25 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoThere 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 agoThe 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 agoOverdose 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.
- ingenium 19y agoI think it's assumed by this point that a pregnant woman should not take any drug while pregnant. You would have to be an idiot to even think otherwise. We do know that there are no long term effects, at least not those that the FDA would discover during their test. Kratom has been used for centuries in Southeast Asia. If it was causing serious harmful long-term effects, these people would have figured it out by now.
- curi 19y agoThat's not true at all, they could very easily use something harmful for centuries and not figure it out. That's what science is for: without it, it's extraordinarily easy to fool yourself, or not notice things.
- drmed 19y ago> I think it's assumed by this point that a pregnant woman should not take any drug while pregnant. You would have to be an idiot to even think otherwise. No, you are the idiot. Of course women take drugs while they are pregnant. > We do know that there are no long term effects, at least not those that the FDA would discover during their test. How do you know this, if it was never tested? > Kratom has been used for centuries in Southeast Asia. If it was causing serious harmful long-term effects, these people would have figured it out by now. Oh, yeah, that's proof alright. Why not send this to Lancet while you are at it. Dude, shut up.
- rms 19y agoPersonal attacks make everyone look dumber.