SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The blowback against the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's decision to ban kratom has caught the attention of a bipartisan group of legislators, but a DEA spokesman has said that "It's not a matter of if. It's simply a matter of when" the DEA bans kratom:
A bipartisan group of nine senators is calling on the Drug Enforcement Administration to delay its "unprecedented" decision to ban kratom, a plant that researchers say holds great potential for mitigating the effects of the opioid epidemic. [...] The Senate letter, spearheaded by Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) says: "Congress granted emergency scheduling authority to the DEA based on the need for law enforcement interdiction of new and previously unknown illegal synthetic street drugs that result in injuries and death. The use of this emergency authority for a natural substance is unprecedented, so it is important to determine whether the circumstances here necessitate a jump to Schedule I.
"Given the long reported history of Kratom use," the letter continues, "coupled with the public's sentiment that it is a safe alternative to prescription opioids, we believe using the regular review process would provide for a much-needed discussion among all stakeholders." [...] The DEA cites 600-plus poison-control center calls involving kratom between 2010 and 2015 in its justification for banning the plant, and notes that 15 deaths were linked to the use of the plant between 2014 and 2016. In an interview with The Washington Post, a DEA spokesman later clarified that all but one of those fatalities involved the use of other substances. Earlier this week 51 U.S. representatives similarly called on the DEA and the White House to reconsider or at least delay the ban, which was slated to go into effect as early as Friday. In an interview, DEA spokesman Russell Baer confirmed that the ban was not yet in place. "We have not yet determined a date when we will publish that final order" putting the ban into effect, he said.
There may be a public comment period before the ban takes effect, and the White House is now obligated to respond to the petition about kratom, which has reached over 140,000 signatures.
Text of the Senators' letter. Also at Ars Technica, CBS, and US News & World Report.
Previously: DEA Welcomes Kratom to the Schedule I List Beginning September 30
Heroin, Fentanyl? Meh: Carfentanil is the Latest Killer Opioid
Alcohol Industry Bankrolls Fight Against Legal Pot in Battle of the Buzz [Updated]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:14PM
Not too far in the future: It is a pest for government control and corporate profits, that a simple thing called nature is allowed to interfere. That can not stand. We, the people, demand that nature will cease and desist in producing products out of control and without profit.
Hyperbole? Well, maybe not. Maybe soon only large corporations will "own" the majority of the food producing plants. Time to ban the free alternatives because "they assist in the cure of hunger"... So, they qualify for medical treatment (hunger) and must therefore be controlled. I do not want to live in this world anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:20PM
You are way off base. Let this receive the safety and scientific scrutiny it should, but it is because of corporate influence that it can sail along making any claims it wants, and is not subject to ANY scrutiny for its safety, all because it is a "natural" supplement. It is you suckers who think "all natural" is not only superior, but actually means something. Given the supplement industry, statistically it means "placebo". Anything with beneficial efficacy is far in the minority here.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:29PM
Putting it on Schedule I prevents anyone from growing it in their own home for their own use.
It clearly has a painkiller effect, and medical science does look at anecdotal reports when evaluating drugs (just as the DEA is as part of their justification for banning it).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday October 01 2016, @07:29PM
How about they just have to actually prove harm before banning it? Is that too much to ask?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday October 01 2016, @08:03PM
What? The harm is out there for everyone to see man! Will nobody think of the lost profits for the pharmaceutical industries?!
We just can't have some natural plant take over opiate markets like an invasive species. Perhaps, when Kratom is studied more and can be monetized we will re-discover its medical properties. On another note, if we deregulate all the drugs how will the DEA continue to survive and provide jobs? How will local law enforcement be able to mass seize property to raise funds to continue to fight the scourge that is self-help medical?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @10:28PM
This has nothing to do with the "lost profits of the pharmaceutical industries" and everything to do with the "lost profits of the dietary supplement industry".
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:02AM
schedule 1 bans all research, so this move is preventing pharmaceutical companies from monetizing it as well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:15AM
Not entirely true, but it does make it harder [soylentnews.org]:
The DEA approves the cannabis studies and controls the supply, so you could easily see how they could pick and choose researchers more likely to conform to their backwards views or do scarier studies starting from a point of studying cannabis "abuse".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @11:10PM
This stuff affects your mind, and it's not an upper like nicotine or caffeine. People using such substances tend to crash cars, causing death and other damage.
Pointing at alcohol is no excuse; we partially legalized that one because everybody was ignoring the laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @11:29PM
Uh, citation?
Unless you just said that we should ban all prescription painkillers.
That I wouldn't have a problem with.
But be fucking consistent, asshole.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @11:48PM
I have felt intense, extended duration pain before. If a human were to be the direct cause of such pain for me, I would not hesitate to kill that human as quickly as possible, and precious few other humans would object to my doing so.
In that same logical thread, should I be in great pain, and effective painkillers be available, but a third party insists I not be provided with the painkillers using the threat of lethal force to enforce their decision, I do not see how that third party is not directly culpable for my great pain in the same manner as if they were directly causing the pain themselves.
I am a hair's breadth away from considering the mass killing of DEA agents (starting at/near the top and working on down) to be justifiable homicide.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:05AM
And everyone ignores the drug prohibition laws too, so why aren't they being repealed? Oh right, they're intentionally not enforcing drug laws when it comes to whites [bennorton.com], but drug laws give them an excuse to throw the book at uppity niggers.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:15AM
Drug "law"enforcement hits white-skinned folk, too, but you are quite correct that one of two primary targets for the illegal War on Drugs was and is black-skinned folk.
