Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday October 17 2016, @02:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the let-them-hear-your-voice dept.

The Washington Times reports [Link no longer available]

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] will hold off on a previously-announced ban of the herbal drug Kratom while soliciting additional input from the public and the Food and Drug Administration [FDA].

A DEA announcement in August that it planned to add the psychoactive compounds in Kratom to the list of Schedule I drugs[1] banned under the Controlled Substances Act drew outrage from individuals who believe the herbal supplement, which is derived from trees indigenous to Southeast Asia, can help individuals struggling with opioid addiction.

"Since publishing that notice, DEA has received numerous comments from members of the public challenging the scheduling action and requesting that the agency consider those comments and accompanying information before taking further action," states a notice[PDF] issued [October 12] by the DEA that it will withdraw its proposal to ban the substance.

[...] In addition to accepting public comments[2] on Kratom through December 1, the DEA has also asked for a scientific and medical evaluation of the drug by the FDA. [DEA spokesman Melvin] Patterson said the DEA initially asked for such an assessment in 2014, but never received the results and opted to go forward with the ban without the assessment.

[...] Susan Ash, who founded the American Kratom Association in 2014 to advocate for users of the drug, said [...] "We believe Kratom should not be scheduled in any way, shape or form," Ms. Ash said. "It's been consumed safely for decades in the U.S. and world-wide for millennium, so there is no impetus to make it a controlled substance."

[1] Claimed to have no legit medical value and a high potential for abuse (as Cannabis is classified)

[2] Their directions are in the PDF, which tells you to go to a ridiculous page which is driven by scripts and use the code Docket No. DEA-442W. It's as if they want to make it as difficult as possible to comment.

Previous: The Calm Before the Kratom Ban


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday October 17 2016, @05:30PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 17 2016, @05:30PM (#415277)

    Republicans suck. (So do Democrats, but this comment is about Republicans.) Those other departments are actually very useful: the EPA gives us clean cars so we don't smell car emissions the way we did back in the 70s and before, when cars were noticeably stinky and smog was a huge problem, much worse than today even though we have more cars now. The Department of the Interior gives us the best parks in the entire world. DOE makes sure we don't have a Chernobyl incident here. Commerce is a rather important part of our economy. But do these Republican morons ever propose eliminating the DEA? Nope. (To be fair, the Dems don't either.) That's one agency that, instead of doing something positive for the nation, only hurts the people and the economy, for no good reason. We spend a ridiculous amount of money imprisoning people for non-violent offenses, we create violence through prohibition (even though we should have learned that lesson back in the 20s during alcohol prohibition and all the violence that created), we ruin people's lives with criminal records and lengthy prison terms for stuff that never should have been criminalized at all, and instead should have been treated as a public health issue. Many other countries are finally figuring this out and legalizing non-harmful drugs (marijuana mainly) and decriminalizing others (treating them as public health problems, and providing treatment services to addicts to rehabilitate them), to great success. But out Republican (and many Democrat) politicians refuse to acknowledge any of this and continue to push for harsh penalties and criminalization.

    It's no wonder Trump is so popular. Our politicians on both sides are clearly out of touch with the people. Trump is no savior on this issue to be sure (honestly his positions on the issues are terrible; he's spouting a lot of populist talk but his policies are mostly the same-old-same-old "low taxes for the rich" and deregulation BS), but it's understandable that many voters are voting for him just to stick it to all the establishment politicians.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday October 17 2016, @05:50PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 17 2016, @05:50PM (#415287) Journal

    How can you be so anti capitalist? What you propose would empty out our 'for profit' prisons. Significant numbers of vacant cells would have substantial negative economic consequences. This would decrease executive bonuses and shareholder value.

    What we need is a system that balances the need to incarcerate enough people to keep the prisons full, while leaving enough of the population working in order to support the costs of operating the for profit prisons. Just ask any of the business people running the for profit prisons.

    One way of achieving this is with the help of our public education system. It needs to ensure that a percentage of graduates are destined to become inmates, while another percentage are destined to become productive workers.

    /sarc

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by VLM on Monday October 17 2016, @05:56PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 17 2016, @05:56PM (#415293)

      One way of achieving this is

      Hillary for Prison 2016

      Well, it would fill one cell. Or a couple I suppose, given how deep the corruption runs in the crime family.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday October 17 2016, @06:06PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday October 17 2016, @06:06PM (#415299) Journal

      Destroying commerce is the one I find especially strange. Shouldn't the pro-business party be in favor of commerce? Sounds awfully anti-business to want to eliminate that one. But I think I understand. They want to get rid of the referees so market players can cheat^h^h^h^h^h compete to the max.

