
DEA will ban chemicals contained in kratom, a popular herbal supplement - apsec112
https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/30/kratom-ban-dea-schedule-1/
======
oxide
I'm going to share my comment from a few days ago, it's relevant:

kratom is usually sold as a powdered leaf. you can't smoke it, you can't snort
it. you can make a tea out of it if you're diligent. a spoonful is usually
swallowed as a powder with a thick juice.

it is habit-forming. to an addict it can stop withdrawals in it's tracks, to
an opiate naive person it can provide a buzz, nothing extreme and the
subsequent withdrawals are also nothing too terrible.

to an opiate addict it is, frankly, a life saver. this is something with the
potential to free a person of an opiate addiction, provided they want to be
free badly enough.

it's quite easy to use kratom to replace your drug of choice, not for getting
high, it'd be pointless. you simply use the kratom to keep the withdrawals at
bay. then, simply get off the kratom after a few weeks of use. you do this
because kratom withdrawal is more forgiving than something like heroin.

this is impossible with methadone and suboxone. once you go on methadone, you
better plan on never getting off. the withdrawals can quite literally last
months.

people have successfully transitioned from methadone/suboxone to kratom and
then quit use of opiates altogether, being free from the prison of withdrawal
in a week instead of months.

this ban will only serve to worsen the structure fire that is the opiate
epidemic.

~~~
matt_wulfeck
What you're saying sounds amazing but ultimately anecdotal. Do you know if
there are any studies that back this up? I'd love to read them.

The article states that the DEA can put any substance into schedule 1
category. This is unfortunate because that schedule makes things much more
difficult to study.

~~~
GordonS
I've seen a couple of case studies about single users using kratom to get off
of stronger opioids, but no at-scale studies. But there is a reasonable amount
of other literature relating to kratom and its primary alkaloids, mitragynine
and 7-hydroxymitragynine.

Of particular interest is that these alkaloids are G-protein-biased agonists
of the mu-opioid receptor - which also do not recruit β-arrestin[1] following
receptor activation. It is β-arrestin recruitment that is responsible for the
main side effects of opiates - respiratory depression, constipation, histamine
release and build up of tolerance (which is what leads to withdrawals upon
cessation). This is a _very_ big deal.

I am a kratom user myself, using it to treat bad neuropathic pain. I am
prescribed opiates, but kratom doesn't space me out like they do, there is no
respiratory depression, no apparent histamine release, the constipation is
_much_ less, and I've been at the same dose for over a year. Honestly, for me
it's a wonderdrug.

[1]
[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat)

~~~
enkephalin
> no apparent histamine release

a lot of people, including myself, get very itchy from kratom, and i've always
attributed that to histamine release. could it be something else?

~~~
philhartmanonic
That's fascinating, I've never heard of that before. Is it your throat that
gets itchy?

~~~
pault
Skin. It's where the cliche of the junky scratching his arms comes from.

------
Archio
This is an abomination. Schedule I, for a plant that is far less addictive and
harmful that traditional opioids, and is used in treatment for opioids, while
the country is in the midst of a full blown opioid addiction crisis? Sounds
about right. Let's put some more people in jail. That'll solve the problem. If
additional proof was needed that the DEA is at a complete disconnect from
reality, this would be it.

~~~
RandomOpinion
> for a plant that is far less addictive and harmful that traditional opioids

Interestingly enough, the related links at the bottom of the article point to
another article from the same site: " _Poison control centers are getting a
surge of calls about ‘natural’ painkiller kratom_ "

[https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid-
overdoses?...](https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid-
overdoses?trendmd_shared=0)

~~~
znmwr
260 calls in one year for kratom while 48k people call poison contol every
year for overdoses of over the counter vitamins. i want to see the dea explian
this decision to a judge. the aburdly low number of medical issues caused by
the substance that they site is a great argument against scheduling it at all.

~~~
Archio
The pattern I've sensed is that for most drugs, one death or injury is too
much. However for alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, motorcycles, even
peanuts for those who are allergic - hey, that's life.

