Laws concerning IGF-1

[bittersuit_98]

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.

I belive you are the one who said a few threads down the page that prosecution for posession of HGH would end up with a "slap in the wrist" in most instances.

Well, there's your answer.

 

[chazk]

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.

brock lesnor the famous wrestler was arrested for steroids, later in court it was igf1 that he was cuaght with and the case was thrown out that it was indeed legal to have.It was not accounced out loud what he was using in fear 1000's of teenagers would go on line order it and want to "be like brock"
but a few newpapers listed it.

 

[d_o_c_]

Anyone one have any more info?