Laws concerning IGF-1

[Jintropin UK]

Just to further inform you on a couple of points...
- Yes, genuine chemical research companies are perfectly legal. A good example of this is "GroPep Limited". They are a huge cell science research compay based in Australia. They have the patent and licence to distribute IGF-1 Long R3 (IGF-1!!!!). As IGF-1 is a research chemical, it is legal to possess AND TO LEGALLY PURCHASE!!!

Not a lot of people are aware of this fact. But it is true.

 

[bittersuit_98]

Just to further inform you on a couple of points...
- Yes, genuine chemical research companies are perfectly legal. A good example of this is "GroPep Limited". They are a huge cell science research compay based in Australia. They have the patent and licence to distribute IGF-1 Long R3 (IGF-1!!!!). As IGF-1 is a research chemical, it is legal to possess AND TO LEGALLY PURCHASE!!!

Not a lot of people are aware of this fact. But it is true.

I disagree with your point of view. It is misleading and people should be aware of that. Chemical research products are legal to posses as long as they are intended for such purposes. You must remember that chemical research products are made by active ingredients which for the most part do need a prescription for its legal posession, at least in most states in the american union. If for any reason any given individual is arrested for posession of those substances will have to show irrefutable evidence in a court law that the posession of those products were for legal research purposes solely. Now, do you think that LE agents are stupid? Once arrested for posession they will look or ask you to show them scientific notes, the name of the project in which you are working for, and look for the rats in which you are experimenting, just to name a few. If you can't provide such evidence...good luck in court!!!

 

[KD1]

If for any reason any given individual is arrested for posession of those substances will have to show irrefutable evidence in a court law that the posession of those products were for legal research purposes solely.

Ehh what country do you live in? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, they need to prove that you are not using them for research purposes.

 

[bittersuit_98]

Ehh what country do you live in? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, they need to prove that you are not using them for research purposes.

I live in the U.S. but the questions is in what planet do you live in? Do you have TV at home? Do you read the papers?
BTW, negative facts do not need evidence. Use your common sense...how can you proof something that didn't happen?

 

[bittersuit_98]

Ehh what country do you live in? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, they need to prove that you are not using them for research purposes.

I live in the U.S. but the questions is in what planet do you live in? Do you have TV at home? Do you read the papers?
BTW, negative facts do not need evidence. Use your common sense...how can you proof something that didn't happen?

Anyway, I perfectly understand that opinions here are like an anus, everybody has one.

 

[Jintropin UK]

You are probably partly correct in relation to the USA. I should have been a bit clearer. I was commenting in relation to the United Kingdom. I have personally spoken numerous times to British Customs & Excise and the British Home Office Dept that deals with 'Controlled Substances' - and they categorically state that it is LEGALALLY possible to POSSESS or PURCHASE IGF-1. If any one doubts this info or simply needs extra info on the implications of the LAW & LEGISLATION in the UK, I can forward the official number of the UK Home Office Dept and a contact name that deals with LAW & LEGISLATION of Controlled Drugs.

 

[KD1]

I live in the U.S. but the questions is in what planet do you live in? Do you have TV at home? Do you read the papers?
BTW, negative facts do not need evidence. Use your common sense...how can you proof something that didn't happen?

Anyway, I perfectly understand that opinions here are like an anus, everybody has one.

Hey Im just speaking the facts man, from the constitution. Obviously you dont have a good response so you throw around some insults. Why dont you just admit you were wrong, that you dont have to prove your own innocence? I mean, you are wrong - and I think you know it.

 

[d_o_c_]

I disagree with your point of view. It is misleading and people should be aware of that. Chemical research products are legal to posses as long as they are intended for such purposes. You must remember that chemical research products are made by active ingredients which for the most part do need a prescription for its legal posession, at least in most states in the american union. If for any reason any given individual is arrested for posession of those substances will have to show irrefutable evidence in a court law that the posession of those products were for legal research purposes solely. Now, do you think that LE agents are stupid? Once arrested for posession they will look or ask you to show them scientific notes, the name of the project in which you are working for, and look for the rats in which you are experimenting, just to name a few. If you can't provide such evidence...good luck in court!!!

What are you talking about.

Before you speak you should not go off of your ill witted assumptions and learn the facts.

The law as well.

 

[perp69]

Think about like this. Is it illegal to possess chocolate or baby oil? Until the FDA or some government agency restricts the use of a product then possessing it is perfectly legal. Whether or not it is legal or illegal or considered a research chem in the USA, I don't know.

Perp

 

[bittersuit_98]

Hey Im just speaking the facts man, from the constitution. Obviously you dont have a good response so you throw around some insults. Why dont you just admit you were wrong, that you dont have to prove your own innocence? I mean, you are wrong - and I think you know it.

I have a good response. If you didn't agree with my first response u shouln't have been so hostile. I responded to your reply with the same "kidness" as you did to mine. Sorry it bothered you.

I still don't think I am wrong. I will say yes, in almost every single free and democratic country we play under the assumption that we are innocent until proven otherwise. Yes, prosecution needs to support the charges with evidence that demontrate the accused is guilty beyond the reasonable doubt, however I think we are being too square in our thoughts. Certainly, posession of research medicines is legal as long as they are intended for such purpose. But remember that circumstancial and cumulative evidence may play hardball against the defedant in a real trial. Just honestly man and let's put aside the flame and trash talking....You probably are aware how the situation has turned out lately. Now, just imagine that X guy is charged with possesion of those chemicals...man you probably know that most research chemical users do not have animals that are typical for research purposes, much less an affiliation to a research institutions, nor they take sci notes in a notbook or anything...in short, this X guy won't be able to support his claim that those substances were intended for research purposes, in the other hand, LE will brought up the fact they didn't find any of these elements when they searched X's house and that probably less than half of the content in the bottles were left...now you get the picture. In front of the jury this guy is ass naked and picking up the soap looking south, and is not like the cops need to catch you consuming that stuff in order to make a case. I mean like: research chemicals + no rats + no sci notes + no research affiliation + bottles gone half ways...I'm sorry but last thing a jury will be thinking about is the Constitution.

I'm sure many people is very careful and have at home some rats and take pretend sci notes...but IMO those are the exception.
You can agree or disagree and that's fine. I just think this is the way it's been lately. Unfortunately, the criminal justice in the U.S is highly biased IMHO. The quality of justice varies according to the cultural backgrounds available in each community and jurors tend to think that if a someone is brought to trial is because he or she obviously has broken the law.