15 ms·

DEA will ban chemicals contained in kratom, a popular herbal supplement

191 points by apsec112 10y ago

tomohawk 10y ago
Methodone clinics are big business.
- douche 10y ago
  Methadone itself also sounds like a huge racket. I'm not sure that once you've spiraled into addiction enough to need methadone, that you can eliminate that, rather than replace one substance with another.
Archio 10y ago
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.
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  > 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?trendmd_shared=0 https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid-overdoses?...
  - Archio 10y ago
    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-heroin-overdose-outbreak-20160829-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-he...
  - znmwr 10y ago
    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.
    - Archio 10y ago
      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.
  - facetube 10y ago
    Let's pull the ER stats for alcohol and compare.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Or they have different goals than the official ones. I's say it at least disproves any notion that their decisions are scientific.
- malka 10y ago
  One could believe that the DEA in on the pharmaceutical industry payroll.
  - cwmoo740 10y ago
    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.
    - mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
      Thank goodness for MAPS. They're working to get MDMA therapy out to those veterans suffering from PTSD.
coding123 10y ago
Government overreach.
- geomark 10y ago
  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-thailand/ http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned-in...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
coding123 10y ago
37K signers already: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make...
scanman1 10y ago
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.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  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."
  - GordonS 10y ago
    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.
  - sooheon 10y ago
    Once it's rushed into Schedule I, good luck getting it.
    - mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
      I guess you could always take a trip to Thailand...
      - 10y ago
wyager 10y ago
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.
bonniemuffin 10y ago
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/
oxide 10y ago
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.
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  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.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tudorw 10y ago
    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.
jlj 10y ago
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-thinks-all-drugs-should-probably-be-legalized/ http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate-thin...
- qrendel 10y ago
  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.
  - elktea 10y ago
    You guys really need preferential voting
  - jlj 10y ago
    On this issue, he is the best person for the job. Voting for the best person for the job is never a protest vote.
  - jeffdavis 10y ago
    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.
Synaesthesia 10y ago
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.
- tudorw 10y ago
  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...
  - byebyetech 10y ago
    I think exercise also gives you high. Maybe they should ban people from doing it.
    - riskable 10y ago
      Don't tell the DEA about "runner's high"!
- mindslight 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    [deleted]
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  Tobacco and alcohol are grandfathered in, basically. If they were newly introduced today, they'd probably never be allowed.
WiseWeasel 10y ago
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.
- deltaprotocol 10y ago
  > ...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?
- GordonS 10y ago
  > 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.
- lightbyte 10y ago
  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.
  - fizgig 10y ago
    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.
forloop 10y ago
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_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_2016#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...
- vidarh 10y ago
  > 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.
  - forloop 10y ago
    > 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).
byebyetech 10y ago
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.
AstralStorm 10y ago
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.
gragas 10y ago
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?
- lawless123 10y ago
  sounds a little like mdma , but less hyper
- Zelphyr 10y ago
  Also, it tastes like ass. Bigfoot's ass.
  - GordonS 10y ago
    No, it just tastes like bitter vegetation. Not pleasant, but there is worse (like Bigfoot's ass, for example :)
- evincarofautumn 10y ago
  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.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
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.
- facetube 10y ago
  The labelling subterfuge started when the FDA started seizing properly-labelled shipments. Broken feedback loops, forever.
- brandoncordell 10y ago
  > 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.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    > 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.
macinjosh 10y ago
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.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > 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.)
  - pmyjavec 10y ago
    This is true but they're not really banned, nor are they plants :)
    - mattstreet 10y ago
      So it's only plants that God made that are automatically safe?
    - mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
      Woah. You're right! Let's ban getting sick!
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      I think you'll find yourself in a lot of trouble if you try to collect and sell anthrax spores.
  - macinjosh 10y ago
    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.
dandare 10y ago
"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
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Then they'll catch an illegal shipment of adulterated kratom, and declare they were right all along - people are adulterating it after all!
Keverw 10y ago
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-that-public-comment-is-unnecessary-before-kratom-ban/#6ab29870388b http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea-argues...
pgt 10y ago
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?
- GordonS 10y ago
  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/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/ [2] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat& http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
  - pgt 10y ago
    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?
    - GordonS 10y ago
      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.
rdlecler1 10y ago
So the drug interacts badly with other drugs and causes seizures. It's not clear that this is sufficient. Some people die eating peanuts.
- wcummings 10y ago
  They should let the FDA do their job so the labeling is all up to snuff and leave it at that
samhunta 10y ago
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
- GordonS 10y ago
  > 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.
- Aeryale 10y ago
  Overdose is impossible
  - facetube 10y ago
    I ate 100 grams in a day once and all I got was precipitated withdrawal. It's not impossible (I suspect overdose would be easier with concentrates or lab-produced chemical), but with raw plant matter you're gonna need a bigger stomach.
alpineidyll3 10y ago
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
- GordonS 10y ago
  > 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).
  - 55555 10y ago
    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..
    - GordonS 10y ago
      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=jacsat& http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
      - 10y ago
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
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.
- GordonS 10y ago
  > 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.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    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/possible-interactions-with-st-johns-wort 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.
jostmey 10y ago
The US government will ban kratom but can't even bring itself to ban asbestos.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  I think asbestos is actually banned already?
noonespecial 10y ago
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.
- blinkingled 10y ago
  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 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.
  - cwmoo740 10y ago
    You do know that narconon is a scientology recruitment organization that targets drug addicts, right?
    - blinkingled 10y ago
      nope, did not know that, comment and learn!
- soundwave106 10y ago
  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.
mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
What makes me angry about all this is the way the DEA can interfere with the scientific method. The DEA can strangle research because of a lack of research; cannabis has been stuck in this idiot cycle now for upwards of half a century. It is supremely unproductive, wasteful in both a financial and human sense, and ultimately fails because plants dont care if they're illegal; they'll continue to grow somewhere (with Kratom, this is SE Asia where it's use is as common as coffee, even when countries like Thailand attempted to ban and destroy it) If Kratom becomes inaccessible in the US, the current opiod epidemic will become worse. And not only that, but people will go to prison and have their lives ruined by possessing Kratom. I wonder what the minimum sentencing will be for possessing the plant. Can growing it be considered a felony? What if I think the plant makes a nice hedge? 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.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  it's my opinion that nothing will change at the federal level until the baby boomers die. the propaganda is just too strong.
  - qrendel 10y ago
    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.

