USA Today thinks ALL supplements should be BANNED!!!

HeavyLiftr

Member
10+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Bros,

The article from USA today on January 6th pasted below proves it: It's getting worse and worse: Now that Ephedra / Ephedrine is about to be banned permanently thanks to sloppy usage by former baseball pitchers and a few people who should NOT be taking the supplement (read the LABELS, and you wont die, bleed, cough or choke), there is a rally cry to regulate (read BAN) ALL SUPPLEMENTS that studies prove to be safe.

This article makes one thing clear: The vendetta is not against Ephedra. It is against the so-called "Supplement Industry".

So remember, although aspirin has caused 10's of thousands of deaths over the same decade that 155 (yes - ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE, not ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND...) fatalities resulted from ephedrine mis-use, aspirin is still on the shelves, ready to burst a hole in your stomach.

Ephedra is the cheapest, most effective supplement for fat loss... but the government would have you pay $5 a pill for phentermine, meridia, and other drugs that are more toxic to not only your stomach, but your brain and liver.

-HL

Note: It would figure that a spinless writer hiding under the banner of an op-ed piece would choose to write this without revealing himself. Any bets this guy has failed at lifting weights and now has a problem giving up his doughnuts and fried chicken?


Law lets risky stimulants take ephedra's place

OP / ED (No Author) - USA TODAY - January 6th, 2004

As the federal government inches toward an overdue ban on the deadly diet supplement ephedra, supplement makers and consumers are rushing to risky substitutes.

And the government can't stop them.

On Dec. 27, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it soon will issue a ban on ephedra to take effect 60 days later. The action comes nearly a decade - and 155 deaths - after medical experts began noticing a surge in troubling reports about the amphetamine-like stimulant, which was being peddled to athletes and dieters.


Yet the ban fails to correct a regulatory system that assumes dietary supplements are safe until proved harmful. That standard is more lenient than those for prescription and over-the-counter drugs, which must be shown to be safe before they can be sold.



In ephedra's case, the system led to untold numbers of heart attacks and strokes as well as deaths, among them Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler last year.



But ephedra is just the most notorious of the unproven supplements readily available in stores, online and by mail. Now that ephedra is being banned, marketers are pushing "ephedra-free" stimulants based on herbs such as bitter orange, green tea, grape-seed extract and guarana. Industry officials say that in anticipation of a ban, consumers already have been shifting to substitutes.



Their search for safety may be illusory. Consider bitter orange. Research at the University of Arkansas suggests it reacts with many prescription drugs to undermine their effectiveness. Other studies have shown that bitter orange raises blood pressure in animals, suggesting it could carry some of the same risks as ephedra for humans.



Even less is known about the potential effects of most other ephedra substitutes.



The FDA publishes a list of commonly available supplements that are known to have caused nausea, vomiting, liver and kidney disease, high and low blood pressure, paralysis and death. Still, little reliable scientific research on these substances exists, and the industry's clout in Congress has blocked the FDA from banning a substance unless the agency is prepared to prove in court that it poses "an unreasonable health risk."



Even with ephedra's tragic record, the government didn't test that hurdle until now. Thousands of reports of illness and death linked to ephedra prompted the FDA to commission outside studies that it believes provide the evidence needed to withstand a legal challenge from the industry.



Other supplements associated with health risks are still getting a free pass. The FDA doesn't even have the authority to require their manufacturers to turn over any reports they receive about consumers who are harmed by the products.



While Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson wants Congress to require that manufacturers report customers' adverse reactions, he has not made passage of such legislation a priority.



The industry says the current law and self-regulation are adequate. Yet, it has fought efforts to improve safety. When the FDA tried to tighten supplement regulation in 1994, the industry persuaded Congress to strip the agency of the little authority it had.



Ephedra is finally on its way out. But until the industry and its allies in Congress make consumer protection a higher priority, too many other potentially dangerous supplements remain on store shelves.
 
The USA Today is a joke of a newspaper. As I like to call it, its the Clif Notes of Newspapers. No real in-depth articles and full of crap.
 
Bob Smith said:
The USA Today is a joke of a newspaper. As I like to call it, its the Clif Notes of Newspapers. No real in-depth articles and full of crap.
That may be the case, but their circulation is Nationwide - not just one state. So politicians and constituents will be reading this crap - which I agree is crap - and will use this as fodder for thier "YES" vote in March to ban Ephedra. It will also scare people and force us to defend ourselves when we make up our own minds about what to put into our bodies.

