DEA will ban chemicals contained in kratom, a popular herbal supplement(statnews.com)
statnews.com
DEA will ban chemicals contained in kratom, a popular herbal supplement
https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/30/kratom-ban-dea-schedule-1/
161 comments
it's my opinion that nothing will change at the federal level until the baby boomers die. the propaganda is just too strong.
This is already the first election in which millenials and gen-Xers (terrible name, btw) outnumber them as far as eligible voters. The problem is eligibility isn't enough - old people vote far, far more reliably than young people, so the (often idiotic) preferences of their demographic still win out.
Automatic national voter registration when turning 18 would be a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure it would convince people to actually go to the polls. In certain states just registering to vote in the first place can be a real hassle, and having to do it every time you move punishes the more mobile generations.
Automatic national voter registration when turning 18 would be a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure it would convince people to actually go to the polls. In certain states just registering to vote in the first place can be a real hassle, and having to do it every time you move punishes the more mobile generations.
I'll just take the ban as proof positive of 2 things.
1) The stuff works.
2) There's already a refined clinical version of it in the works.
The cynical part of me also assumes that the clinical version will take the harmless natural version and refine it into a super addictive monster that will reliably kill elephants when slightly mis-dosed. Everyone will then abuse this as usual.
1) The stuff works.
2) There's already a refined clinical version of it in the works.
The cynical part of me also assumes that the clinical version will take the harmless natural version and refine it into a super addictive monster that will reliably kill elephants when slightly mis-dosed. Everyone will then abuse this as usual.
The US placed cathinone on Schedule I in the 1990s. This effectively banned khat, a relatively harmless stimulant plant, chewed as a recreational by northern African / Arabia cultures for centuries with little harm.
Fast forward 20 years and shady chemists learn that it's possible to take the structure of cathinone (as a basis), tweak it here and there, and come up with purified "substituted cathinones". AKA: "bath salts" (MDPV), mephedrone, methylone, and countless others. Some of these were frankly nasty.
Today, the US decides to ban kratom, which has been naturally used for recreational purposes in Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia for centuries.
I wonder if substituted mitragynines are in the future. Very possibly. If not from the pharmaceutical companies then from future sellers of "bath salt" type substances.
Either way, there's something very culturally insensitive about these type of bans, in my opinion -- these laws carry a whiff of "these are drugs that these other people do". In today's drug enforcement culture, apparently the khat cafe is horrible, but the pub and the coffee shop are a-okay. Personally it's hard for me to see what the difference is between the two, except the pub / coffee shop are accepted by well-off Western Europeans, and the khat cafe is mainly populated by poor Somali / Yemen / etc. immigrants.
Fast forward 20 years and shady chemists learn that it's possible to take the structure of cathinone (as a basis), tweak it here and there, and come up with purified "substituted cathinones". AKA: "bath salts" (MDPV), mephedrone, methylone, and countless others. Some of these were frankly nasty.
Today, the US decides to ban kratom, which has been naturally used for recreational purposes in Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia for centuries.
I wonder if substituted mitragynines are in the future. Very possibly. If not from the pharmaceutical companies then from future sellers of "bath salt" type substances.
Either way, there's something very culturally insensitive about these type of bans, in my opinion -- these laws carry a whiff of "these are drugs that these other people do". In today's drug enforcement culture, apparently the khat cafe is horrible, but the pub and the coffee shop are a-okay. Personally it's hard for me to see what the difference is between the two, except the pub / coffee shop are accepted by well-off Western Europeans, and the khat cafe is mainly populated by poor Somali / Yemen / etc. immigrants.
Khat is schedule I? There are Khat plants at the US botanical gardens in DC. I saw them when I was there a couple years ago.
Yep! See http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm under (f) stimulants, cathinone is there.
Technically, barring any sort of breeding modification I doubt was done, those Catha Edulis plants in the US botanical gardens are quite illegal, being a "material" that contains cathinone.
Now, in practice, of course, no one is going arrest the Architect of the Capitol for growing Schedule I plants on their property for ornamental reasons. Heck, San Pedro cactii already set a murky, not-quite-defined precedent for this (https://erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law1.shtml).
Then again, despite the relative obscurity of khat, there have been a few cases where people have been arrested for cultivating the plants. Such as this case here in 1998 -- http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prunedale-Man-Charged-in-...
Of course, in that case, the arrestee's name was Musa Ahmed Gelan, not Stephen T. Ayers. So it goes.
Technically, barring any sort of breeding modification I doubt was done, those Catha Edulis plants in the US botanical gardens are quite illegal, being a "material" that contains cathinone.
Now, in practice, of course, no one is going arrest the Architect of the Capitol for growing Schedule I plants on their property for ornamental reasons. Heck, San Pedro cactii already set a murky, not-quite-defined precedent for this (https://erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law1.shtml).
Then again, despite the relative obscurity of khat, there have been a few cases where people have been arrested for cultivating the plants. Such as this case here in 1998 -- http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prunedale-Man-Charged-in-...
Of course, in that case, the arrestee's name was Musa Ahmed Gelan, not Stephen T. Ayers. So it goes.
Lol,nowadays I just have to skim HN posts to get to a comment I so wanted to write but did not have the patience to make it so effective ;)
Edit: But looking at the side effects http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/kratom-effects.html - if any of that's true I guess DEA may be right in making in a controlled substance to save people the misery or possible death if nothing else.
Edit: But looking at the side effects http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/kratom-effects.html - if any of that's true I guess DEA may be right in making in a controlled substance to save people the misery or possible death if nothing else.
You do know that narconon is a scientology recruitment organization that targets drug addicts, right?
nope, did not know that, comment and learn!
The US government will ban kratom but can't even bring itself to ban asbestos.
I think asbestos is actually banned already?
I've used kratom and honestly it's no more potent than a good cup of coffee on an empty stomach. I really enjoy it. It made me more talkative like when I drink tea or coffee, but also feel more relaxed like beer. I would describe it as having the good qualities of being drunk while not being intoxicated or cognitively impaired.
Really though, you can't get high off kratom. There are three levels: you take too little, you don't feel any different. You take the right amount, you feel kinda good for a little bit (like having a beer and a coffee). You take too much, you throw up. There is no high. There is no outsize health risk. Why make it schedule I?
Really though, you can't get high off kratom. There are three levels: you take too little, you don't feel any different. You take the right amount, you feel kinda good for a little bit (like having a beer and a coffee). You take too much, you throw up. There is no high. There is no outsize health risk. Why make it schedule I?
Like marijuana, different strains also have different effects, presumably due to different proportions of the, uh, compounds of interest. For instance, “Indo” (from Indonesia) generally has more of a relaxing effect than “Maeng Da” (from Thailand), which is quite stimulating.
But yeah, all told, kratom is very mild, and I’d wager it has even more of a “valid medical use” than marijuana. I’ve found it very useful for nerve pain, sleeplessness, anxiety, and staying off alcohol. To me, marijuana and kratom are wonder-drugs, and it’s a shame they’re so restricted in this country. At worst they should be Schedule II and available by prescription.
But yeah, all told, kratom is very mild, and I’d wager it has even more of a “valid medical use” than marijuana. I’ve found it very useful for nerve pain, sleeplessness, anxiety, and staying off alcohol. To me, marijuana and kratom are wonder-drugs, and it’s a shame they’re so restricted in this country. At worst they should be Schedule II and available by prescription.
sounds a little like mdma , but less hyper
This is an abomination. Schedule I, for a plant that is far less addictive and harmful that traditional opioids, and is used in treatment for opioids, while the country is in the midst of a full blown opioid addiction crisis? Sounds about right. Let's put some more people in jail. That'll solve the problem.
If additional proof was needed that the DEA is at a complete disconnect from reality, this would be it.
Or they have different goals than the official ones.
