10 ms·

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 ma

by 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.
  - archgoon 10y ago
    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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27178014
  - r_smart 10y ago
    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.
    - danblick 10y ago
      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).
      - r_smart 10y ago
        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.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > 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.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    Then why is it near impossible to study Marijuana?
    - elcct 10y ago
      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.
      - danblick 10y ago
        Poe's law?
        mattstreet 10y ago
        Here's the part that made his point clear: "in jail for life" - it's the law that causes the danger.
    - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
      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: 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)
- GordonS 10y ago
  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=jacsat http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
  - enkephalin 10y ago
    > 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?
    - GordonS 10y ago
      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.
    - philhartmanonic 10y ago
      That's fascinating, I've never heard of that before. Is it your throat that gets itchy?
      - pault 10y ago
- SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
  http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.12.003 http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.12.003
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  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.
bjackman 10y ago
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.
amelius 10y ago
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.
- p4mk 10y ago
  Actually, it will prohibit medical use, as the DEA is listing the chemicals in kratom as Schedule I.
  - mattstreet 10y ago
    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.
    - unclenoriega 10y ago
      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-reschedule-marijuana-and-why-its-unlikely-anytime-soon/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-resc...
  - sitkack 10y ago
    Because the DEA has done through scientific research to say the chemical has "no value". That is some impressive power.
ajamesm 10y ago
kratom:opiates :: vaping:cigarettes?
- soylentcola 10y ago
  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.
- oxide 10y ago
  Kratom:opiates :: coffee:stimulants
roflchoppa 10y ago
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.
facetube 10y ago
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.

by oxide 10y ago

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.
- archgoon 10y ago
  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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27178014
- r_smart 10y ago
  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.
  - danblick 10y ago
    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).
    - r_smart 10y ago
      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.
rdtsc 10y ago
> 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.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Then why is it near impossible to study Marijuana?
  - elcct 10y ago
    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.
    - danblick 10y ago
      Poe's law?
      - mattstreet 10y ago
        Here's the part that made his point clear: "in jail for life" - it's the law that causes the danger.
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    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: 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)
GordonS 10y ago
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=jacsat http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...
- enkephalin 10y ago
  > 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?
  - GordonS 10y ago
    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.
  - philhartmanonic 10y ago
    That's fascinating, I've never heard of that before. Is it your throat that gets itchy?
    - pault 10y ago
SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.12.003 http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.12.003
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
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.

bjackman 10y ago

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.

amelius 10y ago

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.

p4mk 10y ago
Actually, it will prohibit medical use, as the DEA is listing the chemicals in kratom as Schedule I.
- mattstreet 10y ago
  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.
  - unclenoriega 10y ago
    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-reschedule-marijuana-and-why-its-unlikely-anytime-soon/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-resc...
- sitkack 10y ago
  Because the DEA has done through scientific research to say the chemical has "no value". That is some impressive power.

ajamesm 10y ago

kratom:opiates :: vaping:cigarettes?

soylentcola 10y ago
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.
oxide 10y ago
Kratom:opiates :: coffee:stimulants

roflchoppa 10y ago

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.

facetube 10y ago

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.