Multi-vitamins with any type of herb will probably be next... Who knows what will follow? But this is a dangerous precedent, this Ephedra ban.
 
HeavyLiftr said:
Bros,

The article from USA today on January 6th pasted below proves it: It's getting worse and worse: Now that Ephedra / Ephedrine is about to be banned permanently thanks to sloppy usage by former baseball pitchers and a few people who should NOT be taking the supplement (read the LABELS, and you wont die, bleed, cough or choke), there is a rally cry to regulate (read BAN) ALL SUPPLEMENTS that studies prove to be safe.

This article makes one thing clear: The vendetta is not against Ephedra. It is against the so-called "Supplement Industry".

So remember, although aspirin has caused 10's of thousands of deaths over the same decade that 155 (yes - ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE, not ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND...) fatalities resulted from ephedrine mis-use, aspirin is still on the shelves, ready to burst a hole in your stomach.

Ephedra is the cheapest, most effective supplement for fat loss... but the government would have you pay $5 a pill for phentermine, meridia, and other drugs that are more toxic to not only your stomach, but your brain and liver.

-HL

Note: It would figure that a spinless writer hiding under the banner of an op-ed piece would choose to write this without revealing himself. Any bets this guy has failed at lifting weights and now has a problem giving up his doughnuts and fried chicken?


Law lets risky stimulants take ephedra's place

OP / ED (No Author) - USA TODAY - January 6th, 2004

As the federal government inches toward an overdue ban on the deadly diet supplement ephedra, supplement makers and consumers are rushing to risky substitutes.

And the government can't stop them.

On Dec. 27, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it soon will issue a ban on ephedra to take effect 60 days later. The action comes nearly a decade - and 155 deaths - after medical experts began noticing a surge in troubling reports about the amphetamine-like stimulant, which was being peddled to athletes and dieters.


Yet the ban fails to correct a regulatory system that assumes dietary supplements are safe until proved harmful. That standard is more lenient than those for prescription and over-the-counter drugs, which must be shown to be safe before they can be sold.



In ephedra's case, the system led to untold numbers of heart attacks and strokes as well as deaths, among them Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler last year.



But ephedra is just the most notorious of the unproven supplements readily available in stores, online and by mail. Now that ephedra is being banned, marketers are pushing "ephedra-free" stimulants based on herbs such as bitter orange, green tea, grape-seed extract and guarana. Industry officials say that in anticipation of a ban, consumers already have been shifting to substitutes.



Their search for safety may be illusory. Consider bitter orange. Research at the University of Arkansas suggests it reacts with many prescription drugs to undermine their effectiveness. Other studies have shown that bitter orange raises blood pressure in animals, suggesting it could carry some of the same risks as ephedra for humans.



Even less is known about the potential effects of most other ephedra substitutes.



The FDA publishes a list of commonly available supplements that are known to have caused nausea, vomiting, liver and kidney disease, high and low blood pressure, paralysis and death. Still, little reliable scientific research on these substances exists, and the industry's clout in Congress has blocked the FDA from banning a substance unless the agency is prepared to prove in court that it poses "an unreasonable health risk."



Even with ephedra's tragic record, the government didn't test that hurdle until now. Thousands of reports of illness and death linked to ephedra prompted the FDA to commission outside studies that it believes provide the evidence needed to withstand a legal challenge from the industry.



Other supplements associated with health risks are still getting a free pass. The FDA doesn't even have the authority to require their manufacturers to turn over any reports they receive about consumers who are harmed by the products.



While Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson wants Congress to require that manufacturers report customers' adverse reactions, he has not made passage of such legislation a priority.



The industry says the current law and self-regulation are adequate. Yet, it has fought efforts to improve safety. When the FDA tried to tighten supplement regulation in 1994, the industry persuaded Congress to strip the agency of the little authority it had.



Ephedra is finally on its way out. But until the industry and its allies in Congress make consumer protection a higher priority, too many other potentially dangerous supplements remain on store shelves.


Not to pat myself on the back but if people would email their Senators telling them if they vote take away choices they would vote against them and ACTUALLY VOTE AGAINST THEM as I do perhaps they might think before they bow down to pharmaceutical companies.
Than again maybe not but we can try.AS is I am voting AGAINST EVERY elected official in NY next election.
EVERY ONE voted to ban Ephedra and they have their sights set on banning much more.BOTH PARTIES are OWNED by Pharmaceutical industry.
They seem to have no problem with people takeing anything the pharmaceutical companies put out.Regardless of the side effects/deaths.
Darter
 
what is unbelievable is the pure ignorance of the people who write those articles when they really know nothing about anything. everytime the gov't passes a law these days it takes another right away from us. what also sucks is even when we do vote and stop something, the gov't will sneak it in on the back end of another bill to get it passed. like to try and ban some supplement and throw it within an anti-terrorism bill.
 