I's say it at least disproves any notion that their decisions are scientific.
I's say it at least disproves any notion that their decisions are scientific.
One could believe that the DEA in on the pharmaceutical industry payroll.
The MDMA scheduling decision should have put any doubts about the role of the DEA to bed back in the 80s. For those unfamiliar with the history, MDMA was used by hundreds of therapists for treating patients in the 80s. Unfortunately it also led to abuse when people realized how fun it was and that they could legally mail order it in bulk. It led to too much bad press when teenagers overdosed, so the DEA stepped in.
The DEA held a hearing for the scheduling decision, and their argument for schedule 1 was that it had no medical value because no pharmaceutical company had applied for an FDA license for it. The judge ruled that MDMA didn't meet a single criteria for schedule 1 status, and the argument about FDA licensing was secondary to whether or not the medical community at large thought it was useful.
Despite this ruling, the DEA unilaterally made it schedule 1. They were sued by a Harvard psychiatrist, and the DEA lost again, with the court ruling that the drug only met the standard for schedule 3. Again, the DEA summarily dismissed the court's ruling and rescheduled it as schedule 1.
The crux of the issue that this whole process danced around was that MDMA's patent had expired, and no pharmaceutical company was going to take on the FDA costs to make a drug that was dirt cheap, easy to manufacture, and should only be used at most five times throughout a patient's life. Especially when the alternatives (Prozac and SSRIs) were making a billion dollars plus annually.
Veterans in the US have a nickname for PTSD: Paid Till Suicide or Death. Right now drug companies are treating the VA as a huge cash cow and are dumping vast quantities of opiates and in-patent SSRIs on it, when there is a far more effective treatment that is extremely cheap. It's a multi billion dollar scam that's killing people, and the DEA is purposefully helping them maintain this charade.
The DEA held a hearing for the scheduling decision, and their argument for schedule 1 was that it had no medical value because no pharmaceutical company had applied for an FDA license for it. The judge ruled that MDMA didn't meet a single criteria for schedule 1 status, and the argument about FDA licensing was secondary to whether or not the medical community at large thought it was useful.
Despite this ruling, the DEA unilaterally made it schedule 1. They were sued by a Harvard psychiatrist, and the DEA lost again, with the court ruling that the drug only met the standard for schedule 3. Again, the DEA summarily dismissed the court's ruling and rescheduled it as schedule 1.
The crux of the issue that this whole process danced around was that MDMA's patent had expired, and no pharmaceutical company was going to take on the FDA costs to make a drug that was dirt cheap, easy to manufacture, and should only be used at most five times throughout a patient's life. Especially when the alternatives (Prozac and SSRIs) were making a billion dollars plus annually.
Veterans in the US have a nickname for PTSD: Paid Till Suicide or Death. Right now drug companies are treating the VA as a huge cash cow and are dumping vast quantities of opiates and in-patent SSRIs on it, when there is a far more effective treatment that is extremely cheap. It's a multi billion dollar scam that's killing people, and the DEA is purposefully helping them maintain this charade.
Thank goodness for MAPS.
They're working to get MDMA therapy out to those veterans suffering from PTSD.
They're working to get MDMA therapy out to those veterans suffering from PTSD.
> for a plant that is far less addictive and harmful that traditional opioids
Interestingly enough, the related links at the bottom of the article point to another article from the same site: "Poison control centers are getting a surge of calls about ‘natural’ painkiller kratom"
https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid-overdoses?...
Interestingly enough, the related links at the bottom of the article point to another article from the same site: "Poison control centers are getting a surge of calls about ‘natural’ painkiller kratom"
https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid-overdoses?...
What is your point? I didn't say Kratom is harmless. All drugs can cause harm and all drugs have the potential for abuse.
What I said was that Kratom is far less addictive and dangerous that typical opioids. A Kratom overdose is most likely to result in nausea and stomach irritation, not in death, and quitting a daily Kratom addition is far easier than quitting a daily oxy habit.
The article you said linked there were a few hundred calls to poison control centers around the nation during a year. Just last week, 174 people overdosed on heroin derivatives in Akron, Ohio in six days. Twenty one people died. Ohio's Governor just declared a medical emergency in the state the epidemic has gotten so bad.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-he...
What I said was that Kratom is far less addictive and dangerous that typical opioids. A Kratom overdose is most likely to result in nausea and stomach irritation, not in death, and quitting a daily Kratom addition is far easier than quitting a daily oxy habit.
The article you said linked there were a few hundred calls to poison control centers around the nation during a year. Just last week, 174 people overdosed on heroin derivatives in Akron, Ohio in six days. Twenty one people died. Ohio's Governor just declared a medical emergency in the state the epidemic has gotten so bad.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-he...
260 calls in one year for kratom while 48k people call poison contol every year for overdoses of over the counter vitamins. i want to see the dea explian this decision to a judge. the aburdly low number of medical issues caused by the substance that they site is a great argument against scheduling it at all.
The pattern I've sensed is that for most drugs, one death or injury is too much. However for alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, motorcycles, even peanuts for those who are allergic - hey, that's life.
Let's pull the ER stats for alcohol and compare.
Government overreach.
Government protecting the interests of big business? Seems like there's a lot of profitable legal drug related business to be lost if kratom use was to become widespread. It smells a bit like the history of kratom in the country where it used to originate, Thailand. There it became a threat to the government sponsored opium trade and was made illegal many years ago [1]
[1] http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned-in...
[1] http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned-in...
[deleted]
[deleted]
37K signers already:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make...
Kratom is the safest way to withdrawal from opiates. It can ease the symptoms to a very manageable level. It also cannot be abused and if a dose larger than about 20 grams is consumed, it will not provide any additional relief and only cause stomach discomfort.
Kratom is much better than Methadone as you are then addicted to Methadone and withdrawal from Methadone is MUCH worse. I have seen someone who was mildly dependant on Opiates given a much higher dosage of Methadone that actually increased their tolerance to opiates and pushed them further into opiate dependence.
Kratom has almost no physical withdrawal symptoms and is a heroin addicts best option to try to kick the habit. This is the absolute worst thing that can be done given the amount of heroin addicts that were created by the DEA's crackdown on legal opiate prescription pain relief.
Kratom is much better than Methadone as you are then addicted to Methadone and withdrawal from Methadone is MUCH worse. I have seen someone who was mildly dependant on Opiates given a much higher dosage of Methadone that actually increased their tolerance to opiates and pushed them further into opiate dependence.
Kratom has almost no physical withdrawal symptoms and is a heroin addicts best option to try to kick the habit. This is the absolute worst thing that can be done given the amount of heroin addicts that were created by the DEA's crackdown on legal opiate prescription pain relief.
Apropos of anything else and comments on the relative merits, this needs a citation:
"It also cannot be abused and if a dose larger than about 20 grams is consumed, it will not provide any additional relief and only cause stomach discomfort."
"It also cannot be abused and if a dose larger than about 20 grams is consumed, it will not provide any additional relief and only cause stomach discomfort."
I haven't seen any peer-reviewed literature talking about this particular aspect of kratom or mitragynine, but if you look at Erowid or the kratom subreddit you will find hundreds if not thousands of people saying the same thing. Anecdotal, I know, but still.
Once it's rushed into Schedule I, good luck getting it.
I guess you could always take a trip to Thailand...
...where it literally grows on trees.
Anecdote: I had a far-too-large dose produce obvious precipitated withdrawal – intense sneezing, elevated body temperature, and nausea. It resolved in a few hours. The plant contains a mix of agonists and antagonists IIRC, and this seemed to be protective. I don't use the stuff anymore, but it certainly didn't ruin (or even really damage) my life.
This is an outrage. I personally know several people who have used Kratom to overcome prescription opiate addictions. Their lives today might be totally fucked without it.
Find your representative and shoot them a quick note. It only takes a minute, and it may make a difference.
