SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @03:37PM
The "ridiculous page which is driven by scripts" is basically the kind of page that 99% of people encounter every day, and they have no problems using such pages. Because it is hard for you with script blockers and such enabled doesn't mean that they are intentionally trying to make it tough.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Monday October 17 2016, @03:46PM
If there were no deep links I'd have some sympathy, however visiting https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DEA-2016-0015-0006 [regulations.gov] brings up a page which has an overview, a link to the "original printed format", a link to "comment now", and a link to related comments.
It looks like an amazingly competent website for a large organisation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @04:21PM
Regardless of what 99% of people want, these scripts make the site inaccessible. I can't use the site, because I don't run scripts. Anyone with a screenreader has very incomplete javascript support, if any. It doesn't matter if 99% of people like dynamic script content, because the few people who can't run scripts are completely justified in refusing to run them, and should not (and cannot legally) be disenfranchised like this.
There are laws preventing governments from doing this type of thing, but nobody follows them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @05:03PM
You can always file a complaint with the DOJ for most places. I've had fairly good results doing that. But one thing to note, the vast majority of the ADA doesn't actually apply to the Federal Government. And I don't mean in the "they just ignore the laws they don't like" sort of way; I mean in a literal "the law doesn't mention them" sort of way.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 17 2016, @05:36PM
Javascript should be only for web applications. Not for web sites.
Web 'sites' should have graceful degradation.
One of the presidential candidates, I won't name names, but who regularly degrades women; whoever he or she is, would like to learn about graceful degradation.
Would a Dyson sphere [soylentnews.org] actually work?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday October 17 2016, @06:39PM
Which screenreader stumbles on that site? Jaws works fine.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @05:49PM
You might not consider it a problem, but some do. [fsf.org] I consider the government's use of proprietary software to be completely unacceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @08:18PM
Maybe Lincoln should have been more specific and said "Government for ALL the people".
If your web page doesn't DEGRADE GRACEFULLY, such that it can be read using lynx, your page is BROKEN.
S/N, as an example, works completely for me and, by default, I block everything except readable text.
THAT is the way a site -should- work.
...and I've mentioned before that we have at least one Soylentil who is blind. [soylentnews.org]
I like it when what I point to is accessible to ALL Soylentils.
So, thanks for letting us know that the world revolves around YOU and that YOU should be arbiter of what is proper.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @01:51AM
they have no problems
...apart from getting pwned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @07:38AM
It's even harder for people without script blockers. As proven by how often their PCs stop working even though they have five anti-virus programs and 3 malware scanners, while paying for at least half of them.