Prior to self-righteously calling this an impingement of our rights, I must ask you to take into account your views of illicit drugs.

I don't know what your personal views are on them, hence the preface, but if you believe that pot, cocaine, LSD and the like should remain illegal, then you have no business calling it a right to use ephedra.

Myself, I believe in the autonomy of the individual. So long as our actions have no direct impact upon the autonomy and livelihood of others, then what we put in our bodies is no one's fucking business.
 
Im all for the legalization of AAS and marijuana, but keeping coke, LSD, and similar with scheduled status. What harm comes to others from AAS, pot, or ephedra? None. Coke, acid, meth, etc can have a big impact on other people through impaired physical/mental abilities.

Overall I agree with you big Grizzly, but obviously not all drugs can be lumped together.
 
very valid points ... i agree with what your saying bob & grizz. it's crazy to think of people are getting in trouble with the law for using aas , if you think about it, all they wanna do is better themselves and/or get big.
 
esco said:
very valid points ... i agree with what your saying bob & grizz. it's crazy to think of people are getting in trouble with the law for using aas , if you think about it, all they wanna do is better themselves and/or get big.
Bumping what you bros are saying...its like.....we arent hurting other people and in fact are helping ourselves in most cases!

Peace
 
Bob Smith said:
Im all for the legalization of AAS and marijuana, but keeping coke, LSD, and similar with scheduled status. What harm comes to others from AAS, pot, or ephedra? None. Coke, acid, meth, etc can have a big impact on other people through impaired physical/mental abilities.

Overall I agree with you big Grizzly, but obviously not all drugs can be lumped together.

Acid has zero bad effects.

Anyhow, I don't understand the argument you're making. Are you saying that only meth, coke, etc. cause imparied physical/mental function? I'm pretty sure that's why people use drugs. To get fucked up. Pot will burn you out and make you lazy. Sounds like impaired physical and mental function to me.

Can the abuse of these drugs lead to affecting the lives of others? Yes, but that's the same with anything. I've done plenty of cocaine in my days and I've never hurt anyone, stolen their shit, etc. I've done a little meth, too. Again, no problems. Do some people get super addicted and then start a life of crime? Yes, but that should in no way carryover and start affecting my autonomy and sovereignty of self. Just because someone else is a fucktard should have no effect on my ability to choose to use drugs.

And, oh yes, AAS have never caused the same problems as other drugs. No one has ever sucked a dick for some AAS money. No one has ever sold their car, dropped out of school and lived in a seedy neighborhood so they could better afford their drugs. And, certainly, there has never been any theft associated with AAS use. I mean, those scammers and (particularly relevant) those reverse scammers have never stolen money and/or drugs.

I think your bias against the use of "hard drugs" has caused you to make a mistake in your reasoning.
 
Im not worried about people selling their car to get AAS. If thats what a person wants to do, then go for it. I would say they are probably a dumbass, but they arent harming anyone else. Ephedra users arent out stealing, they dont hallucinate, they dont get all fucked up. Can the same be said for meth? No. What about acid? No. Both are psychotropic drugs that affect a persons behavior in general and towards other people. AAS has none/very small effects in that regards.

For the most part, Im all for people being able to use whatever they want as long as they dont harm other people or cause a drain on society/economy. AAS users are not a drain on society. Ephedra users support the economy in the likes of BILLIONS of dollars every year.

Meth users are nothing but a drain on society. First off, they steal anhydrous ammonia in order to produce their shit. That affects the farmers/co-ops they steal from. Not only do they steal it, but often they do other damage in the process. Now they have a 1000 gallon tankload of anhydrous at their "lab." (The new thing is to steal the whole tank and not just a few gallons from it). They make this crap in their garage or basement. The odor from it is highly offensive to neighbors. Meth users have a higher rate of various forms of abuse, including child abuse. What happens when they decide (or are forced) to quit? Most meth users are poor folk that cant afford rehab/detox. Guess what that means? You and I pay for their ass to be in rehab for 28+ days. Most rehab places run at least $750+/day, and often closer to $1000-1500 per day. Thats a lot of f*cking money that could be either kept in my pocket, put towards improving sh*tty public education, or any number of things.