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
I'm going to share my comment from a few days ago, it's relevant:
kratom is usually sold as a powdered leaf. you can't smoke it, you can't snort it. you can make a tea out of it if you're diligent. a spoonful is usually swallowed as a powder with a thick juice.
it is habit-forming. to an addict it can stop withdrawals in it's tracks, to an opiate naive person it can provide a buzz, nothing extreme and the subsequent withdrawals are also nothing too terrible.
to an opiate addict it is, frankly, a life saver. this is something with the potential to free a person of an opiate addiction, provided they want to be free badly enough.
it's quite easy to use kratom to replace your drug of choice, not for getting high, it'd be pointless. you simply use the kratom to keep the withdrawals at bay. then, simply get off the kratom after a few weeks of use. you do this because kratom withdrawal is more forgiving than something like heroin.
this is impossible with methadone and suboxone. once you go on methadone, you better plan on never getting off. the withdrawals can quite literally last months.
people have successfully transitioned from methadone/suboxone to kratom and then quit use of opiates altogether, being free from the prison of withdrawal in a week instead of months.
this ban will only serve to worsen the structure fire that is the opiate epidemic.
kratom is usually sold as a powdered leaf. you can't smoke it, you can't snort it. you can make a tea out of it if you're diligent. a spoonful is usually swallowed as a powder with a thick juice.
it is habit-forming. to an addict it can stop withdrawals in it's tracks, to an opiate naive person it can provide a buzz, nothing extreme and the subsequent withdrawals are also nothing too terrible.
to an opiate addict it is, frankly, a life saver. this is something with the potential to free a person of an opiate addiction, provided they want to be free badly enough.
it's quite easy to use kratom to replace your drug of choice, not for getting high, it'd be pointless. you simply use the kratom to keep the withdrawals at bay. then, simply get off the kratom after a few weeks of use. you do this because kratom withdrawal is more forgiving than something like heroin.
this is impossible with methadone and suboxone. once you go on methadone, you better plan on never getting off. the withdrawals can quite literally last months.
people have successfully transitioned from methadone/suboxone to kratom and then quit use of opiates altogether, being free from the prison of withdrawal in a week instead of months.
this ban will only serve to worsen the structure fire that is the opiate epidemic.
What you're saying sounds amazing but ultimately anecdotal. Do you know if there are any studies that back this up? I'd love to read them.
The article states that the DEA can put any substance into schedule 1 category. This is unfortunate because that schedule makes things much more difficult to study.
The article states that the DEA can put any substance into schedule 1 category. This is unfortunate because that schedule makes things much more difficult to study.
I've seen a couple of case studies about single users using kratom to get off of stronger opioids, but no at-scale studies. But there is a reasonable amount of other literature relating to kratom and its primary alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.
Of particular interest is that these alkaloids are G-protein-biased agonists of the mu-opioid receptor - which also do not recruit β-arrestin[1] following receptor activation. It is β-arrestin recruitment that is responsible for the main side effects of opiates - respiratory depression, constipation, histamine release and build up of tolerance (which is what leads to withdrawals upon cessation). This is a very big deal.
I am a kratom user myself, using it to treat bad neuropathic pain. I am prescribed opiates, but kratom doesn't space me out like they do, there is no respiratory depression, no apparent histamine release, the constipation is much less, and I've been at the same dose for over a year. Honestly, for me it's a wonderdrug.
[1] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
Of particular interest is that these alkaloids are G-protein-biased agonists of the mu-opioid receptor - which also do not recruit β-arrestin[1] following receptor activation. It is β-arrestin recruitment that is responsible for the main side effects of opiates - respiratory depression, constipation, histamine release and build up of tolerance (which is what leads to withdrawals upon cessation). This is a very big deal.
I am a kratom user myself, using it to treat bad neuropathic pain. I am prescribed opiates, but kratom doesn't space me out like they do, there is no respiratory depression, no apparent histamine release, the constipation is much less, and I've been at the same dose for over a year. Honestly, for me it's a wonderdrug.
[1] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
> no apparent histamine release
a lot of people, including myself, get very itchy from kratom, and i've always attributed that to histamine release. could it be something else?
a lot of people, including myself, get very itchy from kratom, and i've always attributed that to histamine release. could it be something else?
I have actually have a condition that means I naturally release too much histamine, so I take a lot of antihistamines. When I take prescribed opioid drugs, e.g. tramadol, dihydrocodeine, mophine, the itching can be absolutely unbearable.
With kratom I don't notice much extra itching at all, but I suppose we all act differently to things.
With kratom I don't notice much extra itching at all, but I suppose we all act differently to things.
That's fascinating, I've never heard of that before. Is it your throat that gets itchy?
Skin. It's where the cliche of the junky scratching his arms comes from.
Have you been prescribed and tried Gabapentin?
I have heard of that being used to treat neuropathy, but also anecdotes of it being abused recreationally.
I have heard of that being used to treat neuropathy, but also anecdotes of it being abused recreationally.
Gabapentin is used for anti-seizure, I was prescribed it 25mg 3x per day. It definitely caused memory issues for me, I literally couldn't remember people's names. After taking it for a few weeks to ensure I wouldn't have another seizure, I was taken off of it. After about a day and a half it was entirely out of my system and I felt back to normal. Some people's results may vary, but I couldn't see doing any complex coding with that in my system.
I think you may be misremembering the medication. I take 1200mg of Gabaptentin/day for ulnar neuropathy; I don't think that 75mg would accomplish anything.
And FWIW I code all day long.
And FWIW I code all day long.
Yes, I've tried various drugs in the class, gabapentin, pregbalin and baclofen. Unfortunately I can't tolerate the side effects - they make me feel like I am drunk, so I can't work, drive, or generally live normally. It's annoying, because most evidence says these are the best drugs for neuropathic pain :(
Has there been any paid studies into a herbal cure with no opportunity to patent, own, exploit, I say no, I could ask Google but I get the feeling I don't need to. This has no bearing on it's efficacy, round here people throw 'anecdotal' around as if they believe it to be synonymous with meaningless, this is nonsense, much research has been inspired by a wealth of anecdotes, in fact, afaik off label use of pharmaceuticals is also kind of 'anecdotal', these drugs have not been tested for the off label use, it's a body of anecdotal evidence, albeit supplied by 'trusted' professionals that allows physicians to use it to treat conditions it was never designed for.
If this reasoning is valid, we might as well accuse you and the grand parent of being internet kratom sellers, who have a vested interest in convincing HN readers of the benign nature of Kratom.
In any case, your reasoning is completely invalid. Here, for example, is an article from pubmed which argues:
"While several cases of toxicity and death have emerged in the West, such reports have been non-existent in South East Asia where kratom has had a longer history of use. We highlight the possible reasons for this as discussed in the literature. More importantly, it should be borne in mind that the individual clinical case-reports emerging from the West that link kratom use to adverse reactions or fatalities frequently pertained to kratom used together with other substances. Therefore, there is a danger of these reports being used to strengthen the case for legal sanction against kratom. This would be unfortunate since the experiences from South East Asia suggest considerable potential for therapeutic use among people who use drugs."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27178014
In any case, your reasoning is completely invalid. Here, for example, is an article from pubmed which argues:
"While several cases of toxicity and death have emerged in the West, such reports have been non-existent in South East Asia where kratom has had a longer history of use. We highlight the possible reasons for this as discussed in the literature. More importantly, it should be borne in mind that the individual clinical case-reports emerging from the West that link kratom use to adverse reactions or fatalities frequently pertained to kratom used together with other substances. Therefore, there is a danger of these reports being used to strengthen the case for legal sanction against kratom. This would be unfortunate since the experiences from South East Asia suggest considerable potential for therapeutic use among people who use drugs."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27178014
The sheer amount of bullshit that gets peddled by charlatans and hucksters is the very reason people don't trust anecdotal evidence around here. Or individual testimony. Look at any scam product, how its claims are supported and compare them to your cause du jour. What makes your claims more or less valid than previous scams? What gives your cause the credibility that those ones lacked?