------
mighty_atomic_c
What makes me angry about all this is the way the DEA can interfere with the
scientific method. The DEA can strangle research because of a lack of
research; cannabis has been stuck in this idiot cycle now for upwards of half
a century. It is supremely unproductive, wasteful in both a financial and
human sense, and ultimately fails because plants dont care if they're illegal;
they'll continue to grow somewhere (with Kratom, this is SE Asia where it's
use is as common as coffee, even when countries like Thailand attempted to ban
and destroy it) If Kratom becomes inaccessible in the US, the current opiod
epidemic will become worse. And not only that, but people will go to prison
and have their lives ruined by possessing Kratom. I wonder what the minimum
sentencing will be for possessing the plant. Can growing it be considered a
felony? What if I think the plant makes a nice hedge?

I've heard too many anecdotes from well-adjusted ex-opiate users regarding the
value of Kratom. Also, I fundamentally do not trust any research the DEA
produces, since their continued existence is owed to their ability to pervert
the scientific method using political power and vestigial "tough on drugs"
thinking.

~~~
beachstartup
it's my opinion that nothing will change at the federal level until the baby
boomers die. the propaganda is just too strong.

~~~
qrendel
This is already the first election in which millenials and gen-Xers (terrible
name, btw) outnumber them as far as eligible voters. The problem is
eligibility isn't enough - old people vote far, far more reliably than young
people, so the (often idiotic) preferences of their demographic still win out.

Automatic national voter registration when turning 18 would be a step in the
right direction, but I'm not sure it would convince people to actually go to
the polls. In certain states just registering to vote in the first place can
be a real hassle, and having to do it every time you move punishes the more
mobile generations.

------
scanman1
Kratom is the safest way to withdrawal from opiates. It can ease the symptoms
to a very manageable level. It also cannot be abused and if a dose larger than
about 20 grams is consumed, it will not provide any additional relief and only
cause stomach discomfort.

Kratom is much better than Methadone as you are then addicted to Methadone and
withdrawal from Methadone is MUCH worse. I have seen someone who was mildly
dependant on Opiates given a much higher dosage of Methadone that actually
increased their tolerance to opiates and pushed them further into opiate
dependence.

Kratom has almost no physical withdrawal symptoms and is a heroin addicts best
option to try to kick the habit. This is the absolute worst thing that can be
done given the amount of heroin addicts that were created by the DEA's
crackdown on legal opiate prescription pain relief.

~~~
FireBeyond
Apropos of anything else and comments on the relative merits, this needs a
citation:

"It also cannot be abused and if a dose larger than about 20 grams is
consumed, it will not provide any additional relief and only cause stomach
discomfort."

~~~
sooheon
Once it's rushed into Schedule I, good luck getting it.

~~~
mighty_atomic_c
I guess you could always take a trip to Thailand...

~~~
facetube
...where it literally grows on trees.

------
alpineidyll3
His language and the temporary nature of the ban sound like code to me for:
"Kratom is illegal until Pfizer can buy up, control and monetize the supply
chain or patent analogs."

Of course the fda requirement that drugs be single ingredients which is
fucking apeshit means that when it returns it will be 1000x more concentrated
and lead to lucrative abuse.

Americans pay so much more for drugs and transparently that money does not go
to research. The FDA is responsible for the opioid epidemic and several other
horrible murderous crimes. Reform the FDA.

Source: Im PhD prof of chemistry

~~~
GordonS
> Of course the fda requirement that drugs be single ingredients

Is that true?

I thought there was an ADHC drug that was combined with some kind of enzyme
inhibitor or inducer? (sorry, forget the name!)

Also Sativex is undergoing Phase III trials in the USA, and it contains both
THC and CBD (and I _think_ terpenes and possibly CBN and CBG).

~~~
55555
I believe he means that they don't let approved drugs be natural plant matters
or organic stuff, for example. They will extract the mitragynine, develop an
analogue, patent it, and sell it.

Which is unfortunate not least because some people prefer the fact that kratom
(that is, mitragynine with all the other stuff that naturally comes with it)
has been more safety-tested by thousands of years of use..

~~~
GordonS
It might actually be the case that 7-OH-mitragynine is the most potent form of
mitragynine - failed attempts have been made at finding a more potent
analogue[1]. This could be a hindrance to a pharmaceutical product being
produced.

[1]
[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat&)

~~~
alpineidyll3
I think this is a clear case where a pharmaceutical shouldn't be produced at
all. Rehabs should be able to distribute the botanical which is already
helping thousands of addicts. It will never happen because there is no profit
in marketing vegetables.

