Ephedrine Under Attack Again

Diet and Nutrition
41

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
““You don’t need a signature to buy pseudoephedrine.””

Umm, wrong. I just went to CVS here in DC a few days ago and had to show an ID and signature. If YOU don’t have to yet, you will.

If you are going to challenge someone, at least do your research. I said it was present in cough medication. How about you turn a box of Sudafed over and read the ingredients. You don’t need to sign ANYTHING to buy cough medicine. I explained this to you in detail above. What does it say about you when you still don’t get it?

What does it say about you when you don’t even know what you are talking about while chastising someone?

Sudafed PE DOES NOT contain PSEUDOEPHRIDRINE but rather PHENYLEPHRINE. That is why it’s available to purchase without ID. Regular Sudafed is a completely different story.

Sudafed contains pseudoephedrine. You are now nitpicking if you are focusing on the fact that I chose a picture of the same product but a different formula.[/quote]

Nitpicking? When I present an argument I try to be as factually correct as possible.

You said that pseudoephredine was legally available over the counter in the form of Sudafed.

That is wrong.

You showed a box of Sudafed PE to justify your argument. While that form is available over the counter, you are now suggesting to some noob that he can go by that product and get the same effects that he would get from regular Sudafed.

That is also wrong.

Your welcome.

42

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
““You don’t need a signature to buy pseudoephedrine.””

Umm, wrong. I just went to CVS here in DC a few days ago and had to show an ID and signature. If YOU don’t have to yet, you will.

If you are going to challenge someone, at least do your research. I said it was present in cough medication. How about you turn a box of Sudafed over and read the ingredients. You don’t need to sign ANYTHING to buy cough medicine. I explained this to you in detail above. What does it say about you when you still don’t get it?

What does it say about you when you don’t even know what you are talking about while chastising someone?

Sudafed PE DOES NOT contain PSEUDOEPHRIDRINE but rather PHENYLEPHRINE. That is why it’s available to purchase without ID. Regular Sudafed is a completely different story.

Sudafed contains pseudoephedrine. You are now nitpicking if you are focusing on the fact that I chose a picture of the same product but a different formula.

Nitpicking? When I present an argument I try to be as factually correct as possible.

You said that pseudoephredine was legally available over the counter in the form of Sudafed.

That is wrong.

You showed a box of Sudafed PE to justify your argument. While that form is available over the counter, you are now suggesting to some noob that he can go by that product and get the same effects that he would get from regular Sudafed.

That is also wrong.

Your welcome. [/quote]

You were also wrong about the entire year this went into effect. I also wrote that you were correct about it being controlled, however. starting in March of THIS YEAR, not 2005. We were both wrong about the facts in some way. To this point, I am also the ONLY one who admitted to any part of it.

43

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
““You don’t need a signature to buy pseudoephedrine.””

Umm, wrong. I just went to CVS here in DC a few days ago and had to show an ID and signature. If YOU don’t have to yet, you will.

If you are going to challenge someone, at least do your research. I said it was present in cough medication. How about you turn a box of Sudafed over and read the ingredients. You don’t need to sign ANYTHING to buy cough medicine. I explained this to you in detail above. What does it say about you when you still don’t get it?

What does it say about you when you don’t even know what you are talking about while chastising someone?

Sudafed PE DOES NOT contain PSEUDOEPHRIDRINE but rather PHENYLEPHRINE. That is why it’s available to purchase without ID. Regular Sudafed is a completely different story.

Sudafed contains pseudoephedrine. You are now nitpicking if you are focusing on the fact that I chose a picture of the same product but a different formula.

Nitpicking? When I present an argument I try to be as factually correct as possible.

You said that pseudoephredine was legally available over the counter in the form of Sudafed.

That is wrong.

You showed a box of Sudafed PE to justify your argument. While that form is available over the counter, you are now suggesting to some noob that he can go by that product and get the same effects that he would get from regular Sudafed.

That is also wrong.

Your welcome.

You were also wrong about the entire year this went into effect. I also wrote that you were correct about it being controlled, however. starting in March of THIS YEAR, not 2005. We were both wrong about the facts in some way. To this point, I am also the ONLY one who admitted to any part of it. [/quote]

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about when the ban went into effect.

Please point out any of my posts on this thread where I said something incorrect. I’ll be waiting.

44

[quote]bdog527 wrote:

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about when the ban went into effect.

Please point out any of my posts on this thread where I said something incorrect. I’ll be waiting.