Your claims could very well be true, but if you can't support them, then I'm going to just file them into the 'Snake Oil' drawer and move on.
Your claims could very well be true, but if you can't support them, then I'm going to just file them into the 'Snake Oil' drawer and move on.
That sounds fair, but to be honest I don't trust the government's official bullshit either.
What gets accepted as the officially-sanctioned wisdom is too easily influenced by special interests ("bootleggers and Baptists"), power grabs, and political convenience (marijuana laws and minorities).
What gets accepted as the officially-sanctioned wisdom is too easily influenced by special interests ("bootleggers and Baptists"), power grabs, and political convenience (marijuana laws and minorities).
Oh, I agree with you and the classification of marijuana is a great example. The government line on that seems totally divorced from reality, even if it is to remain illegal.
> This is unfortunate because that schedule makes things much more difficult to study.
I'd think it goes the other way too. I've worked in a lab as a data entry helper for studies of opiods on different tissues. They had no problem getting funding for their studies. I would imagine it was because it was related to War On Drugs. So there was an element of "let's show the world how terrible these drugs are, here is some money".
Experiments used fentanyl and naloxone. Aside from keeping fenanyl locked and logging/auditing its usage and waste, don't remember professors or grad students complaining about it being hard to study.
I'd think it goes the other way too. I've worked in a lab as a data entry helper for studies of opiods on different tissues. They had no problem getting funding for their studies. I would imagine it was because it was related to War On Drugs. So there was an element of "let's show the world how terrible these drugs are, here is some money".
Experiments used fentanyl and naloxone. Aside from keeping fenanyl locked and logging/auditing its usage and waste, don't remember professors or grad students complaining about it being hard to study.
Fentanyl is Schedule II, though.
Ulterior motives aside, how about if you wanted to run that same study with LSD?
Would a Schedule I drug have been as accessible as a Schedule II drug?
Ulterior motives aside, how about if you wanted to run that same study with LSD?
Would a Schedule I drug have been as accessible as a Schedule II drug?
Ah, I didn't know, it seemed dangerous enough by the amount of logging and tracking we had to do.
Fentanyl is incredibly dangerous (it's what killed Prince). Here's a depressing vice episode about its use in Canada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28rJqj-7pEY
Then why is it near impossible to study Marijuana?
It is classified as Schedule I, not Schedule II.
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or substance under medical supervision.
Schedule I drugs:
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or substance under medical supervision.
Schedule I drugs:
Heroin (diacetylmorphine)
LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)
Marijuana (cannabis, THC)
Mescaline (Peyote)
MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)
GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid)
Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
Psilocybin
Methaqualone (Quaalude)
Khat (Cathinone)
Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)Done forget beta-carbolines and a handful of tryptamines that are always present in the human body, and also Schedule I.
Because Marijuana is very dangerous. Sometimes even one snort can land you in jail for life... I don't think anyone in a right mind would like to risk it.
Poe's law?
Here's the part that made his point clear: "in jail for life" - it's the law that causes the danger.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The article states that the DEA can put any substance into schedule 1 category.
I imagine this is a likely scenario.
Its continued use could threaten all sorts of business models.
I imagine this is a likely scenario.
Its continued use could threaten all sorts of business models.
Can confirm. At the risk of public embarrassment, I ate an ounce a day of powdered leaf for nearly six years. It was the serotonin blockade (read: antidepressant effect) that was desirable, not the weak opioid effects. Getting off of it was easier than getting off of a prescription antidepressant. I stopped suddenly and with no taper schedule (by choice; I'd obtained health insurance and found a couple workable alternatives) and suffered no lasting effects. I didn't vomit once. There was no nausea. I had some transient leg pain and an upset stomach. It wasn't fun, but it also wasn't Trainspotting. That was hydrocodone, in a post-surgical setting, with strict adherence to the doctor's dosing and taper schedule.
Far be it from me to recommend drug dependence, but this substance didn't hurt me despite my hard-headed attempt to become dependent on it. It kept me away from benzodiazepines and alcohol, the former of which gave me such severe amnesia that I ended up in the ER not knowing where I was or who I was.
It's a tree that grows in the wild and will never be eradicated. The DEA's burning garbage pile of a weed eradication quest is still smoldering. Profoundly misguided policy.
For the record, I haven't touched the stuff in years, and have no financial interest in it. But the reality is that this stuff is not worth locking people in cages over.
Far be it from me to recommend drug dependence, but this substance didn't hurt me despite my hard-headed attempt to become dependent on it. It kept me away from benzodiazepines and alcohol, the former of which gave me such severe amnesia that I ended up in the ER not knowing where I was or who I was.
It's a tree that grows in the wild and will never be eradicated. The DEA's burning garbage pile of a weed eradication quest is still smoldering. Profoundly misguided policy.
For the record, I haven't touched the stuff in years, and have no financial interest in it. But the reality is that this stuff is not worth locking people in cages over.
It's also worth noting that kratom is hard to really abuse; the effects are very mild - you can't call it a "high" - and if you try to take a bigger dose, you just feel nauseous.
I watched multiple friends get off heroin by using methadone/suboxone, one became sober (although slightly a loose screw), the other moved to smoking pot, the last one died. What a shame of putting this as a Schedule 1 drug... I would not be surprised to see pharmaceuticals as the underlying hand for this policy.
kratom:opiates :: vaping:cigarettes?
Not really. Nicotine vaporizers are meant to deliver the active ingredient (nicotine) without the harmful delivery method of inhaling burning leaves and all the tars, particulates, carbon monoxide, and other stuff that comes with inhaling smoke.
Kratom is more of a thing that tickles the right receptors enough to stave off opiate withdrawals (or stand in as a less potent agonist of those receptors with fewer side effects) so it's less about a safer delivery method and more like a "light" version of more potent opioids.
Kratom is more of a thing that tickles the right receptors enough to stave off opiate withdrawals (or stand in as a less potent agonist of those receptors with fewer side effects) so it's less about a safer delivery method and more like a "light" version of more potent opioids.
Kratom:opiates
::
coffee:stimulants
Interesting, and sad to see any useful substance banned by the DEA; but a ban by the DEA will not prohibit medical use of a substance.
Actually, it will prohibit medical use, as the DEA is listing the chemicals in kratom as Schedule I.
You'd think it would be up to the FDA to decide if something has a medical purpose and just the DEA to enforce that.
It sort of does, but of course it's all politics. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) (under whom the FDA operates) or an interested outside party petitions the Attorney General (AG) for a review, HHS (through FDA) studies the issue and reports back. If HHS recommends against controlled the substance, then the AG shall not control it, i.e. it's "de-scheduled". Otherwise, it's pretty much up to the AG and DEA to decide how to act on the recommendations.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-resc...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-resc...
Because the DEA has done through scientific research to say the chemical has "no value". That is some impressive power.
Another reason to vote Johnson/Weld for US President this November.
“Would the world be better off if all drugs were legal? Yes. The world would be better off, that 90 percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use related,” he said. “But what I’ve said is, look, let’s legalize marijuana first and when we do that, I think the whole country takes a quantum leap toward understanding substance abuse.”
http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate-thin...
“Would the world be better off if all drugs were legal? Yes. The world would be better off, that 90 percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use related,” he said. “But what I’ve said is, look, let’s legalize marijuana first and when we do that, I think the whole country takes a quantum leap toward understanding substance abuse.”
http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate-thin...
