Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 127 posts

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#31

Post by chillacy »

clock_tower wrote: post #15
wtbob wrote: post #12

> 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.

Turns out jailing addicts, even those addicted to hard drugs, has ugly consequences for its users and society as a whole too.

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#32

Post by csours »

cmdrfred wrote: post #21
WhitneyLand wrote: post #14

I don't agree with the ban, but it seems like the risks of kratom are not discussed, and in fact even downplayed by saying hey, it's just a plant. 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 "natur…

In medicine, you have to show a drug is more effective (or as effective) and is as safe as existing drugs for a purpose in order to get FDA approval. Why not take a similar stance on drugs for recreational purposes? If it is as safe or safer than alcohol or tobacco, approve it.

I upvoted you for adding to the discussion.

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#33

Post by maxander »

Really the problem is that scheduling a drug makes it illegal (or at least, incredibly difficult) to do research on. I'm not a fan of drug regulation either, but even considering the standpoint of those that are, letting these things be responsibly handled by professional medical development scientists sounds like a win-win situation.

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#35

Post by btym »

Bud wrote: post #22

Bad edit of the headline; very bad. Makes it appear to mean the opposite of what is intended. Original headline was: "The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant after the Internet got really mad" See the problem?

It's not even grammatically correct. The original headline was fine.

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#36

Post by Veratyr »

I'm not American so forgive me if this is a silly question but isn't/shouldn't the responsibility for evaluating the safety and approval of foods and drugs belong to the FDA?

Isn't the DEA being in charge of this like the FBI passing laws?

Why does the DEA have this power?

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#38

Post by djsumdog »

wtbob wrote: post #12

> 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…

It's interesting because this gets into the entire "Do you have a right to your own body?" debate.

Just a side note: just because things are natural/plants doesn't mean they won't kill you. There are a ton of poisonous mushrooms out there for instance.

But anyway, if you want to eat poisonous mushrooms, you should be able to right? Should you be able to kill yourself? Do you have a right to what happens to your body after you die? Who..owns your body?

There are a ton of great articles out there on all of those questions and they all get into really weird grey legal areas. Have phun.

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#39

Post by deathanatos »

btym wrote: post #35
Bud wrote: post #22

Bad edit of the headline; very bad. Makes it appear to mean the opposite of what is intended. Original headline was: "The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant after the Internet got really mad" See the problem?

It's not even grammatically correct. The original headline was fine.

I think it's still grammatically correct. "withdraw" can be a verb; in this form it would be interpreted to mean "to leave from a place" (e.g., "the troops are withdrawing"). However, the title, as currently written, certainly doesn't mean what it was intended to mean.

I.e., the way I'm parsing it is "(the DEA is leaving/retreating (to where isn't specified); once there, they're going to ban another plant); this occurred after the Internet got mad."

Re: The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry

#40

Post by metaphorm »

Veratyr wrote: post #36

I'm not American so forgive me if this is a silly question but isn't/shouldn't the responsibility for evaluating the safety and approval of foods and drugs belong to the FDA? Isn't the DEA being in charge of this like the FBI passing laws? Why does the DEA have this power?

> Why does the DEA have this power?

Because Richard Nixon hated hippies and wanted to set up a nearly unaccountable police agency to persecute them. I'm not kidding and only exaggerating a little bit.

Post reply on HN