Just curious....Have any of ya'll gotten more than one seizure letter..if so how many? Personally I've only gotten one and that's all I hope to ever get.
Printable View
Just curious....Have any of ya'll gotten more than one seizure letter..if so how many? Personally I've only gotten one and that's all I hope to ever get.
They should start printing those things on charmin. JK, I have only gotten one and it was years ago, not for juice. It was for phenteramine, oddly the letter said it was for viagra. I haven't tried to order anything overseas since.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kratos
why does no one ever take these steroid cases to like the supreme court? the laws are in violation of our rights....and a big case would cause all of us to go out and support....if i ever got arrested i'd have a mutha****in army of lawyers beatin the coppers asses
The supreme court determines constitutionality. I don't know of any part of the constitution that guarantees rights to steroids.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuhlFreak55
I've gotten a few through the years
Supreme Courts are the final arbitors of their jurisdiction. They deal with not only constitutionality but also are the final interpretors of the law in their particular jurisdiction. The only authority higher than the Supreme court is the constitution and statutes. Therefore, they interpret these to decide if a case was appropriately decided as a matter of law.
Due to the fact that most steroid related offenses will be dealt with in state courts, the final arbitor in that jurisdiction will be the state supreme court. The only way to further appeal to the US sup ct will be to find a matter of federal constitutionality of that state law. Since there exists clear statutes against the possession of steroids, as a matter of law there exists little room for interpretation of the statute of which the state courts will be bound. So your fuked there....as far as federal contitutionality - the constitution (at least how it has been interpreted thusfar) allows for the government to restrict the use of narcotics, etc.
The view that you should have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on another is quite libertarian (which i side with for the most part -- a pragmatic libertarian may be a better term for me). While many feel that it is there inalienable right to be able to do this, unfortunately itis not a protected interests in our constitution. Our government is allowed to make socialist type laws, etc for the protection and betterment of society. It is a policy driven idea.
So it seems that the only way to actually way to get drug laws changed is to address them through 2 avenues -- 1) extend the liberties of the Constitution, or 2) Since this is a policy driven law, one must argue from the point of policy. Simply, that it is bad policy to have this law.
Be advised your address and name are on record. So if the come across anything addressed to you they will check it. Next will be fines or a controlled delivery.
Is there anyone who works for the postal service who can confirm this? Or is this just conjecture?Quote:
Originally Posted by rana173
there's no part of the constitution that can be interpreted to allow it? hmmm well then it's a worthless document.....and steroids are not narcotics.....i don't understand how this case couldn't be won. Every doctor at the original hearings in 1990 stated that there was essentially no reason to put these drugs on the schedule 3 list or make them illegal......it's a bad policy btw because it infringes greatly on some of our abilities to pursue happinessQuote:
Originally Posted by BWhitaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by rana173
I don't know for sure but I highly doubt this is true. The very logistics of screening every international package to see if it's headed to one of these "flagged" addresses seems nearly impossible. Every hand addressed package would have to be manually entered into a computer and run through a database. It would take months to get an international package if that were the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesla
Could you find a way to interpret the contitution showing that the government may not criminilize the use of steroids? Yes you could...but as of now, the view is that the goverment has the ability to regulate this and that it is not unconstitutional. It is not explicity so it is a hard process, but not impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuhlFreak55
I said narcotics, etc -- etc meaning other controlled substances.
I completely agree that making steroids illegal is bad policy. However, you must consider a multitude of policy concerns in order to argue this point. For example, the effects of steroids availability on youth, abuse possiblities, costs of residual effects on taxpayers, etc. While many will say individual liberty trumps all, the US government does not agree. It looks at a variety of other concerns as well. (My view -- Individual liberty in and of itself does not trump all, but I believe the value of individual liberty is highly underrated and therefore does not get is actual value as a factor in policy considerations. In order to trump the liberty, there must be a lot more for the other side than what is currently the standard as of today.) In order to win the policy debate, it must be overall a pro view.
US customs doesnt do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesla
There is also no part of the constitution that says a woman has the right to an abortion. No part of the constitution allows the president of the united states to launch a war without the consent of congress. There is also no part of the constitution that says you have the right to remain silent,etc or be informed of these rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coop77
There is however, ammendments IX, X, and IV. which guarantee
IX
the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
(Just because it isnt specifically mentioned in the constitution doesnt mean it isnt there)
X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(If the federal government is not specifically granted a power by the constitution, it belongs to the states or the people) They've walked ALL OVER this one.
The 14th ammendment guarntees due process. Its the reason the states also cannot violate the rights granted by the federal constitution, prior to the civil war and subsequent adoption of the 14th ammendment, this was not the case.
As long as America elects conservative Presidents they will appoint conservative judges, and steroids, marijuana, etc wil remain illegal, regardless of the constitution.
The people in power currently are more concerned with enforcing the rules of the bible and their own subjective morality than in abiding by the the constitution.
yes but with the damn democrats we have this incredible tax problem they have that they need to finance all their also borderline socialist programs....maybe it's time for a new party?
Its from the US Dept of Homeland Security, previously the Customs Service. This is for international shipmentsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tesla
You are right they can not screen everything, but they look for certain packages (coming from some of the countries) and there is an understanding with certain shipping companies to provide information and they will track those packages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coop77
I say if every member of this site were to donate $100 to start with we might would be off to a good start fighting this thing...how can making steroids legal harm a society?
In many countries steroids are perfectly legal. Americans have a problem with moderation, probably due to our hyper-competitive culture. I think this lies at the heart of the problem actually. Alot of people are scared of steroids believing they will kill them or maim them. At the same time, they certainly dont like it when others who are perhaps more daring do use them and then experience great results, becoming faster,stronger, and more confident. Thus in most measures, including sexual attactiveness, the steroid user outcompetes the non-steroid user. People often oppose steroids because deep down that dont want the competitive pressure to use them. Here's a real world example: If we allowed athletes to use steroids without restriction, every one of them would NEED to do so to remain competitive. Of course some would use gigantic doses so that follows that most would eventually need to do so to remain competitive as well( like an arms race). This then leaves athletes with a stark choice . DEAL WITH THE SIDES AND POTENTIAL RISKS, OR DONT COMPETE. In many societies, where social stratification is more static (low social mobility) peoples place in the hierarchy is pretty much locked in. They accept this and rarely challenge it. Americans are uber-competitive because we have such a high degree of social mobility, thus we have a social imperative to "Be all we can be", which can lead to the viscous cycle i described above.
hmm lol....i could see that....still not an excuse to make it illegal though
oh and its definitely time for another party, but in all of US history the only third party to be successful were the Republicans - and because they had an incredibly powerful issue to rally around - Slavery. I wish we could scrap the two party system , I just dont know HOW.