I strongly suspect this move to ban kratom is related to growing profitability
in the US market of subutex as a dependence treatment. Unlike a botanical
subutex is readily abused, often intravenously.

Manufacturers and the FDA know from basic epidemiology that prescriptions of
all opiates far outpace the diseases they are indicated to treat. I have to
believe somewhere on someone's email there is hard evidence pharma knowingly
promotes abuse.

------
jlj
Another reason to vote Johnson/Weld for US President this November.

“Would the world be better off if all drugs were legal? Yes. The world would
be better off, that 90 percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not
use related,” he said. “But what I’ve said is, look, let’s legalize marijuana
first and when we do that, I think the whole country takes a quantum leap
toward understanding substance abuse.”

[http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate-
thin...](http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate-thinks-all-
drugs-should-probably-be-legalized/)

~~~
qrendel
Green Party is also an option if you want to protest vote. A problem, for
some, with supporting libertarian candidates is that they (voters) may not be
as fond of the low-hanging fruit policies most likely to get implemented (e.g.
defunding many agencies, removing environmental protections) as the moonshot
policies they also promote (e.g. ending the war on drugs and reducing the
military-industrial-natsec complex). Even though neither 3rd party will ever
win, the votes do send a message about which way policy adjustments should be
made, so it's still worth some thought about what message you really want to
send.

~~~
jeffdavis
Most people live in uncontested states (for the presidential election). Voting
for a major party only makes sense if you actually like the candidate, or you
live in a swing state.

The Libertarian party is much bigger than the Green party, and there are many
people who sympathize with libertarians on a lot of issues even if they don't
call themselves libertarian.

Johnson/Weld are real candidates -- both two-term governors from moderate
states! I'm surprised they don't have more support considering how bad the
major candidates are.

~~~
qrendel
Regarding size, the official memberships from 2014 were ~411,000 (Libs) vs
~248,000 (Greens). You could look at that as either the Libertarians being 66%
larger, or them being practically the same as far as order of magnitude and
portion of the total electorate. Johnson/Weld are more experienced candidates
than Stein, but on the other hand, Ron and Rand Paul never came as close to
winning a nomination as Sanders did, either (him being about 98% in line with
Stein's positions - I remember his local campaign staff even defecting to her
around the time of the DNC endorsement).

Regarding policies, Greens and Libertarians are also 99% in alignment on this
particular issue (war on drugs), as well as some others. I know people have
their preferences, just pointing out that there are multiple similarly-sized
third parties of yet complete opposite ideological natures that would still be
optionable for those wanting to vote on this kind of thing. It's even easier
to not support this kind of behavior by the DEA.

~~~
mseebach
Party membership numbers are wholly irrelevant -- the number that matters is
electoral support, of which Johnson/Weld has 4x that of Stein _and_ drawn in
substantial numbers from both major parties.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-
chart)

~~~
qrendel
If what matters to you is actual electoral support, there's no reason to be
voting third party anyway. Both Stein and Johnson got less than 1% of the vote
in 2012, and even combined only about 1.2%. The most successful third-
party/independent Presidential candidate in decades was Ross Perot in 1992,
and even winning just under 19% of the popular vote he failed to win _any_ of
the electoral college. It's a self-serving double standard to tell people to
pass up the major party candidates but then vote based on electoral support
for the third parties, ignoring how well their ideological and policy
positions actually align with your own.

~~~
wfo
There's something to be said for simply polling high enough to get into the
debates. Debates where a candidate could, for example, offer an alternative
view on drug policy.

If a third party gets 15%, they get a third podium on that stage, which I
think would be worthwhile and healthy for American democracy especially in the
face of the two most hated candidates in history.

I don't particularly care if it's Johnson or Stein but I'd like it to be
someone. Ideally we'd have both. Johnson is pretty close to breaking 15% in a
lot of polls.

