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

71–80 of 127 posts

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

#71

Post by slowmovintarget »

unethical_ban wrote: post #27
cmdrfred wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Au contraire, a substance should only be banned from consumption if it is shown to be highly addictive, and life-threatening if overconsumed. Or something like that. I don't believe something should be banned until presumed completely safe.

>>highly addictive, and life-threatening if overconsumed

You mean like caffeine or nicotine?

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

#72

Post by nikcub »

kristopolous wrote: post #67
nikcub wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most modern nations accept opiate substitution therapy (OST) as the most effective way to treat opiod addiction. The entire premise of OST is that you substitute a bad opiate for a "less bad" opiate - and Kratom is looking like one of the best "least bad" candidates we've ever seen. Nobody is delusional about the effects of Kratom or downsides - all drugs have downsides. I've never seen it mentioned or recommended ou…

Do you think it's the Subutex and Methodone manufacturers using legal muscle since they can't patent and monopolize this alternative? Reckitt Benckiser, maker of Suboxone has fought hard against generics being available. I will save my criticism of the moral implication of such a position because the English language doesn't provide me enough words to express it.

Think if Reckitt had any sway they'd want loosening of the restrictions on doctors to prescribe suboxone. Currently only 10,000 of the 800,000 doctors in the USA are prescribing suboxone - wait lists are long and the per-doctor cap is rising very slowly.

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

#73

Post by nikcub »

zild3d wrote: post #69
nikcub wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most modern nations accept opiate substitution therapy (OST) as the most effective way to treat opiod addiction. The entire premise of OST is that you substitute a bad opiate for a "less bad" opiate - and Kratom is looking like one of the best "least bad" candidates we've ever seen. Nobody is delusional about the effects of Kratom or downsides - all drugs have downsides. I've never seen it mentioned or recommended ou…

Your first paragraph I completely agree, Kratom is promising to be safer than the leading opiate substitution medicines (ie methadone) But > it has no value as a recreational drug. is completely wrong. See the erowid page [1]. Some of the positive effects (Simultaneous stimulation & sedation, Feelings of euphoria, Useful with physical labor, Low doses can result in a lasting "glow" in some people, increases sociabili…

You're right - it's not "no value" it is "little value" - altho of the people I know who have used kratom to get off stronger painkillers all referred to a natural tapering effect that kratom has where you don't want to keep taking it outside of withdrawal

Seems that for some people the downsides of kratom outweigh the positives outside of treating withdrawal.

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

#74

Post by kristopolous »

nikcub wrote: post #72
kristopolous wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it's the Subutex and Methodone manufacturers using legal muscle since they can't patent and monopolize this alternative? Reckitt Benckiser, maker of Suboxone has fought hard against generics being available. I will save my criticism of the moral implication of such a position because the English language doesn't provide me enough words to express it.

Think if Reckitt had any sway they'd want loosening of the restrictions on doctors to prescribe suboxone. Currently only 10,000 of the 800,000 doctors in the USA are prescribing suboxone - wait lists are long and the per-doctor cap is rising very slowly.

Yeah, those restrictions are a completely insufficient response to the growing problems.

I had a friend fighting heroin addiction live on my couch for a year while I tried using my money and time to help him through.

The biggest problems (now we are getting off topic) are

* lack of recovery groups for atheists. The conventional twelve step programs claim they'll work for atheists but the act of faith plays such a crucial and fundamental role, that someone who is faithless really won't work in the program.

* an unspoken internal conflict of process. Institutions of rehab strongly disagree on methodology and there's this culture where most seem to have one elaborate and very specific process. Using multiple resources can be mutually exclusive and impossible.

* rehab in general is structured terribly. The reality is that someone serious about recovery ends up living with a bunch of strangers who may not be. It's like a zombie movie, one bad apple can spoil the bunch. There has to be a better way.

* a lack of reliable or convenient access to medication. These people know how to get street drugs. When they have to travel 30 miles and show up between 6 and 7:30 am to get methadone while heroin is an SMS away and gets delivered, there's a problem.

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

#75

Post by nerdponx »

The fact that any federal agency, let alone the DEA, walked back a proposal in the face of public outcry is a real sign that positive change is happening, albeit slowly and subtly. If Obama were white, he would go down in history as one of the great presidents, despite his flaws, which are probably still better than those of other greats like FDR.

