3 ms·

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 adva

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.
    - inklesspen 19y ago
      There certainly is something dishonest about saying "I am not selling product X for purpose Y" when every time we see him promote product X, he is discussing it in the context of purpose Y.
  - ingenium 19y ago
    The DEA never made any claims that it WAS harmful. They provide no evidence for this. All they claim is that it has "no medical uses" and use this to justify making it a controlled/illegal substance. Alcohol, however, is the worst drug you could do other than methamphetamine. It is quite literally a poison. It is impossible to overdose on THC. How many other drugs, legal or illegal, can the same be said for?
    - inklesspen 19y ago
      Overdose is not the only factor to consider. What about cancer? Birth defects if a pregnant woman uses it? Neurological effects? These are the things that a scientific drug test is designed to discover. Without a properly designed scientific test, you cannot claim there are no harmful long-term effects. You simply don't know.
curi 19y ago
There is no fraud involved in selling Kratom, nor any force. rms is not making misleading medical claims, he's been clear it hasn't passed rigorous scientific standards.
- inklesspen 19y ago
  "Would kratom be ok if I was a pharmaceutical company and I told you that Kratom could help you lose weight, be happy, and be more productive? It is an incredibly viable alternative to oxycontin for pain management. How about as an alternative to SSRIs/Benzodiazepines as an anti-depressant/anti-anxiety medication? How about that kratom can seriously enhance productivity, more so than caffeine but less so than amphetamine and with fewer side effects than either? Disclaimer: Kratom can cause nausea, itching, and constipation, just like other opiates. Like other opiates, it can seriously potentiate other pharmaceuticals and you should ask your doctor if kratom is right for you." If you don't recognize where that came from, just look up at the top of the thread. I'd like you to point out the part where he admits he has no scientific evidence for any of his claims. Moreover, if you're making medical claims for which you have no scientific evidence, you have no way of knowing if you're making misleading claims or not. He has a responsibility to his customers, and he is not fulfilling it.

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.
  - inklesspen 19y ago
    There certainly is something dishonest about saying "I am not selling product X for purpose Y" when every time we see him promote product X, he is discussing it in the context of purpose Y.
- ingenium 19y ago
  The DEA never made any claims that it WAS harmful. They provide no evidence for this. All they claim is that it has "no medical uses" and use this to justify making it a controlled/illegal substance. Alcohol, however, is the worst drug you could do other than methamphetamine. It is quite literally a poison. It is impossible to overdose on THC. How many other drugs, legal or illegal, can the same be said for?
  - inklesspen 19y ago
    Overdose is not the only factor to consider. What about cancer? Birth defects if a pregnant woman uses it? Neurological effects? These are the things that a scientific drug test is designed to discover. Without a properly designed scientific test, you cannot claim there are no harmful long-term effects. You simply don't know.

curi 19y ago

There is no fraud involved in selling Kratom, nor any force. rms is not making misleading medical claims, he's been clear it hasn't passed rigorous scientific standards.

inklesspen 19y ago
"Would kratom be ok if I was a pharmaceutical company and I told you that Kratom could help you lose weight, be happy, and be more productive? It is an incredibly viable alternative to oxycontin for pain management. How about as an alternative to SSRIs/Benzodiazepines as an anti-depressant/anti-anxiety medication? How about that kratom can seriously enhance productivity, more so than caffeine but less so than amphetamine and with fewer side effects than either? Disclaimer: Kratom can cause nausea, itching, and constipation, just like other opiates. Like other opiates, it can seriously potentiate other pharmaceuticals and you should ask your doctor if kratom is right for you." If you don't recognize where that came from, just look up at the top of the thread. I'd like you to point out the part where he admits he has no scientific evidence for any of his claims. Moreover, if you're making medical claims for which you have no scientific evidence, you have no way of knowing if you're making misleading claims or not. He has a responsibility to his customers, and he is not fulfilling it.