Of course this line of reasoning simply suggests that pre-debates, if anyone
asks you should /claim/ to be voting Johnson (or Stein), not anything about
where you should actually vote.

~~~
jeffdavis
It does matter that it's Johnson over Stein. Johnson and his running mate were
both two-term governors. If they make it to the debate stage, they are real
candidates and nobody can dismiss them.

~~~
qrendel
You (along with the immediate parent) actually do have a good point here. If
any pollsters ask, I'd probably say I support Johnson for this reason, though
overall I'd personally prefer Green policies over Libertarian ones. There's
something to be said for Greens/Libs banding together just to help wedge third
parties into the process at all. This kind of strategizing is still pretty
unfortunate though, and only makes sense for the polling/debate process, not
necessarily the electoral one.

Not to mention the CPD would almost certainly change the debate qualifiers
immediately to still keep Johnson out, same as the DNC did with Lawrence
Lessig.

------
Synaesthesia
Yet another drug banned for no good reason, basicallly because it could be
"psychoactive". Doesn't need to be proven harmful. However the addictive,
harmful, indeed deadly tobacco and alcohol are protected by government.

~~~
mindslight
The very premise of banning something because it is psychoactive is a blatant
assault on every person's intellect, regardless of whether they see personal
utility in using drugs or not. A government has no business dictating how
people must think.

------
coding123
37K signers already: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-
make...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-
schedule-i-substance)

------
noonespecial
I'll just take the ban as proof positive of 2 things.

1) The stuff works.

2) There's already a refined clinical version of it in the works.

The cynical part of me also assumes that the clinical version will take the
harmless natural version and refine it into a super addictive monster that
will reliably kill elephants when slightly mis-dosed. Everyone will then abuse
this as usual.

~~~
soundwave106
The US placed cathinone on Schedule I in the 1990s. This effectively banned
khat, a relatively harmless stimulant plant, chewed as a recreational by
northern African / Arabia cultures for centuries with little harm.

Fast forward 20 years and shady chemists learn that it's possible to take the
structure of cathinone (as a basis), tweak it here and there, and come up with
purified "substituted cathinones". AKA: "bath salts" (MDPV), mephedrone,
methylone, and countless others. Some of these were frankly nasty.

Today, the US decides to ban kratom, which has been naturally used for
recreational purposes in Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia for
centuries.

I wonder if substituted mitragynines are in the future. Very possibly. If not
from the pharmaceutical companies then from future sellers of "bath salt" type
substances.

Either way, there's something very culturally insensitive about _these_ type
of bans, in my opinion -- these laws carry a whiff of "these are drugs that
these _other_ people do". In today's drug enforcement culture, apparently the
khat cafe is horrible, but the pub and the coffee shop are a-okay. Personally
it's hard for me to see what the difference is between the two, except the pub
/ coffee shop are accepted by well-off Western Europeans, and the khat cafe is
mainly populated by poor Somali / Yemen / etc. immigrants.

~~~
uncoder0
Khat is schedule I? There are Khat plants at the US botanical gardens in DC. I
saw them when I was there a couple years ago.

~~~
soundwave106
Yep! See
[http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm](http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm)
under (f) stimulants, cathinone is there.

Technically, barring any sort of breeding modification I doubt was done, those
_Catha Edulis_ plants in the US botanical gardens are quite illegal, being a
"material" that contains cathinone.

Now, in practice, of course, no one is going arrest the Architect of the
Capitol for growing Schedule I plants on their property for ornamental
reasons. Heck, San Pedro cactii already set a murky, not-quite-defined
precedent for this
([https://erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law1.shtml](https://erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law1.shtml)).

Then again, despite the relative obscurity of khat, there _have_ been a few
cases where people have been arrested for cultivating the plants. Such as this
case here in 1998 -- [http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prunedale-Man-
Charged-in-...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prunedale-Man-Charged-in-
Seizure-of-1-076-Khat-2977547.php)

Of course, in that case, the arrestee's name was Musa Ahmed Gelan, not Stephen
T. Ayers. So it goes.

------
Keverw
Does anyone think the drug companies control the gov, and not the other way
around? According to the Forbes article 660 calls from 2010 to 2015 vs. 6,843
calls in the first seven months of this year for children eating laundry pods?