191 points by apsec112 10y ago

tomohawk 10y ago

Methodone clinics are big business.

douche 10y ago
Methadone itself also sounds like a huge racket. I'm not sure that once you've spiraled into addiction enough to need methadone, that you can eliminate that, rather than replace one substance with another.

Archio 10y ago

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.

RandomOpinion 10y ago
> 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?trendmd_shared=0 https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid-overdoses?...
- Archio 10y ago
  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-heroin-overdose-outbreak-20160829-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-he...
- znmwr 10y ago
  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.
  - Archio 10y ago
    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.
- facetube 10y ago
  Let's pull the ER stats for alcohol and compare.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Or they have different goals than the official ones. I's say it at least disproves any notion that their decisions are scientific.
malka 10y ago
One could believe that the DEA in on the pharmaceutical industry payroll.
- cwmoo740 10y ago
  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.
  - mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
    Thank goodness for MAPS. They're working to get MDMA therapy out to those veterans suffering from PTSD.

coding123 10y ago

Government overreach.

geomark 10y ago
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-thailand/ http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned-in...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

coding123 10y ago

37K signers already: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make...

scanman1 10y ago

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.

FireBeyond 10y ago
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."
- GordonS 10y ago
  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.
- sooheon 10y ago
  Once it's rushed into Schedule I, good luck getting it.
  - mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
    I guess you could always take a trip to Thailand...
    - 10y ago

wyager 10y ago

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.

bonniemuffin 10y ago

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/

oxide 10y ago

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.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago
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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tudorw 10y ago
  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.

jlj 10y ago

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-thinks-all-drugs-should-probably-be-legalized/ http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate-thin...

qrendel 10y ago
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.
- elktea 10y ago
  You guys really need preferential voting
- jlj 10y ago
  On this issue, he is the best person for the job. Voting for the best person for the job is never a protest vote.
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  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.

Synaesthesia 10y ago

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.

tudorw 10y ago
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...
- byebyetech 10y ago
  I think exercise also gives you high. Maybe they should ban people from doing it.
  - riskable 10y ago
    Don't tell the DEA about "runner's high"!
mindslight 10y ago
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 10y ago
  [deleted]
NoGravitas 10y ago
Tobacco and alcohol are grandfathered in, basically. If they were newly introduced today, they'd probably never be allowed.

