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

41–50 of 127 posts

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

#41

Post by vt240 »

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?

Our law makers have delegated many of their powers, under the constitution, to administrative organizations.

There are lots of good arguments for and against this, but it is the primary reason why presidential elections are so important in the USA.

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

#42

Post by deathanatos »

vt240 wrote: post #41
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?

Our law makers have delegated many of their powers, under the constitution, to administrative organizations. There are lots of good arguments for and against this, but it is the primary reason why presidential elections are so important in the USA.

Right. And I think the parent asked a really good question: isn't the power of regulating what foods and drugs are safe for the populace to consume a responsibility that was delegated to the USFDA, not the DEA?

If the DEA does have this power … isn't there overlap between the FDA and the DEA?

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

#43

Post by ced_vdb »

metaphorm wrote: post #40
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.

Is there anything in favor of the war on drugs ? I heard portugal made every drug legal and the amount of addicts has plumeted.

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

#44

Post by vt240 »

deathanatos wrote: post #42
vt240 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our law makers have delegated many of their powers, under the constitution, to administrative organizations. There are lots of good arguments for and against this, but it is the primary reason why presidential elections are so important in the USA.

Right. And I think the parent asked a really good question: isn't the power of regulating what foods and drugs are safe for the populace to consume a responsibility that was delegated to the USFDA, not the DEA? If the DEA does have this power … isn't there overlap between the FDA and the DEA?

I believe the DEA is part of the Justice Department and serves the executive branch.

The FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, also serving the executive branch.

Sorry, I don't know, but it is a good question, about what policy determines, which department is responsible for what.

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

#45

Post by [deleted] »

tracker1 wrote: post #18
clock_tower wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the flip side, this drug and marajuana have marginal negative affects beyond being reactionally impared, which being very tired can also do. Are they going to outlaw being awake for more than 20 hours next?

[deleted]

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

#46

Post by sctb »

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.

The article's original title needed editing to fix within the length limits, so the edited title from the submitter was likely just an accident or minor mistake. We've just updated it to clarify.

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

#47

Post by tormeh »

cshimmin wrote: post #29
ajmurmann wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and they seem to be doing very well with it and have very few drug overdose related deaths. They have [3 deaths per million citizens]( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-h... ). I wouldn't be surprised if we had more drug enforcement related deaths in the US.

Portugal is also a _much_ smaller country, with less wealth inequality and systematic racial/socioeconomic divisions related to crime, poverty, drug use, etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't relax the drug laws in the US, but I don't think it's fair to assume that just because it works in Portugal it would work just as well here.

Yes, but now you have to show why it won't work in the US.

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

#48

Post by rms »

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?

The DEA has the power to schedule newly developed, dangerous synthetic drugs without immediate congressional oversight, the idea being that chemists can design and bring to market new, dangerous drugs more quickly than Congress is able to act.

They overstepped their authority in attempting to schedule kratom, as it is old, natural, and not particularly dangerous.

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

#49

Post by tormeh »

tracker1 wrote: post #17
kabdib wrote: post #11

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 . . .

More likely the 12-steppers and religious zealots who feel that all recreational drug/alcohol induced highs are wrong, and should be stopped/illegal. There's been a lot of fighting against anything that works to end addiction through medical research/means. In addition to those who think all recreational drugs should be outlawed.

Like they hate contraception. Party poopers, basically.

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

#50

Post by rms »

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.

Tobacco and alcohol are unusually dangerous in the scheme of drugs. I don't disagree with your intention to relax restrictions behind drugs, but if this logic was followed, nearly every drug would be legalized, which is not the goal of the government of the USA.
Post reply on HN