Quote Originally Posted by Millard Baker View Post
@ecto9 thanks! See @thegodfather post for good answer to your question. The only thing that I'd like to add is in response to this question:



The success of the "war on steroids" will be measured by how the feds changed "where" the steroids we demand originate. It is indisputable that Operation Raw Deal etc. has disrupted supply from domestic sources and many internet sources doing business in countries where the U.S. "internationalization of steroid law" has gained a foothold.

The supply of steroids into the U.S. will continue to exist, the only thing that will change is where it comes from. Rather than loosely organized and independent UGLs and/or individual purchases from internet sources, underground steroid distribution is much more likely to be a "well-run international business" where powerful drug cartels simply add steroids to the mix.

Success in the war on drugs is measured in terms of disruption because it is completely ineffective at eliminating demand. But the market always has a way of correcting itself.

Yes, the disturbing thing about the British Dragon situation is... That BD never attempted to import steroids into the United States. It was other distributors that had accounts with BD which broke US law. British Dragon was simply guilty of producing a product which the United States does not look favorably on. It is the equivalent of prosecuting Purdue Pharmaceutical because the "certain" narcotic that they produce happens to end up on the streets more often then not. If you think that Purdue Pharmaceutical is not aware of the epidemic of that certain narcotic that they produce for pain, and are not aware that it greatly contributes to its profit margins, YOU ARE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD. The only difference is Purdue makes BILLIONS of dollars and can afford to court powerful politicians via lobbyists. Steroids are an easy target for politicians looking to make a name for themselves and get re-elected. Politicians usually enter the scene to make "changes," however over time all that matters to them is getting re-elected. Holding political positions can be very lucrative. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband owns a private company responsible for transporting prisoners. That company's profit is solely dependant on how many people are incarcerated. Does it make more sense for Nancy Pelosi to vote, influence, and manipulate bills&laws which will incarcerate more or less people overall? Obviously she has a vested interest in seeing more people incarcerated, and profiting off the misery of other people.

This is not to say that the aforementioned is the main cause for this witch hunt. It is simply an example of MANY about why this situation even exists, many hidden vested interests in things like this.