty are the values this nation was founded upon, and don’t let them tell you otherwise.
Suspected steroid users, most specifically adult bodybuilders, have become prime targets for criminal investigation and arrest. But the many thousands of dollars needed in the course of sending federal agents across the country, of conducting interrogations, of serving subpoenas and summonses, of convening grand juries, and of dragging dozens of hapless bodybuilders to testify before those grand juries is a terribly misguided allocation of our hard-earned -- and limited -- tax dollars. Gee, shouldn't the government be dedicating its available resources to finding Osama?"
© 2004, Rick Collins, J.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Patriot Act and You
By Rick Collins, J.D.
What if Government authorities develop an interest in you? What if they focus on your online activities, and decide to develop a profile on your habits and contacts? They seek to identify your associates through the email addresses of those you’ve corresponded with.
One surveillance approach the Government has used in recent years has been to apply pen registers and trap and trace devices to the Internet. Pen registers are devices that capture the telephone numbers dialed on outgoing calls; trap and trace devices capture the numbers on incoming calls. These devices don’t disclose the contents of the communications, or even whether the parties actually speak – just that one phone dialed another phone. A list of every phone number dialed and the source of every call received can establish a comprehensive profile of a suspect’s contacts, affiliations and activities. Think about how useful these devices are in the investigation of racketeering conspiracies: “Hey, the target calls a number registered to ‘Jimmy Potts’ twice a day. Let’s do some surveillance on this guy Jimmy and see what develops…”
It’s been estimated that federal law enforcement agencies conduct roughly ten times as many pen/trap surveillances as they do “Title III” wiretaps (the kind that allows them to listen to content, such as by bugging rooms or eavesdropping on phone conversations). The beauty of pen/trap surveillance to law enforcement is that, unlike wiretaps, they can be obtained very easily. The Government simply has to certify to a judge that the information likely to be obtained by the surveillance is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation – even if the target is not a suspect in that investigation. By comparison, for the Government to get a Title III wiretap, they have to meet the high standard of showing probable cause to believe that the target committed one of a list of severe crimes. So, pen/trap surveillance can help the Government fish around for evidence against people it has no proof against. Also, the feds don’t need to report their findings back to the court like they have to with traditional wiretaps, so there’s little chance of oversight of potential abuses.
Before the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 [Oct. 26, 2001]), some judges were already authorizing the use of pen/trap surveillance to capture the source and destination information for emails. But the PATRIOT Act furthered things along by explicitly applying pen/trap surveillance to the Internet by federal statute. While it does not permit the feds to read any of the contents of the emails, including the subject line, with a pen/trap order, it can be argued that pen/trap surveillance on the Internet is more intrusive and personally revealing than on telephones because email addresses are unique to individual users while many individuals may share one telephone number. Further, there remain serious questions in situations involving Web “addresses” and other URLs identifying particular content.
The PATRIOT Act also diminishes online privacy by changing the law to increase how much information the Government can get about Internet users from their Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or others who handle and store their online communications. It allows ISPs to voluntarily turn over all “non-content” information to Government agencies without a court order or subpoena. It also broadens the types of records that the Government can seek with a subpoena and without a judge’s review.
All in all, while the PATRIOT Act may be terrific when applied to combat terrorism, some of you may not like it in other contexts. For example, if Congress passes the proposed amendments to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, will the suggested harsher treatment for steroids and prohormones motivate the Government to monitor those they may suspect are conducting transactions online? In the absence of comprehensive judicial oversight, just how expansively might the Government apply this law?
Rick Collins, J.D., is a veteran lawyer and bodybuilder. He is the founder of www.SteroidLaw.com and the author of the groundbreaking blockbuster LEGAL MUSCLE: Anabolics in America
Just sucks.