Green Party is also an option if you want to protest vote. A problem, for some, with supporting libertarian candidates is that they (voters) may not be as fond of the low-hanging fruit policies most likely to get implemented (e.g. defunding many agencies, removing environmental protections) as the moonshot policies they also promote (e.g. ending the war on drugs and reducing the military-industrial-natsec complex). Even though neither 3rd party will ever win, the votes do send a message about which way policy adjustments should be made, so it's still worth some thought about what message you really want to send.
Most people live in uncontested states (for the presidential election). Voting for a major party only makes sense if you actually like the candidate, or you live in a swing state.
The Libertarian party is much bigger than the Green party, and there are many people who sympathize with libertarians on a lot of issues even if they don't call themselves libertarian.
Johnson/Weld are real candidates -- both two-term governors from moderate states! I'm surprised they don't have more support considering how bad the major candidates are.
The Libertarian party is much bigger than the Green party, and there are many people who sympathize with libertarians on a lot of issues even if they don't call themselves libertarian.
Johnson/Weld are real candidates -- both two-term governors from moderate states! I'm surprised they don't have more support considering how bad the major candidates are.
Regarding size, the official memberships from 2014 were ~411,000 (Libs) vs ~248,000 (Greens). You could look at that as either the Libertarians being 66% larger, or them being practically the same as far as order of magnitude and portion of the total electorate. Johnson/Weld are more experienced candidates than Stein, but on the other hand, Ron and Rand Paul never came as close to winning a nomination as Sanders did, either (him being about 98% in line with Stein's positions - I remember his local campaign staff even defecting to her around the time of the DNC endorsement).
Regarding policies, Greens and Libertarians are also 99% in alignment on this particular issue (war on drugs), as well as some others. I know people have their preferences, just pointing out that there are multiple similarly-sized third parties of yet complete opposite ideological natures that would still be optionable for those wanting to vote on this kind of thing. It's even easier to not support this kind of behavior by the DEA.
Regarding policies, Greens and Libertarians are also 99% in alignment on this particular issue (war on drugs), as well as some others. I know people have their preferences, just pointing out that there are multiple similarly-sized third parties of yet complete opposite ideological natures that would still be optionable for those wanting to vote on this kind of thing. It's even easier to not support this kind of behavior by the DEA.
Party membership numbers are wholly irrelevant -- the number that matters is electoral support, of which Johnson/Weld has 4x that of Stein and drawn in substantial numbers from both major parties.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-c...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-c...
If what matters to you is actual electoral support, there's no reason to be voting third party anyway. Both Stein and Johnson got less than 1% of the vote in 2012, and even combined only about 1.2%. The most successful third-party/independent Presidential candidate in decades was Ross Perot in 1992, and even winning just under 19% of the popular vote he failed to win any of the electoral college. It's a self-serving double standard to tell people to pass up the major party candidates but then vote based on electoral support for the third parties, ignoring how well their ideological and policy positions actually align with your own.
There's something to be said for simply polling high enough to get into the debates. Debates where a candidate could, for example, offer an alternative view on drug policy.
If a third party gets 15%, they get a third podium on that stage, which I think would be worthwhile and healthy for American democracy especially in the face of the two most hated candidates in history.
I don't particularly care if it's Johnson or Stein but I'd like it to be someone. Ideally we'd have both. Johnson is pretty close to breaking 15% in a lot of polls.
Of course this line of reasoning simply suggests that pre-debates, if anyone asks you should /claim/ to be voting Johnson (or Stein), not anything about where you should actually vote.
If a third party gets 15%, they get a third podium on that stage, which I think would be worthwhile and healthy for American democracy especially in the face of the two most hated candidates in history.
I don't particularly care if it's Johnson or Stein but I'd like it to be someone. Ideally we'd have both. Johnson is pretty close to breaking 15% in a lot of polls.
Of course this line of reasoning simply suggests that pre-debates, if anyone asks you should /claim/ to be voting Johnson (or Stein), not anything about where you should actually vote.
It does matter that it's Johnson over Stein. Johnson and his running mate were both two-term governors. If they make it to the debate stage, they are real candidates and nobody can dismiss them.
You (along with the immediate parent) actually do have a good point here. If any pollsters ask, I'd probably say I support Johnson for this reason, though overall I'd personally prefer Green policies over Libertarian ones. There's something to be said for Greens/Libs banding together just to help wedge third parties into the process at all. This kind of strategizing is still pretty unfortunate though, and only makes sense for the polling/debate process, not necessarily the electoral one.
Not to mention the CPD would almost certainly change the debate qualifiers immediately to still keep Johnson out, same as the DNC did with Lawrence Lessig.
Not to mention the CPD would almost certainly change the debate qualifiers immediately to still keep Johnson out, same as the DNC did with Lawrence Lessig.
On this issue, he is the best person for the job. Voting for the best person for the job is never a protest vote.
You guys really need preferential voting
Yet another drug banned for no good reason, basicallly because it could be "psychoactive". Doesn't need to be proven harmful. However the addictive, harmful, indeed deadly tobacco and alcohol are protected by government.
The very premise of banning something because it is psychoactive is a blatant assault on every person's intellect, regardless of whether they see personal utility in using drugs or not. A government has no business dictating how people must think.
[deleted]
we are getting ourselves in a mess with this, psycho pharma genetic nutrition says most things we eat have 'psychoactive' potential, as does our mood, environment, genetic make up and food, we are psychoactive beings walking around in electromagnetic energy fields...
I think exercise also gives you high. Maybe they should ban people from doing it.
Don't tell the DEA about "runner's high"!
Tobacco and alcohol are grandfathered in, basically. If they were newly introduced today, they'd probably never be allowed.
It's interesting since a number of other drugs banned are as old as, if not possible older than, tobacco and alcohol.
> basicallly because it could be "psychoactive"
The article doesn't say that. They talk about the public health issues.
Plus, it's only a temporary ban. They have two years to study the drug and decide if the ban is justified or not. That doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if there appears to be a public health issue.
I like how the article ends saying the ban doesn't come into effect until the end of the month to give users time to dispose of their stockpile. Yeah... that's what's going to happen.
The article doesn't say that. They talk about the public health issues.
Plus, it's only a temporary ban. They have two years to study the drug and decide if the ban is justified or not. That doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if there appears to be a public health issue.
I like how the article ends saying the ban doesn't come into effect until the end of the month to give users time to dispose of their stockpile. Yeah... that's what's going to happen.
How do you study a Schedule I substance?
You should ask the people who do it. For example, I know there was a recent study around using MDMA to treat PTSD.
If the DEA can't come up with a study to show harm, the drugs come off the list in two years.
If the DEA can't come up with a study to show harm, the drugs come off the list in two years.
I once ordered a kratom extract powder from some website many years ago, while on a quest for novel ways for my friends and I to get high. After calculating the suggested dosage, and swallowing an uncomfortably large number of gel caps filled with the stuff one Friday evening, we each experienced a sedated, euphoric effect.
The shocking part for us was during the next day and a bit of the day after, we found ourselves unable to perform basic math, and reasoning in general felt fuzzy. Thankfully, by Monday, we were able to function normally. We came to the common conclusion that this is a truly stupefying substance in the proper sense of the word, and that usage should be avoided if you have anything important to think about in the next several days.
The shocking part for us was during the next day and a bit of the day after, we found ourselves unable to perform basic math, and reasoning in general felt fuzzy. Thankfully, by Monday, we were able to function normally. We came to the common conclusion that this is a truly stupefying substance in the proper sense of the word, and that usage should be avoided if you have anything important to think about in the next several days.
> and swallowing an uncomfortably large number of gel caps
If what you had really was an extract, and not plain leaf, there is no way you would need to swallow 'an uncomfortably large number' of caps. Extracts are much more potent than plain leaf, and taking too much would cause nausea and vomiting.
If what you had really was an extract, and not plain leaf, there is no way you would need to swallow 'an uncomfortably large number' of caps. Extracts are much more potent than plain leaf, and taking too much would cause nausea and vomiting.