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

#76

Post by henriquemaia »

ced_vdb wrote: post #43
metaphorm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Decriminalized them. They're not _legal_. Still illegal to produce, buy, sell them.

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

#77

Post by drivingmenuts »

unethical_ban wrote: post #27
cmdrfred wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Au contraire, a substance should only be banned from consumption if it is shown to be highly addictive, and life-threatening if overconsumed. Or something like that. I don't believe something should be banned until presumed completely safe.

Make them all legal, tax the hell out of it, and put that toward substance abuse programs.

The ones who can't handle their addictions will cease to be a problem soon enough.

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

#78

Post by dmix »

nerdponx wrote: post #75

The fact that any federal agency, let alone the DEA, walked back a proposal in the face of public outcry is a real sign that positive change is happening, albeit slowly and subtly. If Obama were white, he would go down in history as one of the great presidents, despite his flaws, which are probably still better than those of other greats like FDR.

Is there any indication that the White House had any influence on this? The last I checked the only places the DEA has stopped their programs is in countries they've been kicked out of for causing more harm than good. Otherwise outside of reducing handpicked domestic crack sentences there hasn't been much revision of drug policy in the last 8 yrs.

Look at Colorado or other states which the populace decided to legalize marijuana industry - which were actually big deals. Where has the executive branch stepped in to stop the federal governments intervention in state policy?

It's sad when the most minor amount of positive development is rewarded as an drastic evolution in behaviour. Is that the standards that we hold the government up to these days?

Kratom is harmless to the average person. Comparable or likely less than marijuana. This was the easiest of choices, especially when considering the complete lack of evidence that it's comparable to the other schedule I drugs.

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

#79

Post by cossatot »

dmix wrote: post #78
nerdponx wrote: post #75

The fact that any federal agency, let alone the DEA, walked back a proposal in the face of public outcry is a real sign that positive change is happening, albeit slowly and subtly. If Obama were white, he would go down in history as one of the great presidents, despite his flaws, which are probably still better than those of other greats like FDR.

Is there any indication that the White House had any influence on this? The last I checked the only places the DEA has stopped their programs is in countries they've been kicked out of for causing more harm than good. Otherwise outside of reducing handpicked domestic crack sentences there hasn't been much revision of drug policy in the last 8 yrs. Look at Colorado or other states which the populace decided to legaliz…

> Look at Colorado or other states which the populace decided to legalize marijuana industry - which were actually big deals. Where has the executive branch stepped in to stop the federal governments intervention in state policy?

Obama made the decision that the DEA/DOJ would let state legalizations continue[1], at least unless it became clearly problematic. I and many others assume that he's not opposed to legalization and is letting the states be the laboratories for democracy that they should be. I also think this would never have happened in the previous administrations, and Obama is behind more of it than you seem to be giving him credit for. He's just not coming forward as an explicit supporter because it would detract from his support outside of his base supporters.

[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/obama-enforc...

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

#80

Post by dmix »

cossatot wrote: post #79
dmix wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any indication that the White House had any influence on this? The last I checked the only places the DEA has stopped their programs is in countries they've been kicked out of for causing more harm than good. Otherwise outside of reducing handpicked domestic crack sentences there hasn't been much revision of drug policy in the last 8 yrs. Look at Colorado or other states which the populace decided to legaliz…

> Look at Colorado or other states which the populace decided to legalize marijuana industry - which were actually big deals. Where has the executive branch stepped in to stop the federal governments intervention in state policy? Obama made the decision that the DEA/DOJ would let state legalizations continue[1], at least unless it became clearly problematic. I and many others assume that he's not opposed to legalizat…

Despite Obama's words it sounds like business as usual in Colorado if you've been following the news since then. Raids continue all the time in Colorado (including last month) and the banks keep getting pressured to not support the industry due to federal policy which has practically crippled growth.

Just this month the DEA openly blamed the legal companies following state laws as the source of criminality and baselessly dismiss the medical science behind it:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/10/dea-reduce-medical-mari...

The DOJ is still prosecuting these cases too. So again I wouldn't hand out any prizes over just talk.

They've also made a number of tough statements against Wall st excess, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, etc. Should we reward that as well? Unless you look at the data and continued actions/policies of federal agencies you'll just be rewarding talk and the bare minimum of action to appease voter bases. Which doesn't get us anywhere. Low standards = bad results.

Post reply on HN