The delivery method matters. It's not accurate to consider the dangers of kratom just by looking at the dangers of the active chemicals. One important differenc

The delivery method matters. It's not accurate to consider the dangers of kratom just by looking at the dangers of the active chemicals. One important difference is that when consuming the kratom leaf, you will get nauseous and throw up before you can overdose, assuming kratom is the only depressant you're taking. You talk about chemicals being "stronger" than others, but what that means is that it requires lower doses to achieve the same effect, not that its inherently more dangerous. My understanding is that mitrogynine opioids cause less respiratory depression than comparable levels of morphine. I think that there is a pharmaceutical product derived from some mitrogynine opioid that's prescribed because of its relatively low risk of making users stop breathing. I don't know what you mean by "serious drug", but why are you so keen to regulate something that doesn't have much evidence of causing damage? The purpose of regulation should not be to stop people from getting high. I'd prefer much less regulation of all drugs, but I can understand regulating for the sake of the collective good: to avoid public health crises, to limit the number of addicts who become burdens of the state. There isn't evidence that kratom is hurting the collective good though, so why limit people's freedom?