Is Testogel a controlled drug? Answer requested fast please.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Testogel contains as its active ingredient 10mg of testosterone. Testosterone can be considered an anablolic sterioid aiui. Is testogel a controlled drug?

[Somewhatfoolish]

Thanks all.

Reason I ask is that tomorrow (well today now) I plan to bring in some of my own legitimately prescribed testogel to court. The reason I will bring it in is because I may be being sent to prison for buying Class A and B substances online for personal use (depends on the sentence I get). Indeed if you do not hear from me in the next month you can assume I am in prison.

Therefore I will be bringing in a dose because if sent to HMP Jurby I'm gonna need it, and better to have it around. I ask here because I wanted to know how much I should declare it.

Let me strongly recommend that anyone domiciled on the isle of man not consider buying drugs online. Otherwise my fate will be yours.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Stu R said:

O/T, how is it that you came to decide on your username OP?

Gulliblemoron was taken

then I tried Soovy, to express how I loved to pretend to understand legal issues but was basically a blowhard, and that didn't work.

But that was taken too. So I went for this

[Somewhatfoolish]

moreflaps said:

I'm astonished at this, what class A & B did you buy online?

Cheers

Opium and cannabis, from silk road (as well as dihydrocodeine from airmail chemist). Some of the cannabis was actually the strongest hash ever seen by the drugs lab, so while I definitely don't recommend doing this on the Isle of Man, you should totally go for it in the UK.

Oh and I got ten months, suspended for two years. And a £1000 fine, £125 in costs, near as damn it £5000 in legal fees, and £3500 lost from the dawn raid due to work being affected when they seized all my computers for a bit to analyse to check if I were a drug dealer... Fortunately they didn't notice all my driving videos...

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Friday 5th October 23:16

[Somewhatfoolish]

sodslaw said:

Buying class A/B online - I'm surprised you mess about with testogel.. I'd be injecting test-e straight into my glutes.

The testogel is for legit medical reasons.

[Somewhatfoolish]

TheEnd said:

Have you got the idea that the rules shouldn't really apply to you?

Now that you've figured out it's illegal on the Isle on Man, what do you think the view is in the UK?

I don't think the rules should apply to anybody. I don't claim a special privilege for myself. I certainly won't be breaking the drugs law on the Isle of Man again but that's because it would be a stupid thing to do, not because it is morally wrong.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Grenoble said:

Out of interest, do you feel it was fair/unfair/etc?

Genuinely curious - aside from 10PS there haven't been many people who have come back on the forum to share their thoughts after a court case.

Separating the moral question, in terms of the law, to be honest I feel very very lucky indeed. I was very well treated by everyone involved (apart from one customs officer who told a duty advocate at the police station if I confessed then I would be put on a drug treatment scheme then reneged that promise). I would probably sound as if I had stockholm syndrome if I went on about it too long but seriously almost all the "enemy" (in the sense of people who were going to deprive me of my liberty etc) were great; the other customs officer was a good laugh, the police (who held me for a day during the search and didn't have anything to do with this really) were extremely friendly, the cell in the police station was pretty big with a toilet, the reading material was fine so you didn't get bored, everyone at the courthouse was very pleasant, even the deputy high bailiff sentencing me was pretty nice and she explained the circumstances very well indeed.

If I were to make any complaint at all it would be about the juristriction issue and the probation service. Basically, in the first hearing, she accepted juristriction over the matter and sent me off to get a pre sentence report. The pre sentence report itself was a great interview with (again!) a really nice guy who told me straight out it would be insane to send me to prison and he'd push for as low a sentence as possible. He eventually sent in a report recommending 100 hours of community service. Unfortunately, he obviously wasn't one of those people who were good at forms, and he completely fooked it up for all kinds of reasons, to the extent it was basically ignorable. I don't know if it was because of that, but in any case at the second hearing she was once again unsure if she had juristriction (this is the manx equivilant of an either way offence btw; she can sentence up to 1 year, anything else has to be sent on to general gaol which is the equivilant of crown court) and therefore invited submissions from both my lawyer and prosecution (the latter did not ask for that btw, it was entirely from her). This is what really cost me the money... while the prosecution submitted about 3 or 4 pages, my lawyer submitted 111, although admittedly most of that appendicies.

