SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Kratom, an herbal drug made of ground-up tree leaves, is "temporarily" joining other natural substances such as cannabis, psilocybin, and peyote on the schedule I list of the Controlled Substances Act. The active ingredients in kratom, the indole alkaloids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, are both being added to the list for up to three years, after which they can be added permanently.
Prior to this move, the U.S. has already been seizing shipments of kratom:
In 2014, the FDA issued an import alert that allowed US Customs agents to detain kratom without a physical examination. "We have identified kratom as a botanical substance that could pose a risk to public health and have the potential for abuse," said Melinda Plaisier, the FDA's associate commissioner for regulatory affairs. According to the DEA, between February 2014 and July 2016, nearly 247,000 pounds of kratom were seized.
Advocates say that kratom is a natural treatment for opioid addiction, an application that the Drug Enforcement Agency dismisses. Meanwhile, the heroin/opioid epidemic continues with "unprecedented" events like the recent 174 heroin overdoses in just six days in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Check out the implosion of this kratom subreddit, which is attempting to get 100,000 signatures on the White House petition site:
APATHY WILL GET US NOWHERE. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME FOR US TO BAND TOGETHER, ITS NOW. stand with me brothers and sisters. hope is not lost.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @12:49PM
This is only relevant if the herbs actually do help with addiction therapy. Because there is a problem with opiate addiction doesn't mean that is a green light to any substance that says it can treat it. We went through those pains when the 1996 dietary supplements act was passed and a flood of crap claims came onto the market (St. John's wort, echinacea, etc.).
Might as well throw in a "think of the children" sentence there too.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday September 01 2016, @01:17PM
True. Has there been any proof of harm so far though? This seems like the same frap that happened with Cannabis.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 01 2016, @03:11PM
proof of harm is only relevant for classification as schedule 1, not for legality. Any recommendations for use for medical purposes is illegal without approval by the FDA.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday September 01 2016, @03:22PM
I'm not talking about any claimed medical uses. I don't think that's the DEA's area anyway, it's the FDA. Basically, the DEA is making this drug illegal because ... they feel like it? Has there actually been any harm proven?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 01 2016, @05:01PM
Yes and it was the FDA that sent out a bulletin that it wasn't approved for use in the US and should be impounded when found. The DEA was founded several years after the act that created this scheduling was.
Also, the burden of proof here is on people that are trying to sell this stuff to demonstrate that it's safe and effective for use. This was the result of the previous system where people were allowed to bottle whatever they liked, make whatever claims about it they liked and people got sick and died as a result.
I personally like knowing that if I'm taking something or eating something that it's established to be at least a little bit safe rather than being a complete unknown.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday September 01 2016, @07:23PM
Isn't this just a frikkin' plant?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 01 2016, @08:03PM
Schedule I does a lot more than prevent some overseas people from shipping you some potentially dangerous drugs. It also prevents you from legally growing it in your own home, on your own terms. No tree leaves for you!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 01 2016, @06:27PM
Apparently, the only deaths linked to kratom involved other substances.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @02:21PM
St. John's Wort
While nowhere near as effective as say, kanna, St. John's Wort really does work for depression.
If we are to be honest, Kratom may or may not be effective against opiate addiction. One thing is for sure though it certainly is competition to the drug cartel, who specialise in both legal opiates and street heroin, that currently run the government of the United States of America. That's the real reason for the scheduling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @02:42PM
Do you have a reference?
In the case of depression, the study should be double-blind and randomized with a placebo control or it will not be convincing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @03:11PM
Please learn to use the internet. Multiple references are a single search away. And for anything, you really need to review multiple references as you can always find a reference to support the opinion you want. Find some references for the claim and some against the claim, then read them and come to whichever conclusion you want.
From Wikipedia:
Studies have supported the efficacy of St John's wort as a treatment for depression in humans.[5][15] A 2015 meta-analysis review concluded that it has superior efficacy to placebo in treating depression; is as effective as standard antidepressant pharmaceuticals for treating depression; and has fewer adverse effects than other antidepressants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @05:39PM
Please learn to use the internet. Multiple references are a single search away.
You must be new here. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
hypericum extracts are effective for the treatment of acute depression, but effects when compared with placebo were modest in size. With 40% of patients responding to placebo, an odds ratio of 1.69 (as found for SSRIs) would mean that 53% of patients receiving an antidepressant respond.
St. John's wort seems to be somewhat effective (which meets the low bar of most other anti-depressants).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof [wikipedia.org]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25583895 [nih.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @10:27PM
We are not talking in person hundreds of years ago. It is trivial to pick out a minor mistake and twist that to invalid anyone's claim or miss a mistake through simple ignorance of the domain. By looking for the proof yourself, you learn far more of the subject area and can make a more accurate assessment if those minor mistakes matter. For example, I could quote that Slashdot article on tabs vs spaces. But if you never look into it yourself you won't realize the researchers never took into account that it takes multiple spaces to replace one tab. If you read their paper, you won't notice the mistake. If you read a few other studies, one of them is likely to mention that issue and then you'll know the first one's conclusions are invalid. You can never trust someone's citation, you always need to find them yourself. That couldn't be done 2000 years ago.
Nowadays with a global internet available, the person making the claim only needs to give you enough info for you to find out for yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:14PM
But if you never look into it yourself
If you read their paper, you won't notice the mistake.
I asked for the reference so I could look into the claim. If I am unable to evaluate the claim myself (due to lack of expertise), then I'd be satisfied by multiple reputable sources (these I'd find myself).
Nowadays with a global internet available, the person making the claim only needs to give you enough info for you to find out for yourself.
You are so very wrong here.
On the internet, there are plenty of people that are disingenuous in the claims and questions they make. There are many people that will move the goalposts or dismiss the references you find as not being good enough.
The burden of proof is even more important on the internet, since you have no real way of knowing if the person is a disingenuous crackpot/expert/troll/dog/bot/etc.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday September 01 2016, @09:59PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/08/10/u-s-affirms-its-prohibition-on-medical-marijuana/ [washingtonpost.com]
Schedule I is a great way to stifle research that would be able to nail down the benefits and dangers of a drug like kratom.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]