> ...and swallowing an uncomfortably large number of gel caps filled with the stuff one Friday evening...
Perhaps you and your friends are a "stupefying" group of humans in the proper sense of the word, and this group of humans should avoid misuse of any mind-altering substance if they have important things to think about over a few days?
Perhaps you and your friends are a "stupefying" group of humans in the proper sense of the word, and this group of humans should avoid misuse of any mind-altering substance if they have important things to think about over a few days?
That's quite funny considering some friends and I occasionally took a few grams of kratom in college to help us study the day before important exams. For us, it was almost exactly the same effects as drinking a few cups of coffee, minus the jittery-ness and with a horrible taste.
There are stimulating (green, I think) and sedating (red, I think) varieties, so both experiences are likely. I bought a sampler pack from one of the better sellers recommended from /r/kratom a year or so ago. Was enjoyable enough to mellow out with, but I couldn't stomach the bitterness no matter what I mixed it with so I tossed most of it.
It sounds like you don't really understand what an extract is. It's a concentrated form of whatever substance you're taking. So, you overdosed and now are spreading FUD on the internet. Thanks for that.
Land of the free.
Whatever the US can do, the UK can do better! We've got a the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016[0].
The act is so broad it can be applied to many things. And it's so broad it's functionally unenforceable.
A quote from Wikipedia:
'The law has been criticised as an infringement on civil liberties. Barrister Matthew Scott described the act as an attempt to "ban pleasure", saying it could drastically overreach by banning areca nuts, additives used in vapourisers and electronic cigarettes, hop pillows, and the sale of toads and salamanders that naturally produce psychoactive substances. Scott went further and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response'[1].
You know...
* Think of the children.
* It's good for society.
* The social contract.
* And all the other BS people like to come up with to trample on individuals.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...
Whatever the US can do, the UK can do better! We've got a the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016[0].
The act is so broad it can be applied to many things. And it's so broad it's functionally unenforceable.
A quote from Wikipedia:
'The law has been criticised as an infringement on civil liberties. Barrister Matthew Scott described the act as an attempt to "ban pleasure", saying it could drastically overreach by banning areca nuts, additives used in vapourisers and electronic cigarettes, hop pillows, and the sale of toads and salamanders that naturally produce psychoactive substances. Scott went further and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response'[1].
You know...
* Think of the children.
* It's good for society.
* The social contract.
* And all the other BS people like to come up with to trample on individuals.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...
> and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response
I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).
This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).
This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
> I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).
Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.
> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence. One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (& continue once it does happen).
Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.
> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence. One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (& continue once it does happen).
L-phenyalanine apparently "inhibits NMDAR current in hippocampal neurons by competing for the glycine-binding site" [1] and is also an essential amino acid. Oops.
[1] http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v7/n4/full/4000976a.html
[1] http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v7/n4/full/4000976a.html
Only at concentrations seen when the model has phenylketonuria. It's a rare disorder[0].
Steve Jobs was know for eating fruit high in phenyalanine (well tyrosine)[1]. It may have contributed to his high performance.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria#Genetics [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrosine
Steve Jobs was know for eating fruit high in phenyalanine (well tyrosine)[1]. It may have contributed to his high performance.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria#Genetics [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrosine
Yeah, admittedly a bit of a tongue-in-cheek stretch.
[deleted]
I've read the entire DEA report and their case against kratom seems extremely vague and weak. It almost feels like their concerns (as presented in the report) about kratom can be easily addressed by making it a prescription based medication. They absolutely do not have to make it Schedule I.
This is a clear attempt at job security by DEA. What, aren't they having enough trouble as it is dealing with cocaine and heroin?
Or do they have an ulterior motive?
Why ban when they could just make FDA do their job? And maybe later make it Schedule II or probably even III where it belongs.
Or do they have an ulterior motive?
Why ban when they could just make FDA do their job? And maybe later make it Schedule II or probably even III where it belongs.
The main points the DEA brought up in the notice are
A.) Foreigners don't label their kratom correctly when they export it to the US.
B.) Calls to a poison control center involving kratom have spiked by a factor of 10 in the past few years.
C.) Foreigners are exporting medical products that make claims not validated by the FDA.
It's being placed in Schedule I rather than more permissive classification because (according to the notice) "A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I". It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I permanently.
Drug use can be a matter of national security, so the DEA should have the power to act in these cases. I'm thinking of the Opium Wars, where the British got the Chinese hooked on opium and then went to war to force them to legalize it when they banned it. Widespread drug use being imposed by foreigners can harm a country.
I'm not sure this kratom qualifies. It doesn't seem that bad. I can see banning imports and production for foreigners, but I can't see a good reason to ban US citizens conducting research on the drug. It seems like it's only like this because of the restrictive law.
And if the manufacture, sale, and consumption happens entirely in a single state by US citizens who are residents of that state, I don't even think the DEA should be constitutionally allowed to regulate it on a permanent basis.
On the whole, I guess I support this ban, though they should amend the law to allow a milder response.
A.) Foreigners don't label their kratom correctly when they export it to the US.
B.) Calls to a poison control center involving kratom have spiked by a factor of 10 in the past few years.
C.) Foreigners are exporting medical products that make claims not validated by the FDA.
It's being placed in Schedule I rather than more permissive classification because (according to the notice) "A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I". It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I permanently.
Drug use can be a matter of national security, so the DEA should have the power to act in these cases. I'm thinking of the Opium Wars, where the British got the Chinese hooked on opium and then went to war to force them to legalize it when they banned it. Widespread drug use being imposed by foreigners can harm a country.
I'm not sure this kratom qualifies. It doesn't seem that bad. I can see banning imports and production for foreigners, but I can't see a good reason to ban US citizens conducting research on the drug. It seems like it's only like this because of the restrictive law.
And if the manufacture, sale, and consumption happens entirely in a single state by US citizens who are residents of that state, I don't even think the DEA should be constitutionally allowed to regulate it on a permanent basis.
On the whole, I guess I support this ban, though they should amend the law to allow a milder response.
The labelling subterfuge started when the FDA started seizing properly-labelled shipments. Broken feedback loops, forever.
> Calls to a poison control center involving kratom have spiked by a factor of 10 in the past few years.
660 calls to poison control over a 6+ year span does not sound like an "imminent public health risk" to me.
> It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I permanently.
Worked well for Marijuana's temporary scheduling.
660 calls to poison control over a 6+ year span does not sound like an "imminent public health risk" to me.
> It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I permanently.
Worked well for Marijuana's temporary scheduling.
> Worked well for Marijuana's temporary scheduling.
Are you saying that this same process has been used to permanently classify Marijuana as schedule I? That means you're implicitly claiming a few things:
* That the DEA issued a temporary classification on Marijuana that would've expired after 2 years.
* That the DEA has the power to - by itself - schedule a drug permanently. (If it went through Congress, that's a different process)
* That the DEA has the power to schedule Marijuana freely. In particular, there are no treaties forcing it to be classified a certain way.
* That the DEA used its power to freely classify Marijuana, and chose to label it as schedule I. (As a consequence, they could relabel it at any time.)
I don't know the history of marijuana or which of these is true or not. If all true, I'd like to see a different government agency do the classification(maybe the FDA? or some Congressional committee?) and the DEA do the enforcement.
Are you saying that this same process has been used to permanently classify Marijuana as schedule I? That means you're implicitly claiming a few things:
* That the DEA issued a temporary classification on Marijuana that would've expired after 2 years.
* That the DEA has the power to - by itself - schedule a drug permanently. (If it went through Congress, that's a different process)
* That the DEA has the power to schedule Marijuana freely. In particular, there are no treaties forcing it to be classified a certain way.
* That the DEA used its power to freely classify Marijuana, and chose to label it as schedule I. (As a consequence, they could relabel it at any time.)
