The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by ridgeguy » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

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?

For an understanding of how America got to its current circumstance regarding drugs, I strongly recommend a book, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, by Johann Hari.

I found it an extraordinary read.

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

#112

Post by Fargren » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

microcolonel wrote: post #108

yusee wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All humans have the responsibility to not kill each other.

Who said that? Some times humans think other humans have a responsibility to kill eachother; I'm guessing you sometimes agree.

Even if you believe humans should sometimes kill each other (which is not a universally held opinion, but also not insane) you should see all loss of human life as, at best, a necessary cost. To not consider enemy casualties as a cost goes against this. To not consider civilian casualties on the other side as a cost is even worse. If killing foreign people is not considered something costly, then war becomes too easy a choice for the countries with the most powerful armies.

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

#113

Post by wikikra » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #105

nikcub wrote: post #68

> Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings: > 1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. > 2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. > 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision Kratom doesn't meet any of those requirements, let alone all three. The sche…

>> Schedule I substances are those that have the following >>findings: >> 1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for >>abuse. >> 2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted >>medical use in treatment in the United States. >> 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the >>drug or other substance under medical supervision >Kratom doesn't meet any of those requirements, let alone >all t…

It is extremely misleading to compare the binding affinity of a partial mu opioid agonist with profoundly different molecular structure to the binding affinity of a full mu opioid agonist. Mitragynine is not 13x more potent than morphine in any effect observed in vivo. Preliminary research shows that the novel binding mechanism of mitragynine results in drastically different effects (supposedly by selective avoidance of beta arrestin activation). For instance, it does not cause respiratory depression to a significant extent in mammals.

Thyroid dysfunction and liver damage have never been demonstrated in a study, and anecdotal reports do not seem to suggest that they occur.

The deaths in Sweden were attributed to an isolated metabolite of tramadol that is sold as a research chemical and was mixed into powdered kratom leaf. There is no evidence that kratom contributed to those deaths.

I encourage you to read the "Talk" section of the Wikipedia page before repeating claims in the article without context.

The effects of kratom are extremely mild, you vomit quickly if you take too much, the withdrawal symptoms are comparable to caffeine, and there has never been a death attributed to kratom alone.

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

#114

Post by adrusi » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 3:10 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #105

nikcub wrote: post #68

> Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings: > 1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. > 2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. > 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision Kratom doesn't meet any of those requirements, let alone all three. The sche…

>> Schedule I substances are those that have the following >>findings: >> 1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for >>abuse. >> 2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted >>medical use in treatment in the United States. >> 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the >>drug or other substance under medical supervision >Kratom doesn't meet any of those requirements, let alone >all t…

The delivery method matters. It's not accurate to consider the dangers of kratom just by looking at the dangers of the active chemicals. One important difference is that when consuming the kratom leaf, you will get nauseous and throw up before you can overdose, assuming kratom is the only depressant you're taking.

You talk about chemicals being "stronger" than others, but what that means is that it requires lower doses to achieve the same effect, not that its inherently more dangerous. My understanding is that mitrogynine opioids cause less respiratory depression than comparable levels of morphine. I think that there is a pharmaceutical product derived from some mitrogynine opioid that's prescribed because of its relatively low risk of making users stop breathing.

I don't know what you mean by "serious drug", but why are you so keen to regulate something that doesn't have much evidence of causing damage? The purpose of regulation should not be to stop people from getting high. I'd prefer much less regulation of all drugs, but I can understand regulating for the sake of the collective good: to avoid public health crises, to limit the number of addicts who become burdens of the state. There isn't evidence that kratom is hurting the collective good though, so why limit people's freedom?

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

#115

Post by 1024core » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 3:13 PM UTC

microcolonel wrote: post #108

yusee wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All humans have the responsibility to not kill each other.

Who said that? Some times humans think other humans have a responsibility to kill eachother; I'm guessing you sometimes agree.

Every heard of "human rights" ? They're not called "American rights" or "European rights", are they?

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

#116

Post by adrusi » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

M00n_Sl47r wrote: post #109

oxide wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really isn't a course reversal, the people holding the purse strings seemed to have forced the DEA's hand into extending the period of public comment. IIRC something similar happened with MDMA. Hopefully folks like myself who have used Kratom to alleviate opiate withdrawal to great success will come forward and comment. Anecdotally speaking, there are folks who have used kratom to ween themselves off of maintenanc…

I'd argue that an opiate naive individual on 10g of red vein would be feeling VERY mad nice, considering that dose has me, not opiate naive, feeling mad nice. Definitely at the very least as strong a feeling as codeine

I haven't taken that high of a dose, nor have I taken red vein, but the guidelines I've read suggest that at 10g you're likely to experience uncomfortable levels of nausea if you don't have tolerance.

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

#117

Post by Hydraulix989 » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

"The DEA is not one to second-guess itself, no matter what the facts are."

That's such a sad reflection on American culture. People here value firm, decisive leaders that stick to their principles, even if they're wrong, over people more apt to listen to all sides of the story and re-evaluate their positions over time (because the latter people somehow look "weak" -- even the wording of "second-guess" corroborates this).

It's such a detriment to social progress.

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

#118

Post by tpallarino » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #105

nikcub wrote: post #68

> Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings: > 1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. > 2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. > 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision Kratom doesn't meet any of those requirements, let alone all three. The sche…

>> Schedule I substances are those that have the following >>findings: >> 1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for >>abuse. >> 2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted >>medical use in treatment in the United States. >> 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the >>drug or other substance under medical supervision >Kratom doesn't meet any of those requirements, let alone >all t…

Sorry, but as someone who has used Kratom many times I will tell you that I get more high off a morning espresso than off of Kratom. It's far less of a serious drug than alcohol or marijuana, I can say that much.

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

#119

Post by tpallarino » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #57

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…

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…

I used it as a recreational drug... and surprise! I'm a perfectly functioning member of society.

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

#120

Post by adventured » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #96

madaxe_again wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Americans are real people. Others are just foreign statistics. Nobody died at Stalingrad, for instance.

sad but true, i guess rest of the world should all adapt to this approach and just ignore US overdose epidemics, because it doesn't matter, right?

> and just ignore US overdose epidemics

Actually, that would be fine. The US doesn't need the world to pay attention to its opioid overdose problems. The world has enough problems to focus on, like millions of people still dying from malaria, or a billion people without access to clean running water or electricity. The US has plenty of tax revenue - ~$6.6 trillion annually, larger than Japan's entire economy - to deal with the problem completely on its own.