[/quote]

Right here:

It wasn’t signed into law until 2006. I posted that info above. Before that, it was an attachment to the Patriot Act.

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about when the ban went into effect.

Please point out any of my posts on this thread where I said something incorrect. I’ll be waiting.

Right here:
If you weren’t so busy performing surgeries in-between posting on ‘T-Nation’ you would know it was banned twice by the feds. First in 2004 by the FDA, citing concerns over cardiovascular effects and again in 2005 in the “Combat Meth Act.”

It wasn’t signed into law until 2006. I posted that info above. Before that, it was an attachment to the Patriot Act.[/quote]

That was not me. That was beebuddy. Now please find something I wrote that is incorrect or quit wasting my time.

46

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about when the ban went into effect.

Please point out any of my posts on this thread where I said something incorrect. I’ll be waiting.

Right here:
If you weren’t so busy performing surgeries in-between posting on ‘T-Nation’ you would know it was banned twice by the feds. First in 2004 by the FDA, citing concerns over cardiovascular effects and again in 2005 in the “Combat Meth Act.”

It wasn’t signed into law until 2006. I posted that info above. Before that, it was an attachment to the Patriot Act.

That was not me. That was beebuddy. Now please find something I wrote that is incorrect or quit wasting my time.

[/quote]

My mistake, so you logged in to complain because I chose a picture of a different Sudafed?

47

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bdog527 wrote:

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about when the ban went into effect.

Please point out any of my posts on this thread where I said something incorrect. I’ll be waiting.

Right here:
If you weren’t so busy performing surgeries in-between posting on ‘T-Nation’ you would know it was banned twice by the feds. First in 2004 by the FDA, citing concerns over cardiovascular effects and again in 2005 in the “Combat Meth Act.”

It wasn’t signed into law until 2006. I posted that info above. Before that, it was an attachment to the Patriot Act.

That was not me. That was beebuddy. Now please find something I wrote that is incorrect or quit wasting my time.

My mistake, so you logged in to complain because I chose a picture of a different Sudafed? [/quote]

Thank you.

I log on every morning and scan the boards. You have nothing to do with it.

48

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
Thank you.

I log on every morning and scan the boards. You have nothing to do with it.

[/quote]

I am so glad you picked out that major flaw. I can’t wait for your next discovery. CSI has nothing on you.

49

BDOG527 has compelled me to scream from the mountain tops that I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE CONTROL OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE. In fact, in case anyone was wonder…I WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS AND RESEARCHED UNTIL I FOUND THE TRUTH.

Is anyone in the dark about the fact THAT I WAS WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING?

I know, I’m surprised too being nearly perfect and all.

50

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
“More people actually die from the drugs they DO approve than from ephedra.”

Is that true if you count the methamphetamine that is derived from ephedra and psuedoephedra? It might be, but that isn’t the point.

We got unlucky. A cool and relatively harmless drug that can be turned into a lethal and extremely harmful drug is going to be banned.

It’s too bad for responsible ephedra users, but meth is bad enough to warrant banning ephedra. Meth kills and destroys the lives of users, families of users and the victims of users’ crimes.

Not a great argument. There are many products currently on the market that can be used to make meth.[/quote]

Pseudoephedrine is a HUGE money maker when sold OTC and it is what is converted into meth. If the FDA was serious about protecting us they would remove pseudoephedrine from the market.

There is your proof right there that the FDA does not give a crap about us.

They are there to protect the pharmacuetical industries profits.

51

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
““Not a great argument. There are many products currently on the market that can be used to make meth.””

Those products require an ID and a signature to obtain, so they can not be used to make meth in a practical sense because the feds will notice if you buy a shitload of em. Regardless of whether or not it’s a good argument, that’s why it happened to be banned.

And to the other poster, crystal meth is made out of ephedrine and/or pseudoephedrine, plus a whole bunch of other crap.[/quote]

Do you work at the FDA?

I hope you are getting paid to defend the FDA. Otherwise you are a tool.

52

F the FDA and F the FDA apologists!

53

What sucks was that the district court found that the FDA failed to prove that doses of 10 mg or less were harmful. The appellate court reversed that determination.

Here is language from the opinion:

“In determining that EDS (ephedrine’alkaloid dietary supplments) pose an “unreasonable risk of illnessor injury,” the FDA found that the weight loss and other health benefits possible from the use of EDS were dwarfed by the potential long-term harm to the user’s cardiovascular system. The agency went on to enact a complete ban on the product after making a finding that any amount of EDS had negative ramifications on the cardiovascular system and, based on the FDA’s analysis, EDS provided no benefits so great as to justify such risk.”

