11–20 of 127 posts
Having written that, I don't believe it. But on the other hand . . .
Why do we even need a regulatory framework? It's a plant: let people grow it if they want; let them ingest it if they want. Heck, let them crush the eaves and smear them all over their bodies while singing, 'Happy days are here again!' if that's what they want. That's what freedom is about: letting folks do their thing.
I read the title as, "The DEA is withdrawing to another planet after the Internet got really mad"
To help me be an informed reader I would like WaPo to mention:
1) If you search kratom withdrawal there are a ton of anecdotal reports that sound pretty unpleasant if not debilitating.
2) What is the frequency of severe side effects, as best as can be known?
3) That "natural" substances or "plants" are not always safe. This misconception is so common and dangerous it shouldn't be used to mock the ban (real logic will suffice). https://web.stanford.edu/~jpc/overture.htm
There are plenty of valid reasons to argue against a ban. For example the chill on research, the low rate of fatalities, the likelihood it will make use more dangerous, and the probability a ban would have no net benefits.
> Unfortunately, in the United States I don't think we have a good regulatory framework for handling this situation Why do we even need a regulatory framework? It's a plant: let people grow it if they want; let them ingest it if they want. Heck, let them crush the eaves and smear them all over their bodies while singing, 'Happy days are here again!' if that's what they want. That's what freedom is about: letting folk…
Paranoid speculation: The DEA was given a secret brief to ban a substance that would help addicts withdraw from an addiction. Consider who actually benefits from this ban: Various policing powers, and drug cartels, who depend on addicts staying that way. Having written that, I don't believe it. But on the other hand . . .
"Researchers say that their work with kratom could eventually lead to the development of nonaddictive alternatives to powerful opiate painkillers. Placing kratom in schedule 1 would cripple researchers ability to study the drug, they say."
Paranoid speculation: The DEA was given a secret brief to ban a substance that would help addicts withdraw from an addiction. Consider who actually benefits from this ban: Various policing powers, and drug cartels, who depend on addicts staying that way. Having written that, I don't believe it. But on the other hand . . .
> Unfortunately, in the United States I don't think we have a good regulatory framework for handling this situation Why do we even need a regulatory framework? It's a plant: let people grow it if they want; let them ingest it if they want. Heck, let them crush the eaves and smear them all over their bodies while singing, 'Happy days are here again!' if that's what they want. That's what freedom is about: letting folk…
The hard drugs have ugly consequences for their users, and for their society as a whole. Look at how the Japanese in WWII legalized all drugs in China, and made heroin, in particular, cheap and easily available; they wanted to corrode the substance of Chinese civil society, and they did.
> Unfortunately, in the United States I don't think we have a good regulatory framework for handling this situation Why do we even need a regulatory framework? It's a plant: let people grow it if they want; let them ingest it if they want. Heck, let them crush the eaves and smear them all over their bodies while singing, 'Happy days are here again!' if that's what they want. That's what freedom is about: letting folk…
The hard drugs have ugly consequences for their users, and for their society as a whole. Look at how the Japanese in WWII legalized all drugs in China, and made heroin, in particular, cheap and easily available; they wanted to corrode the substance of Chinese civil society, and they did.
I wonder if we could get weed legalized if we just started calling the DEA about it all the time.