I don't know the history of marijuana or which of these is true or not. If all true, I'd like to see a different government agency do the classification(maybe the FDA? or some Congressional committee?) and the DEA do the enforcement.
Frankly, I have never understood the desire to make a plant illegal. If you're a religious person this is something God made. Who are we to question God's creation?
If you are an atheist you probably rest the bulk of your belief system upon science. These policies prevent science from studying the plants and even fly in the face of existing scientific evidence.
One has to conclude that these policies are in the service of money and interests other than the public's.
If you are an atheist you probably rest the bulk of your belief system upon science. These policies prevent science from studying the plants and even fly in the face of existing scientific evidence.
One has to conclude that these policies are in the service of money and interests other than the public's.
> Frankly, I have never understood the desire to make a plant illegal. If you're a religious person this is something God made. Who are we to question God's creation?
This is kind of a silly argument, though. Malaria, anthrax, and the black death are also natural, and you won't find many theists arguing that we should welcome those.
(I am absolutely in favor of legalization, I just don't like silly arguments.)
This is kind of a silly argument, though. Malaria, anthrax, and the black death are also natural, and you won't find many theists arguing that we should welcome those.
(I am absolutely in favor of legalization, I just don't like silly arguments.)
This is true but they're not really banned, nor are they plants :)
So it's only plants that God made that are automatically safe?
I think you'll find yourself in a lot of trouble if you try to collect and sell anthrax spores.
Woah. You're right! Let's ban getting sick!
I agree its a silly argument but so is the theist's argument that says God (or whoever) provides for humanity through creation and then goes on to blame the harmful parts of nature on corruption of creation by Satan or the devil. I was raised in that kind of environment and have heard these arguments. Their 'logic' is almost always silly. Sometimes you got fight silly with silly.
It's not a silly argument, we didn't make malaria, anthrax or the black death Schedule I.
We do our best to wipe them off the face of the earth. That's a lot more dramatic than Schedule I. I've never heard even the most ardent anti-drug ranters say that we need to make the marijuana plant extinct.
"They also worry that it may be adulterated, given how little the substance is regulated" - so they ban it to make sure it will be adulterated? WTF
Then they'll catch an illegal shipment of adulterated kratom, and declare they were right all along - people are adulterating it after all!
Does anyone think the drug companies control the gov, and not the other way around? According to the Forbes article 660 calls from 2010 to 2015 vs. 6,843 calls in the first seven months of this year for children eating laundry pods?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea-argues...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea-argues...
If it is being scheduled, it must work! Why would the DEA spend time and money to legislate kratom unless a party with a vested interest, like a large pharmaceutical company, could profit from its controlled sale?
Can anyone point out evidence of harm from the use of kratom?
Can anyone point out evidence of harm from the use of kratom?
There is actually a reasonable amount of literature on kratom, so it is possible a pharmaceutical product will be derived from it.
Probably the biggest issue with most (at present, all?) pharmaceutical opioids is the side effect of respiratory depression - this kills a lot of people. Because kratom's active alkaloids don't recruit β-arrestin interactions, side effects like respiratory depression, constipation and tolerance are absent or greatly reduced, which should make mitragynine and 7-OH-mitragynine perfect candidates for a new, safe opioid drug[1].
But patents are probably a huge barrier to this ever happening - you can't patent a plant. No new, patentable extraction methods seem to be required, and a patentable, stronger synthetic or semi-synthetic analogue may not exist[2].
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/
[2] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
Probably the biggest issue with most (at present, all?) pharmaceutical opioids is the side effect of respiratory depression - this kills a lot of people. Because kratom's active alkaloids don't recruit β-arrestin interactions, side effects like respiratory depression, constipation and tolerance are absent or greatly reduced, which should make mitragynine and 7-OH-mitragynine perfect candidates for a new, safe opioid drug[1].
But patents are probably a huge barrier to this ever happening - you can't patent a plant. No new, patentable extraction methods seem to be required, and a patentable, stronger synthetic or semi-synthetic analogue may not exist[2].
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/
[2] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
Thank you, @GordonS! I will go read up about β-arrestin.
If it is scheduled, does that increase the chance of a safe(r) opioid replacement being developed?
And can you kindly point me to some text books/journals or introductory chemistry in order to understand these interactions at a fundamental level?
If it is scheduled, does that increase the chance of a safe(r) opioid replacement being developed?
And can you kindly point me to some text books/journals or introductory chemistry in order to understand these interactions at a fundamental level?
Here are a few DOIs to look up on sci-hub:
- 10.1093/bja/aer29
- 10.1007/978-3-642-41199-1_22
- 10.1213/01.ANE.0000160588.32007.AD
- 10.1124/mol.106.028258
- 10.1124/jpet.105.087254
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5999-10.2011
I should add that I'm not a chemist, I just have a keen, self-vested interest in analgesic substances.
- 10.1093/bja/aer29
- 10.1007/978-3-642-41199-1_22
- 10.1213/01.ANE.0000160588.32007.AD
- 10.1124/mol.106.028258
- 10.1124/jpet.105.087254
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5999-10.2011
I should add that I'm not a chemist, I just have a keen, self-vested interest in analgesic substances.
Actually, you _can_ patent a plant. It's called a plant patent.
35 USC 161 specifically governs plants.
35 USC 161 specifically governs plants.
I'm going to guess this is for patenting strains that are bred or genetically modified? E.g. to provide better disease resistance or higher quantities of substances?
I had meant the 'original', 'natural' plant, but a fair point.
I had meant the 'original', 'natural' plant, but a fair point.
I've used Kratom and it truly does stop opiate and alcohol withdrawals in it's tracks.
There is a problem though; These addicts with little knowledge of Kratom will attempt to get high and overdose. This is definitely a problem and Kratom should require some license or warning, but to ban the chemicals is crazy counter-productive when we have a real epidemic
There is a problem though; These addicts with little knowledge of Kratom will attempt to get high and overdose. This is definitely a problem and Kratom should require some license or warning, but to ban the chemicals is crazy counter-productive when we have a real epidemic
> These addicts with little knowledge of Kratom will attempt to get high and overdose
I'm not aware of a single case where taking too much kratom has caused any lasting ill effects (please do correct me if wrong). There have been cases of harm when kratom is combined with a cocktail of other drugs that are known to cause harm when combined with each other (e.g. multiple respiratory depressants).
Kratom doesn't cause respiratory depression; 'over dosing' on kratom just causes nausea, vomitting and dizziness.
I'm not aware of a single case where taking too much kratom has caused any lasting ill effects (please do correct me if wrong). There have been cases of harm when kratom is combined with a cocktail of other drugs that are known to cause harm when combined with each other (e.g. multiple respiratory depressants).
Kratom doesn't cause respiratory depression; 'over dosing' on kratom just causes nausea, vomitting and dizziness.
His language and the temporary nature of the ban sound like code to me for:
"Kratom is illegal until Pfizer can buy up, control and monetize the supply chain or patent analogs."
Of course the fda requirement that drugs be single ingredients which is fucking apeshit means that when it returns it will be 1000x more concentrated and lead to lucrative abuse.
Americans pay so much more for drugs and transparently that money does not go to research. The FDA is responsible for the opioid epidemic and several other horrible murderous crimes. Reform the FDA.
Source: Im PhD prof of chemistry
Of course the fda requirement that drugs be single ingredients which is fucking apeshit means that when it returns it will be 1000x more concentrated and lead to lucrative abuse.
Americans pay so much more for drugs and transparently that money does not go to research. The FDA is responsible for the opioid epidemic and several other horrible murderous crimes. Reform the FDA.
Source: Im PhD prof of chemistry
> Of course the fda requirement that drugs be single ingredients
Is that true?
I thought there was an ADHC drug that was combined with some kind of enzyme inhibitor or inducer? (sorry, forget the name!)