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea-
argues...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea-argues-that-
public-comment-is-unnecessary-before-kratom-ban/#6ab29870388b)

------
byebyetech
I've read the entire DEA report and their case against kratom seems extremely
vague and weak. It almost feels like their concerns (as presented in the
report) about kratom can be easily addressed by making it a prescription based
medication. They absolutely do not have to make it Schedule I.

------
macinjosh
Frankly, I have never understood the desire to make a plant illegal. If you're
a religious person this is something God made. Who are we to question God's
creation?

If you are an atheist you probably rest the bulk of your belief system upon
science. These policies prevent science from studying the plants and even fly
in the face of existing scientific evidence.

One has to conclude that these policies are in the service of money and
interests other than the public's.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _Frankly, I have never understood the desire to make a plant illegal. If you
> 're a religious person this is something God made. Who are we to question
> God's creation?_

This is kind of a silly argument, though. Malaria, anthrax, and the black
death are also natural, and you won't find many theists arguing that we should
welcome those.

(I am absolutely in favor of legalization, I just don't like silly arguments.)

~~~
pmyjavec
This is true but they're not really banned, nor are they plants :)

~~~
mattstreet
So it's only plants that God made that are automatically safe?

------
AstralStorm
This is a clear attempt at job security by DEA. What, aren't they having
enough trouble as it is dealing with cocaine and heroin?

Or do they have an ulterior motive?

Why ban when they could just make FDA do their job? And maybe later make it
Schedule II or probably even III where it belongs.

------
wyager
This is an outrage. I personally know several people who have used Kratom to
overcome prescription opiate addictions. Their lives today might be totally
fucked without it.

------
bonniemuffin
Find your representative and shoot them a quick note. It only takes a minute,
and it may make a difference.

[http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/](http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)

------
pgt
If it is being scheduled, it must work! Why would the DEA spend time and money
to legislate kratom unless a party with a vested interest, like a large
pharmaceutical company, could profit from its controlled sale?

Can anyone point out evidence of harm from the use of kratom?

~~~
GordonS
There is actually a reasonable amount of literature on kratom, so it is
possible a pharmaceutical product will be derived from it.

Probably the biggest issue with most (at present, _all_?) pharmaceutical
opioids is the side effect of respiratory depression - this kills _a lot_ of
people. Because kratom's active alkaloids don't recruit β-arrestin
interactions, side effects like respiratory depression, constipation and
tolerance are absent or greatly reduced, which should make mitragynine and
7-OH-mitragynine perfect candidates for a new, safe opioid drug[1].

But patents are probably a huge barrier to this ever happening - you can't
patent a plant. No new, patentable extraction methods seem to be required, and
a patentable, stronger synthetic or semi-synthetic analogue may not exist[2].

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/)

[2]
[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat&)

~~~
pgt
Thank you, @GordonS! I will go read up about β-arrestin.

If it is scheduled, does that increase the chance of a safe(r) opioid
replacement being developed?

And can you kindly point me to some text books/journals or introductory
chemistry in order to understand these interactions at a fundamental level?

~~~
GordonS
Here are a few DOIs to look up on sci-hub:

\- 10.1093/bja/aer29

\- 10.1007/978-3-642-41199-1_22

\- 10.1213/01.ANE.0000160588.32007.AD

\- 10.1124/mol.106.028258

\- 10.1124/jpet.105.087254

\- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5999-10.2011

I should add that I'm not a chemist, I just have a keen, self-vested interest
in analgesic substances.

------
dandare
"They also worry that it may be adulterated, given how little the substance is
regulated" \- so they ban it to make sure it will be adulterated? WTF

~~~
TeMPOraL
Then they'll catch an illegal shipment of adulterated kratom, and declare they
were right all along - people are adulterating it after all!