There's no way I would have been eligible for legal aid but I do feel that that kind of cost ordered for the court for an abtruse unpredictable reason should at least be somewhat publically funded.

But I don't want that to detract from the decent way I have been treated by every individual involved. Indeed just 24 hours ago I was sitting with a bunch of police in the pub giving me cake and wishing me good luck. I still do not believe that I have done anything wrong. It is about as fundamental a human right as you can get to take whatever substances you like, and in that very narrow sense I am incandescent about this. But at a more pragmatic, realistic, level - absolutely, I was treated more than fairly. In fact apparently a transcript of the case is going to be put into the "journal" or whatever you call it of Manx lawyers.

So anyhow, if you have a problem in the Isle of Man, you should definitely get John Wright as your advocate!

[Somewhatfoolish]

Papa Hotel said:

I've been reading back through some of your old threads, it's very apparent that you think you're on some higher plane than the lawmakers.

These idiots who have deemed drugs should be illegal, the fools who enforce the laws, they're wasting their lives on "decent" (your word in another thread) people like you. Honestly, you're a step away from some toothless junkie, waiting to die in a methadone queue.

If you wanna argue drugs legislation, go start another thread. You could entitle it "Let's cause shedloads of death and misery because we hate junkies, then cause even more because we love binge drinkers"

As it is it is not a discussion I want in this thread, mostly for the reason no one ever changes their mind. I've been reading a very interesting book on moral philosophy recently, which I massively recommend to anyone. It explains why libertarians like me, conservatives (I'm guessing) like you, and left wingers find it so hard to understand one another. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

I'm serious by the way, it's a great book.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Papa Hotel said:

You'll end up inside, you'll never keep your nose clean (boom, boom) for the next two years. I wish you the best of luck, I'm sure the wing daddy will be impressed with your weird moral highground as you're sticking your fingers down your throat to bring your meth back up.

Are you a betting man? I am very happy to put money on that.

P.S. I don't claim a moral highground over "toothless junkies". I claim one over you, but 'tis a difference of opinion. Read the book, seriously

[Somewhatfoolish]

Papa Hotel said:

Go on then, I'm willing to indulge you. What is this moral highground you have over me?

For one, tolerance.

I may be wrong, but let me illustrate a scenario.

Someone (I toyed alternately between calling him Somewhatfoolish or Papa Hotel for comedic effect, but have decided to call him Fred) buys a chicken from a supermarket. Then he fks (using protection) his sister (who is 26, compis mentis and willing) and then the chicken (no protection). Then he cooks and eats it.

I would predict that you would have a problem with what Fred did. I may be wrong of course.

[Somewhatfoolish]

(to clarify, I cannot really objectively call it a high ground even though it feels that way to me; it's merely a difference of opinion - this is why I strongly recommend the book)

[Somewhatfoolish]

Art0ir said:

Actually, yeah, I am being a bit silly. Mostly due to all the legal, socially acceptable, alcohol I've been imbibing today.

PH if you want this discussion move it to another thread, I am happy to engage...

[Somewhatfoolish]

Papa Hotel said:

Tolerance? That scenario illustrates a mixed-up mind, nothing more.

What's the worst way to start a sentence?
Getting raped.

Just a little prison humour there, you'll get used to it. Want another?

What's got 10 legs and 7 teeth?
The methadone queue.

You illustrate my point perfectly

[Somewhatfoolish]

sodslaw said:

surely you were pretty protected using tor? vnp etc?

Weren't discrete with payment, communication, address or something?


or it got picked up at customs? and admitted..


Interested how you goof'd



edit: you sent it DIRECTLY TO YOUR ADDRESS?!?

Edited by sodslaw on Saturday 6th October 01:50

It was picked up at customs, yeah. Note that manx customs are several orders of magnitude stricter than UK customs, it transpires essentially every package is inspected! It could have been defeated by a no comment interview, but I was acting on legal advice (by a duty solicitor, not going to make that mistake again) that a full confession would mean referral to a drug addiction scheme. Also, co operation meant I got the computers back asap and I needed them for work.