Let me highlight this portion “…provided no benefits so great as to justify such risk.”

I have half a mind to file a lawsuit to ban cigarettes on the grounds that cigarettes “provide no benefits so great as to justify their risk.” I think the problem with my theory is that cigarettes are not a “dietary supplement.” So, it’s okay to be a fat-ass smoker.

54

Marmadog,

The US Senate just passed the Combat Meth Act and it has nothing to do with the FDA’s earlier ruling. This new legislation DOES inhibit meth labs ability to produce because it requires a drivers license/ID and signature to be purchased and purchasers are only allowed to buy very limited amounts.

If you start buying as much of the stuff as you can at every different store it will take you a LONG time to get enough product AND the Feds will be knockin on your door because they now have records of what you bought.

And you would know all of this if you read the thread instead of announcing your ignorance to the world. F the stupid and the New Jersey that they were raised in.

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/cma2005.htm

55

Medical Doctor,

““You were also wrong about the entire year this went into effect.””

Actually, I never said anything about when this went into effect. The legislation WAS passed in 2005 and that is what I said.

You were wrong about just about everything from the first post. My only mistake was to give you the benefit of the doubt about your claim that some cough medecines containing pseudoephedrine are still unregulated, which turned out to be incorrect.

Goes to show you can never assume someone isn’t an inattentive numbskull, even when they are a real, actual and true doctor.

56

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Medical Doctor,

““You were also wrong about the entire year this went into effect.””

Actually, I never said anything about when this went into effect. The legislation WAS passed in 2005 and that is what I said.

You were wrong about just about everything from the first post. My only mistake was to give you the benefit of the doubt about your claim that some cough medecines containing pseudoephedrine are still unregulated, which turned out to be incorrect.

Goes to show you can never assume someone isn’t an inattentive numbskull, even when they are a real, actual and true doctor.[/quote]

Yes, because every law that is passed is front page news. This just happened months ago and still isn’t in full effect and won’t be until September. You can stop acting like it should be common knowledge now because my guess is, very few logging in actually knew the details about this until it was posted here.

57

“Yes, because every law that is passed is front page news. This just happened months ago and still isn’t in full effect and won’t be until September. You can stop acting like it should be common knowledge now because my guess is, very few logging in actually knew the details about this until it was posted here.”

Please, it’s year-old legislation. I’m not going to change anything based on your guesses.

58

Well,I hope you all enjoy them trying to take ephedra away because as of now,they have a group called “operation cure all.”
Their only goal is to go around debunking EVERY natural medicine,herb,therapy,etc.,because it’s cutting into their profits.
So,even if this is happening with Ephedra,you’ll see a lot of it happening in the future with supplements and other herbs.
Hell,in the 1970’s they tried to turn vitamin supplements into drugs,to have control over them, because they said certain vitamins can be harmful.
That is why it’s SO IMPORTANT to take a stand against them so we don’t lose what freedom we have left when it comes to health and our lives.

59

UPDATE:
Well it seems those Pussys at the FDA have now advised consumers to not use (in other words boycott) ALL products containing Ephedra & ephedra alkaloids (of course not includeing Psudo-ephedrine)& to swicth to safer alts like… orlistat,phatermine,apple cyder vinigar,& Prozac (off label)…

of course fogetting to mention the unpleasent & weird psycotic siddeffects of theese drugs such as: manic episdes,heart palpitations,malnutrition(orlistsat),Sharts(bowel incontinence)& suicide tendancy risk.
look for this on the 11 o’clock news.
i’ll keep you posted.

60

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Marmadog,

The US Senate just passed the Combat Meth Act and it has nothing to do with the FDA’s earlier ruling. This new legislation DOES inhibit meth labs ability to produce because it requires a drivers license/ID and signature to be purchased and purchasers are only allowed to buy very limited amounts.

If you start buying as much of the stuff as you can at every different store it will take you a LONG time to get enough product AND the Feds will be knockin on your door because they now have records of what you bought.

And you would know all of this if you read the thread instead of announcing your ignorance to the world. F the stupid and the New Jersey that they were raised in.

CMEA General Information[ /quote]

You have your head up your @$$.

Come clean…do you work for a pharmacuetical company or the FDA?