3 ms·

I don't think there's anything wrong with selling Kratom, as long as you make it clear that it hasn't gone through clinical trials, has known side effects, etc.

by curi 19y ago

I don't think there's anything wrong with selling Kratom, as long as you make it clear that it hasn't gone through clinical trials, has known side effects, etc... And you do seem to be very conscientious about pointing those things out. So if customers aren't being misled, what could the problem possibly be? That other non-customers dislike your product and don't want anyone to have it? Fuck them. Someone commented saying we have drug trials for good reason, and you may be selling something unsafe. That person should not be in charge of other people's lives. Let your customers decide for themselves. Anyone who wants only officially regulated drugs is free to buy only those, and other people can make up their own mind about what is safe/cheap/tested/etc enough for them. If people prefer to buy your product then you are helping them by their own lights, so be proud.

inklesspen 19y ago
You might as well argue that there shouldn't be laws against fraud, because the would-be victims can make up their own mind about whether to participate in advance-fee scams (and lose their kids' college savings). For that matter, there shouldn't be laws against muggings! People can make up their own minds about whether to walk down a dark alley at night. Or maybe we care about other people and want to ensure that when someone claims product A provides desirable outcome X without also providing undesirable outcome Y, it actually does that thing. We have a right and, moreover, a responsibility to examine claims like the ones rms makes. They should be put to scientific test and if they are not substantiated, rms should be prohibited from making them. It is unconscionable to expect every individual prospective customer to make his own detailed evaluation. We are not in charge of other people's lives. We are merely looking out for the public welfare. For some of us this is merely a matter of morality, but for others, this is a solemn obligation they took on when they became members of the medical profession. For example, the UK General Medical Council lists the following in their Duties of a Doctor: - Make the care of your patient your first concern - Protect and promote the health of patients and the public - Act without delay if you have good reason to believe that you or a colleague may be putting patients at risk When a person like rms makes medical claims about a product, and the DEA offers information that suggests his claims are false, we have every right to demand that he either substantiate his claims in the accepted scientific way used in the drug industry (scientific drug trials) or shut up and go home.
- rms 19y ago
  I realize now that I have generated much more controversy than I would have if this was made clear, but kratom is sold on my website purely as "not for human consumption." All of the kratom sold in the USA is sold not for human consumption. As a plant that is neither a food, a drug, or a supplement, I am not allowed to sell kratom for human consumption, so I don't. My customers have all learned what kratom does from sources of information other than myself, which makes marketing very difficult. Rather than make my own claims for what kratom does (which I believe are true, but which I don't have more than anecdotal evidence for) I should have linked to the studies on Pubmed about animal testing with alkaloids of mitragyna speciosa. However, I stand by my claims and feel that they would hold up to scientific testing. Please, please finance such studies and test my claims. The DEA is completely wrong with regards to Kratom just like they are wrong about THC. They are not a reliable source.
  - inklesspen 19y ago
    You are a liar if you claim you are selling it "not for human consumption". The whole controversy that lead you to post this thread came about because you were advocating kratom as a substance for "chemically enhanced social interaction", saying it is "well suited to truly enhanced discussion". While your website claims it is not for human consumption, this is a dodge that likely won't help you very much if you ever get in trouble with the law. You know full well that people are buying it for use as a drug, and if you have been promoting it as such here, you likely have been promoting it as such elsewhere. As to your claims about the DEA, please provide scientifically verifiable evidence that the DEA is wrong in this case. Studies have been made and analyzed about THC; I'm not aware of any such studies of kratom.
    - curi 19y ago
      It seems blatantly obvious that rms has a positive opinion of kratom, but that he's selling it in the style of "use at your own risk and discretion". There's nothing dishonest about that.
      - 19y ago
michaelneale 19y ago
>That other non-customers dislike your product and don't want anyone to have it? Fuck them. You can apply that to many other "hater" type scenarios on the web. As soon as some technology comes out, there seem to be a greater number of haters who say its evil. Always seems to be out of proportion to the "positive" hype. if you don't like it, don't use it ! I don't understand the "hate" that seems to be everywhere.

by curi 19y ago

inklesspen 19y ago

You might as well argue that there shouldn't be laws against fraud, because the would-be victims can make up their own mind about whether to participate in advance-fee scams (and lose their kids' college savings). For that matter, there shouldn't be laws against muggings! People can make up their own minds about whether to walk down a dark alley at night. Or maybe we care about other people and want to ensure that when someone claims product A provides desirable outcome X without also providing undesirable outcome Y, it actually does that thing. We have a right and, moreover, a responsibility to examine claims like the ones rms makes. They should be put to scientific test and if they are not substantiated, rms should be prohibited from making them. It is unconscionable to expect every individual prospective customer to make his own detailed evaluation. We are not in charge of other people's lives. We are merely looking out for the public welfare. For some of us this is merely a matter of morality, but for others, this is a solemn obligation they took on when they became members of the medical profession. For example, the UK General Medical Council lists the following in their Duties of a Doctor: - Make the care of your patient your first concern - Protect and promote the health of patients and the public - Act without delay if you have good reason to believe that you or a colleague may be putting patients at risk When a person like rms makes medical claims about a product, and the DEA offers information that suggests his claims are false, we have every right to demand that he either substantiate his claims in the accepted scientific way used in the drug industry (scientific drug trials) or shut up and go home.

rms 19y ago
I realize now that I have generated much more controversy than I would have if this was made clear, but kratom is sold on my website purely as "not for human consumption." All of the kratom sold in the USA is sold not for human consumption. As a plant that is neither a food, a drug, or a supplement, I am not allowed to sell kratom for human consumption, so I don't. My customers have all learned what kratom does from sources of information other than myself, which makes marketing very difficult. Rather than make my own claims for what kratom does (which I believe are true, but which I don't have more than anecdotal evidence for) I should have linked to the studies on Pubmed about animal testing with alkaloids of mitragyna speciosa. However, I stand by my claims and feel that they would hold up to scientific testing. Please, please finance such studies and test my claims. The DEA is completely wrong with regards to Kratom just like they are wrong about THC. They are not a reliable source.
- inklesspen 19y ago
  You are a liar if you claim you are selling it "not for human consumption". The whole controversy that lead you to post this thread came about because you were advocating kratom as a substance for "chemically enhanced social interaction", saying it is "well suited to truly enhanced discussion". While your website claims it is not for human consumption, this is a dodge that likely won't help you very much if you ever get in trouble with the law. You know full well that people are buying it for use as a drug, and if you have been promoting it as such here, you likely have been promoting it as such elsewhere. As to your claims about the DEA, please provide scientifically verifiable evidence that the DEA is wrong in this case. Studies have been made and analyzed about THC; I'm not aware of any such studies of kratom.
  - curi 19y ago
    It seems blatantly obvious that rms has a positive opinion of kratom, but that he's selling it in the style of "use at your own risk and discretion". There's nothing dishonest about that.
    - 19y ago

michaelneale 19y ago

>That other non-customers dislike your product and don't want anyone to have it? Fuck them. You can apply that to many other "hater" type scenarios on the web. As soon as some technology comes out, there seem to be a greater number of haters who say its evil. Always seems to be out of proportion to the "positive" hype. if you don't like it, don't use it ! I don't understand the "hate" that seems to be everywhere.