WiseWeasel 10y ago

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.

deltaprotocol 10y ago
> ...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?
GordonS 10y ago
> 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.
lightbyte 10y ago
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.
- fizgig 10y ago
  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.

forloop 10y ago

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_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_2016#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...

vidarh 10y ago
> 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.
- forloop 10y ago
  > 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).

byebyetech 10y ago

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.

AstralStorm 10y ago

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.

gragas 10y ago

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?

lawless123 10y ago
sounds a little like mdma , but less hyper
Zelphyr 10y ago
Also, it tastes like ass. Bigfoot's ass.
- GordonS 10y ago
  No, it just tastes like bitter vegetation. Not pleasant, but there is worse (like Bigfoot's ass, for example :)
evincarofautumn 10y ago
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.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

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.

facetube 10y ago
The labelling subterfuge started when the FDA started seizing properly-labelled shipments. Broken feedback loops, forever.
brandoncordell 10y ago
> 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.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  > 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.

macinjosh 10y ago

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.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> 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.)
- pmyjavec 10y ago
  This is true but they're not really banned, nor are they plants :)
  - mattstreet 10y ago
    So it's only plants that God made that are automatically safe?
  - mighty_atomic_c 10y ago
    Woah. You're right! Let's ban getting sick!
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    I think you'll find yourself in a lot of trouble if you try to collect and sell anthrax spores.
- macinjosh 10y ago
  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.

dandare 10y ago

"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

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Then they'll catch an illegal shipment of adulterated kratom, and declare they were right all along - people are adulterating it after all!

Keverw 10y ago

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-that-public-comment-is-unnecessary-before-kratom-ban/#6ab29870388b http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea-argues...

pgt 10y ago

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?

GordonS 10y ago
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/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/ [2] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat& http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
- pgt 10y ago
  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?
  - GordonS 10y ago
    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.

rdlecler1 10y ago

So the drug interacts badly with other drugs and causes seizures. It's not clear that this is sufficient. Some people die eating peanuts.

wcummings 10y ago
They should let the FDA do their job so the labeling is all up to snuff and leave it at that

samhunta 10y ago

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

GordonS 10y ago
> 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.
Aeryale 10y ago
Overdose is impossible
- facetube 10y ago
  I ate 100 grams in a day once and all I got was precipitated withdrawal. It's not impossible (I suspect overdose would be easier with concentrates or lab-produced chemical), but with raw plant matter you're gonna need a bigger stomach.

alpineidyll3 10y ago

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

GordonS 10y ago
> 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).
- 55555 10y ago
  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..
  - GordonS 10y ago
    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=jacsat& http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
    - 10y ago

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

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.

GordonS 10y ago
> 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.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  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/possible-interactions-with-st-johns-wort 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.

jostmey 10y ago

The US government will ban kratom but can't even bring itself to ban asbestos.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
I think asbestos is actually banned already?

noonespecial 10y ago

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.

blinkingled 10y ago
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 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.
- cwmoo740 10y ago
  You do know that narconon is a scientology recruitment organization that targets drug addicts, right?
  - blinkingled 10y ago
    nope, did not know that, comment and learn!
soundwave106 10y ago
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.

mighty_atomic_c 10y ago

What makes me angry about all this is the way the DEA can interfere with the scientific method. The DEA can strangle research because of a lack of research; cannabis has been stuck in this idiot cycle now for upwards of half a century. It is supremely unproductive, wasteful in both a financial and human sense, and ultimately fails because plants dont care if they're illegal; they'll continue to grow somewhere (with Kratom, this is SE Asia where it's use is as common as coffee, even when countries like Thailand attempted to ban and destroy it) If Kratom becomes inaccessible in the US, the current opiod epidemic will become worse. And not only that, but people will go to prison and have their lives ruined by possessing Kratom. I wonder what the minimum sentencing will be for possessing the plant. Can growing it be considered a felony? What if I think the plant makes a nice hedge? 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.

beachstartup 10y ago
it's my opinion that nothing will change at the federal level until the baby boomers die. the propaganda is just too strong.
- qrendel 10y ago
  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.