Now do you want to say that meth use doesnt affect people? (ie. EVERYONE)?
 
BTW, I didnt include the cost of law enforcement, cost of jailtime, and Im sure a whole host of other expenses related to a meth user.
 
I was hoping you'd bring up an argument with many of these points.

Legalizing methamphetamines and the rest eliminate almost all of these problems. If it was legal to use/make meth, then they wouldn't have to steal the tanks. Instead, they could just go buy some without fear of arrest. They really wouldn't even need rehab if it was legal because they could make 2 months worth for 200 bucks and they'd never have to come off.

That last one was actually just kind of a funny point, more than a serious one, though it does have some small merit. Again, I'd like to point out that there are plenty of AAS users who steal to support their usage.

The periphery costs of cops and jail upkeep would be completely negated by legalization of these substances. If they're legal, then no one goes to jail for them.

When was the last time someone got killed for interfering in the booze market? 1935 or some shit, eh? When was the last time someone got killed for fucking up the crack business? An hour ago, maybe? Why is that? Legalization.

Then, there is always the futility argument. As decade upon decade has shown, the fact that these substances are illegal certainly hasn't curtailed their use, so why not save everyone some fucking headaches and legalize them? It saves money, time, effort, etc.

Hell, I think the illegality of them makes it all the more appealing. I can remember talking to my parents with a couple hits of acid in my mouth and thinking it was funny as hell. Or driving by the cops thinking about the drugs in my pocket and how they could suck my dick. Supposedly, there are some legal substances out there right now that are super effective at making muscles. However, many people won't use them becuase they are legal and we all assume that legal means less potent. I know I won't be buying any.
 
As far as the child abuse goes, I'm sure that pertains to alcohol as much as to any drug. Also, child abusers tend to be poor, white trash to begin with and poor, white trash and drugs/alcohol go hand in hand.

I'd be interested to see if there is a cause/effect relationship. Does the use of drugs cause one to devolve into poor white trash or does being poor, white trash cause one to use drugs?

I know you'll find a fuckload more drug activity in a factory than you will in an office building. What does that say about it? I don't know, but it's an interesting study.
 
grizz i just wanted to say you have made me think about this issue from different angles then i would have beforehand. imo, i do believe to an extent that if drugs were legalized that the use of them would decline. people tend to do things because it's illegal. i remember i drank more before the age of 21 then after. also i would say it is safe to assume that legalization of drugs isn't going to happen anytime soon, however some countries have realized that they are not exactly winning the war on drugs but instead of making harsher drug laws the are favoring the theory of "if we can't win the war on drugs, lets atleast try and make it safer" which isn't a half bad idea, ie dancesafe and etc ... just my .02 thanks ...
 
Grizzly said:
As far as the child abuse goes, I'm sure that pertains to alcohol as much as to any drug. Also, child abusers tend to be poor, white trash to begin with and poor, white trash and drugs/alcohol go hand in hand.

I'd be interested to see if there is a cause/effect relationship. Does the use of drugs cause one to devolve into poor white trash or does being poor, white trash cause one to use drugs?

I know you'll find a fuckload more drug activity in a factory than you will in an office building. What does that say about it? I don't know, but it's an interesting study.
I agree with you that alcoholics probably also have a very high rate of child abuse.

A difference I forgot to mention earlier between AAS/ephedra/etc and hard drugs like meth and coke is that meth and coke are addictive, AAS and ephedra are not. That right there is what often leads to the other major problems associated with their use. If a meth user is addicted, they will go out and steal, sell drugs or do something else illegal in order to get their next hit. To compare AAS users (even the most retarded of them) to that is beyond rationale.

Im too tired to really respond to your previous post. In regards to the poor vs drugs issues, I tend to believe that poor people migrate to drug habits in order to pacify themselves in their shitty life. Instead of working hard to make a better life for themselves, they feel sorry that they are a poor, uneducated piece of crap and turn to drugs to give some boost, however transient, to their dead-end life.
 
You can definitely make a case for AAS being addictive. Not physically, but phsycologically, hence the no one does just one cycle phenomenon.

Again, I must reiterate that AAS users steal, too. How many sources get burned on fronts? Isn't that stealing? They steal to support their habits.

And ephedra? Shit, the fuck it ain't addictive. It affects the neurological system almost indentical to the way cocaine does. I know a guy who lives on ephedrine. He eats them by the box...literally. You want to see a guy jones? Go check this guy out when he doesn't have his ephedrine.
 
Back
Top