Nixon Invented the Drug War to Decimate Hippies and Black People, Former Adviser Confesses [reason.com]
Legalize It All - How to win the war on drugs (source) [harpers.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @02:19AM
when it comes to whites
Rich whites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday October 02 2016, @02:22AM
Let this receive the safety and scientific scrutiny it should
I don't mind scrutiny or education campaigns, but when you suggest that government thugs should arrest people for ingesting and/or possessing substances like this, you become an enemy of freedom.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday October 02 2016, @11:33AM
you are way off base: do i own my own body or not ? ? ?
IF i do (and i think we should), THEN it stands to reason i can put whatever i want in my body whenever i want for whatever reasons i want...
otherwise, that is the very definition of a nanny-state...
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Sunday October 02 2016, @09:40PM
Sadly, according to many legal standards, you do not own your body. This is the legal reasoning behind why it is a crime to commit suicide (yes, you can be arrested if you try to commit suicide and fail). The same justification can be used for laws against taking drugs while selling drugs can be considered a violation of the commerce clause. I highly disagree with this principle but, it is how laws are currently applied. Disclaimer: I took classes but, I am not a lawyer.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @11:21PM
Don't want to live?
Careful there citizen. It is illegal to die from non-natural means til we at least have enough robots to replace you. And then if you are not able to work due to fewer jobs you may die of starvation. Thank you for your support citizen. Good day.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:15PM
That guy has been in bed with the "dietary supplement" lobby for decades. He is a large part of the reason the FDA was gutted of all power [scienceblogs.com] to regulate the supplement industry. His family personally profits [nytimes.com] from the fake drug industry. He being the spokesman for this only reinforces in my mind that the DEA is right on this topic. Guarantee that Hatch is getting nice campaign contributions for this, and people close to him will be getting richer as well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:16PM
Hatch... along with:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:20PM
As well as 51 members of the House of Representatives in a separate letter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Saturday October 01 2016, @08:33PM
No. NOTHING should be on schedule 1. I can understand arguments for restricting some drugs, though they tend to go overboard in a massive power grab, but schedule 1 should be abolished.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Saturday October 01 2016, @11:14PM
kratom is most certainly not part of his herbal supplement regime.
Perhaps one can read up on it? He may smell an opportunity; Kratom has mostly been underground if perhaps an open secret, but it's not like you can get it at GNC or the grocery store's vitamin aisle. Not yet, anyway.
How they can conclude it has no medical use or benefit and then simutaneously seek to classify it to prevent research into it to determine if that is the case, certainly is self-fulfilling of a prophecy. Mr. Hatch would be seeking a self-profiting pharmacy; it is not always bad to play such interests against one another.
For people that have found a use for Kratom, it could be a way that they are able to continue purchasing it. Looking at the various places posting about it, it seems that more people signed the petition than has been done for medical marijuana (although I do not know if thats in total or just in a given scenario--this being the first one for Kratom).
Even if it is only higher in some context rather than all of them, it is important -- there are regular people writing in about this. Look at some of the youtube videos about it--middle aged women who are not your typical thrill seekers are pleading that this is left alone.
Sounds to me like something of value may be in those leaves... and it also sounds to me that the Martin Shrekli's of the world (or whatever his name is) are circling sharks. No way to profit if it's cheap and grows on trees... better limit the supply to control the distrubution to a growing demand...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @12:33AM
For those who are curious:
https://www.erowid.org/ [erowid.org]
https://www.erowid.org/plants/kratom/kratom.shtml [erowid.org]
take the "experiences" area(s) with a grain of salt though
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 02 2016, @12:57AM
600 poison control center calls in 5 years and a mere 15 deaths in 2 years? thats several orders of magnitude safer than tylenol, and tens or hundreds of orders of magnitude safer than alcohol. why aren't those being banned, considering they're both significantly more dangerous and toxic than kratom? or mdma, or psylocibin, or mescaline, or lsd, etc. fucking pieces of shit don't give a shit about public safety or saving lives, their entire fucking job is to destroy lives and shred the constitution. its surprising to see so much of congress speaking up though. past examples prove that no matter how much medical evidence is provided, once the DEA decides to put something on schedule 1 nothign will change their minds period (see mdma for a prominent example), but if anyone can stop these haters of freedom and human rights, its the people who can shut down their whole agency, congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @02:28AM
I don't even know where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the authority to arbitrarily ban drugs, let alone without a specific act of congress! The commerce clause was never designed to give the government power over all interstate commerce (Let alone activities that take place entirely within one state and might not even be commerce at all!), but to stop states from interfering with the interstate commerce of other states. There's nowhere in the Constitution that says that congress can cede its lawmaking powers to the agencies it creates, either, so this is truly a bizarre situation. The government is violating the highest law of the land on a massive scale, and many normal people I talk to about this scoff at the idea that the government's actions are unconstitutional. We've had entire generations of people believing that the notion that the federal government only has the powers specifically given to it by the Constitution is now somehow null and void.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 02 2016, @05:34AM
Authoritarian enforcement agency explores new vectors for enforcing it's authority - more news at 11:00.