Also Sativex is undergoing Phase III trials in the USA, and it contains both THC and CBD (and I think terpenes and possibly CBN and CBG).
Is that true?
I thought there was an ADHC drug that was combined with some kind of enzyme inhibitor or inducer? (sorry, forget the name!)
Also Sativex is undergoing Phase III trials in the USA, and it contains both THC and CBD (and I think terpenes and possibly CBN and CBG).
Its not really a single rule rather a combination of more regulations for botanical mixtures and difficulties with patents such that drug companies always prefer to isolate and market molecules rather than mixtures. The idea is to know and control everything about the drug.
In cases like this and basically all opiates that's clearly a dumb policy since concentrating the active ingredient promotes abuse and probably eliminates the other ingredients which induce the nausea that prevents abuse and makes kratom safe :/
Few died in the opium dens of the past. Today opiate addiction gives you a decent chance of dying in an od and its due to this policy.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://...
In cases like this and basically all opiates that's clearly a dumb policy since concentrating the active ingredient promotes abuse and probably eliminates the other ingredients which induce the nausea that prevents abuse and makes kratom safe :/
Few died in the opium dens of the past. Today opiate addiction gives you a decent chance of dying in an od and its due to this policy.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://...
I believe he means that they don't let approved drugs be natural plant matters or organic stuff, for example. They will extract the mitragynine, develop an analogue, patent it, and sell it.
Which is unfortunate not least because some people prefer the fact that kratom (that is, mitragynine with all the other stuff that naturally comes with it) has been more safety-tested by thousands of years of use..
Which is unfortunate not least because some people prefer the fact that kratom (that is, mitragynine with all the other stuff that naturally comes with it) has been more safety-tested by thousands of years of use..
It might actually be the case that 7-OH-mitragynine is the most potent form of mitragynine - failed attempts have been made at finding a more potent analogue[1]. This could be a hindrance to a pharmaceutical product being produced.
[1] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
[1] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
I think this is a clear case where a pharmaceutical shouldn't be produced at all. Rehabs should be able to distribute the botanical which is already helping thousands of addicts. It will never happen because there is no profit in marketing vegetables.
I strongly suspect this move to ban kratom is related to growing profitability in the US market of subutex as a dependence treatment. Unlike a botanical subutex is readily abused, often intravenously.
Manufacturers and the FDA know from basic epidemiology that prescriptions of all opiates far outpace the diseases they are indicated to treat. I have to believe somewhere on someone's email there is hard evidence pharma knowingly promotes abuse.
I strongly suspect this move to ban kratom is related to growing profitability in the US market of subutex as a dependence treatment. Unlike a botanical subutex is readily abused, often intravenously.
Manufacturers and the FDA know from basic epidemiology that prescriptions of all opiates far outpace the diseases they are indicated to treat. I have to believe somewhere on someone's email there is hard evidence pharma knowingly promotes abuse.
Not really but it helps. For instance LOVAZA is a patented form of fish oil so I imagine that you could prepare kratom in a special way, patent it, get it through the FDA, and market it as KRATOR or something. But of course there's also the DEA to consider...
To be clear, I'm very supportive of legalizing most recreational drugs... Even the ones I wouldn't do and somewhat disagree with. I'm also very supportive of folks being able to deal with addiction if it should happen to occur.
But I do think some substances should be somewhat controlled. Antibiotics, for example, should be used only when necessary. Another category of control is to have things only available after talking to a pharmacist. Birth control and the morning after pill probably fit this category. And I think some supplements fit in this category as well, as some have safety concerns and some interact with medications. St Johns Wort, for example, interacts with some things. Melatonin can have unwanted side effects. You can overdose on some vitamins. And some things, I just think there should be much greater control so that folks are getting what they are paying for and the packaging is honest. Most supplements are in this category.
And the just of this plant, it seems, is that there are a few downsides and a few good things as well. It seems to be addictive and cause physical discomfort if not overdose. On the other hand, folks say it does quite a bit to help with heroin/opiate and alcohol addiction withdrawals, which can be deadly. Plus it helps folks with severe pain. These things are really positive benefits, somewhat safer than alternatives.
I don't know what the reasoning behind the ban is, but if it can be one of those things you simply need to get from a pharmacist, I think that'd be grand. No doctor needed and hopefully increased safety while still keeping the substance available for widespread use.
But if it means that it can't be studied in a meaningful way, I think they are doing a grand disservice to society.
But I do think some substances should be somewhat controlled. Antibiotics, for example, should be used only when necessary. Another category of control is to have things only available after talking to a pharmacist. Birth control and the morning after pill probably fit this category. And I think some supplements fit in this category as well, as some have safety concerns and some interact with medications. St Johns Wort, for example, interacts with some things. Melatonin can have unwanted side effects. You can overdose on some vitamins. And some things, I just think there should be much greater control so that folks are getting what they are paying for and the packaging is honest. Most supplements are in this category.
And the just of this plant, it seems, is that there are a few downsides and a few good things as well. It seems to be addictive and cause physical discomfort if not overdose. On the other hand, folks say it does quite a bit to help with heroin/opiate and alcohol addiction withdrawals, which can be deadly. Plus it helps folks with severe pain. These things are really positive benefits, somewhat safer than alternatives.
I don't know what the reasoning behind the ban is, but if it can be one of those things you simply need to get from a pharmacist, I think that'd be grand. No doctor needed and hopefully increased safety while still keeping the substance available for widespread use.
But if it means that it can't be studied in a meaningful way, I think they are doing a grand disservice to society.
> St Johns Wort, for example, interacts with some things
Lots of everyday foodstuffs can also mess with metabolising enzymes, such as grapefruit, pepper and turmeric. Without real evidence of large scale risk or harm, I don't think we should be banning any substance.
Lots of everyday foodstuffs can also mess with metabolising enzymes, such as grapefruit, pepper and turmeric. Without real evidence of large scale risk or harm, I don't think we should be banning any substance.
Not necessarily to the same extent. My father took a medicine that reacted badly with grapefruit, for instance. St Johns Wort interacts with things like birth control, other anti-depressants, allergy medicine, and so on (http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/herb-interaction/possib...). This one in particular interacts with a wide number of things.
Some of the difference here is with warnings. Get a medicine that interacts with grapefruit, and you'll be warned with the medication. Warnings aren't as likely with supplements on either end. Since they are on the counter, folks see them as safe, and often don't tell their doctor or pharmacist.
By itself, however, many of these aren't harmful substances. St Johns Wort is fairly safe by itself, for instance. I don't think folks should have to get a prescription for it, honestly, but speaking to a pharmacist seems like the best way to overcome the public education bit of it.
>Without real evidence of large scale risk or harm, I don't think we should be banning any substance. I'd generally agree, but I also think we should require the research into the substances to verify basic safety, especially if we are selling them as health aids plus have oversight for some time after they are on the market.
Some of the difference here is with warnings. Get a medicine that interacts with grapefruit, and you'll be warned with the medication. Warnings aren't as likely with supplements on either end. Since they are on the counter, folks see them as safe, and often don't tell their doctor or pharmacist.
By itself, however, many of these aren't harmful substances. St Johns Wort is fairly safe by itself, for instance. I don't think folks should have to get a prescription for it, honestly, but speaking to a pharmacist seems like the best way to overcome the public education bit of it.
>Without real evidence of large scale risk or harm, I don't think we should be banning any substance. I'd generally agree, but I also think we should require the research into the substances to verify basic safety, especially if we are selling them as health aids plus have oversight for some time after they are on the market.
I've heard too many anecdotes from well-adjusted ex-opiate users regarding the value of Kratom. Also, I fundamentally do not trust any research the DEA produces, since their continued existence is owed to their ability to pervert the scientific method using political power and vestigial "tough on drugs" thinking.