There was no problem with TOR security and had I not explained the precise mechanism nothing would have been picked up.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Saturday 6th October 02:02

[Somewhatfoolish]

Papa Hotel said:

Phone battery dying, we'll pick this up tomorrow if you can remember what killer point you were trying to make. Something about me being intolerant because I don't like incest and bestiality whereas recreational drug users do...?

The point is not that recreational drug users like incest and bestiality, it's that libertarians, such as me, will support the right of someone to engage in incest and (necro)bestiality (the chicken was dead if that wasn't clear) because no harm is done. That's not the same as approving of it. There's no moral judgement one way or the other.

It was quite obvious to me that you would disapprove of it. Honestly, buy the book. I think if enough people read it it would make a huge difference to social discourse.

For clarification, the book does not set out to argue that either position is "right". Reading it will in no way change your mind about the correct course of action. It instead shows how our moral judgements come about, going right back to the emergence of humankind tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago but right to the present day as well, and really helps all sides understand one another.

[Somewhatfoolish]

sodslaw said:

WeirdNeville said:

I'm terribly confused Ted.....

You got illegal substances delivered to your front door, and you wanted to know if it would be acceptable to take some other, slightly less illegal substances into court with you in case you went to prison? What part of the last 12 months of your life have seemed like a well thought out plan?

"Most apt username of 2012 goes to....."

If the police found you in possession of testogel without a prescription they would not take it from you.

This guy HAD a prescription.


Not even an eyelid would bat.

that ^^^^

although admittedly I didn't have the prescription "on me", I hadn't opened the package so it still had all the pharmacist info on it, my name, etc. Just figured it would be useful if I did end up inside as presumably prison pharmacies don't stock a whole bunch of things and equally healthcare in general there probably wouldn't be terribly responsive. Rather academic now mind!

Oh, and I did take it to court with me. They didn't say anything about it at all. On the other hand, the bottles of Pepsi and Irn Bru were a no no to even take into the waiting area, never mind the court, in case I threw them at people apparently!

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Saturday 6th October 02:27

[Somewhatfoolish]

Papa Hotel said:

You mustn't have read the bit where he said he purchased opium. He's a heroin addict already. A junkie, if you will.

Don't underestimate the cost of opiate addiction to this country, a huge proportion of the prison population is dependent on heroin substitutes and that's just looking at it from a purely monetary point of view.

From a more Daily Mail angle, the human cost is catastrophic:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2085711/...

I have never taken heroin in my life, you silly man.

Which is not to say that I have a problem with heroin addicts. It is just to point out how incorrect your assumptions are.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Slink said:

umm WTF. you fked a dead chicken??

that is quite, quite screwed up

no, I was using it to prove a point, which I believe still stands. There are different ways of assessing whether something is wrong or right, y'see... now while I could have chosen a less striking example, it would have been less lulzy.

[Somewhatfoolish]

TVR1 said:

Not quite. The moral of this story is something quite different. The OP is not 'a victim'. He is a result of his own weaknesses. Should he choose to attempt to get over his addictions, well, indeed, he should be applauded. But he must not be applauded for having his weakness in the first place. a small, subtle but quite important difference.

Absolutely agree with this.

In fact there is a HILARIOUS Chris Rock sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

[Somewhatfoolish]

andy_s said:

OP - thanks for an interesting albeit slightly bizarre thread, I'm still not sure whether you're a junky or mad scientist though. I have suspicions you may also be a pheasant plucker after your 'who came first, the chicken' anecdote.

final post for the moment in this thread, no family or animal fking in my past

I brought it up to illustrate the difference in how different people evaluate the rights or wrongs of certain actions, and I was deliberately provocative in doing so because that illustrates the point in a more simple way.

I end by once again totally recommending that book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion - by Jonathan Haidt). While there are no moral insights, the psychological insights in terms of understanding how different people "understand" right and wrong are such that I feel any intellectually curious person should read the thing; much of it is of course something that most of us understand at a gut level but having the axes delineated can only enhance future comprehension.

And a final thanks for all of those you have given me supportive words. While I was not posting here for support, I do hugely appreciate it, and I also understand that in some circumstances it may have been hard to post such, and consequently in those cases am doubly grateful.