      Maybe destroying the Dept. of Education helps grow the prison industry. Unfettered free markets and fettered high school dropouts! Prison, it's the new company town!

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 17 2016, @08:55PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 17 2016, @08:55PM (#415400)

        Exactly right on all counts.

        What's really awful is the choices we have in politics: we can either vote for the party that wants to destroy all these useful functions of government which keep this place from turning into an unregulated hellhole, or we can vote for the party that's up to its eyeballs in blatant corruption with its favored candidate (and worse, backs a lot of this crap too: Hillary's gotten a lot of "donations" from the private prison corporations, and the Dems in general haven't done much at all about drug decriminalization and legalization).

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 18 2016, @02:14PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 18 2016, @02:14PM (#415670) Journal

          If only we could have one party that was the best of both major parties with none of the bad.

          The fiscal thriftiness of the democrats, and the social progressiveness of the republicans.

          And the corruption of the democrats, and the corporate overlord deregulation of the republicans.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 17 2016, @05:54PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 17 2016, @05:54PM (#415289)

    The Department of the Interior

    I've heard they're the only department that runs a net profit because of international tourist bucks spent around the national parks. Its not much, but its a profit. Like it costs $20B to run DOI for a year but foreigners alone spend way more than that per month in the USA and when you multiply surveys of foreign travelers who claim they visit our national parks up against total trade figures the NPS causes enough foreigner money to get spent to run the entire DOI not just the national park service. I wonder if some of that is double counted entrance fees, which could be a problem.

    Like the royal family in England which supposedly runs a net profit due to anglophile tourism despite the royal family not being cheap.

    Frankly I think we're better off with the parks.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 17 2016, @08:52PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday October 17 2016, @08:52PM (#415397)

      Absolutely, if for no other reason than making our citizens happy and preserving a lot of natural areas and species. But the economic benefits are tangible too: that's great that the DOI is making an actual profit (something mostly unheard of in government outside of the IRS of course), but that doesn't count all the additional benefits to the local economies caused by those tourists: they buy airfare, they rent cars, they rent hotel rooms, they eat at restaurants, they shops at trinket shops, they pay for vacation packages and tour guides, etc. If we legalized marijuana, we'd have even more tourist money coming in! (Just look at Colorado's economy lately.)

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:58AM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:58AM (#415622)

        doesn't count all the additional benefits

        I was counting that, there's some trade or customs or treasury thing which I cannot find today that boiled down to foreigners on travel visa or admitted for travel purposes spend something like tens of billions per week and some survey that claimed X% of foreign visitors plan to visit a national park, some multiplying and there you go.

        I'd certainly agree with the expense. At glacier the cost of a car pass is increasing to $30. Assuming cars cost 50 cents/mile thats 60 miles. I'm orders of magnitude further away than 60 miles. Of course there's two amtrak stations, also not free, etc etc. I'd spend a lot of money on food nearby the park but thats just money I'd not be spending back home, so only the foreigners money counts. I don't want to sit in a car as my vacation for 20 hours nor do I want to pay a bazzilion bucks for mass transit options, so ...

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Monday October 17 2016, @10:41PM

    by Arik (4543) on Monday October 17 2016, @10:41PM (#415452) Journal
    "Republicans suck. (So do Democrats, but this comment is about Republicans.)"

    Well fair enough they do both suck, but your supporting points mostly fail to support.

    "the EPA gives us clean cars"

    The hell they do. The EPA provides cover to polluters, just as they were intended to.

    "DOE makes sure we don't have a Chernobyl incident here."

    No, they make sure that if we do no one important will take the fall for it.

    "Commerce is a rather important part of our economy."

    Exactly why it shouldn't be meddled with like that.

    Anyway, you're right of course, the DEA should be abolished, it's entire reason for being is to enforce unconstitutional laws.

    The BATF is another one to think about. I mean sure, you look at the name and think 'what could be more American than that?' But the sad thing is as long as they have existed they haven't done a darn thing I am aware of to make alcohol, tobacco, or firearms more easily accessible and inexpensive for US Citizens. In fact if I didn't know better I'd swear they were trying to do the opposite!

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?