------
tomohawk
Methodone clinics are big business.

~~~
douche
Methadone itself also sounds like a huge racket. I'm not sure that once you've
spiraled into addiction enough to need methadone, that you can eliminate that,
rather than replace one substance with another.

------
Broken_Hippo
To be clear, I'm very supportive of legalizing most recreational drugs... Even
the ones I wouldn't do and somewhat disagree with. I'm also very supportive of
folks being able to deal with addiction if it should happen to occur.

But I do think some substances should be somewhat controlled. Antibiotics, for
example, should be used only when necessary. Another category of control is to
have things only available after talking to a pharmacist. Birth control and
the morning after pill probably fit this category. And I think some
supplements fit in this category as well, as some have safety concerns and
some interact with medications. St Johns Wort, for example, interacts with
some things. Melatonin can have unwanted side effects. You can overdose on
some vitamins. And some things, I just think there should be much greater
control so that folks are getting what they are paying for and the packaging
is honest. Most supplements are in this category.

And the just of this plant, it seems, is that there are a few downsides and a
few good things as well. It seems to be addictive and cause physical
discomfort if not overdose. On the other hand, folks say it does quite a bit
to help with heroin/opiate and alcohol addiction withdrawals, which can be
deadly. Plus it helps folks with severe pain. These things are really positive
benefits, somewhat safer than alternatives.

I don't know what the reasoning behind the ban is, but if it can be one of
those things you simply need to get from a pharmacist, I think that'd be
grand. No doctor needed and hopefully increased safety while still keeping the
substance available for widespread use.

But if it means that it can't be studied in a meaningful way, I think they are
doing a grand disservice to society.

~~~
GordonS
> St Johns Wort, for example, interacts with some things

Lots of everyday foodstuffs can also mess with metabolising enzymes, such as
grapefruit, pepper and turmeric. Without real evidence of large scale risk or
harm, I don't think we should be banning any substance.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Not necessarily to the same extent. My father took a medicine that reacted
badly with grapefruit, for instance. St Johns Wort interacts with things like
birth control, other anti-depressants, allergy medicine, and so on
([http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/herb-
interaction/possib...](http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/herb-
interaction/possible-interactions-with-st-johns-wort)). This one in particular
interacts with a wide number of things.

Some of the difference here is with warnings. Get a medicine that interacts
with grapefruit, and you'll be warned with the medication. Warnings aren't as
likely with supplements on either end. Since they are on the counter, folks
see them as safe, and often don't tell their doctor or pharmacist.

By itself, however, many of these aren't harmful substances. St Johns Wort is
fairly safe by itself, for instance. I don't think folks should have to get a
prescription for it, honestly, but speaking to a pharmacist seems like the
best way to overcome the public education bit of it.

>Without real evidence of large scale risk or harm, I don't think we should be
banning any substance. I'd generally agree, but I also think we should require
the research into the substances to verify basic safety, especially if we are
selling them as health aids plus have oversight for some time after they are
on the market.

------
samhunta
I've used Kratom and it truly does stop opiate and alcohol withdrawals in it's
tracks.

There is a problem though; These addicts with little knowledge of Kratom will
attempt to get high and overdose. This is definitely a problem and Kratom
should require some license or warning, but to ban the chemicals is crazy
counter-productive when we have a real epidemic

~~~
Aeryale
Overdose is impossible

~~~
facetube
I ate 100 grams in a day once and all I got was precipitated withdrawal. It's
not impossible (I suspect overdose would be easier with concentrates or lab-
produced chemical), but with raw plant matter you're gonna need a bigger
stomach.

------
coding123
Government overreach.

~~~
geomark
Government protecting the interests of big business? Seems like there's a lot
of profitable legal drug related business to be lost if kratom use was to
become widespread. It smells a bit like the history of kratom in the country
where it used to originate, Thailand. There it became a threat to the
government sponsored opium trade and was made illegal many years ago [1]

[1] [http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned-
in...](http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned-in-thailand/)

------
WiseWeasel
I once ordered a kratom extract powder from some website many years ago, while
on a quest for novel ways for my friends and I to get high. After calculating
the suggested dosage, and swallowing an uncomfortably large number of gel caps
filled with the stuff one Friday evening, we each experienced a sedated,
euphoric effect.

The shocking part for us was during the next day and a bit of the day after,
we found ourselves unable to perform basic math, and reasoning in general felt
fuzzy. Thankfully, by Monday, we were able to function normally. We came to
the common conclusion that this is a truly stupefying substance in the proper
sense of the word, and that usage should be avoided if you have anything
important to think about in the next several days.

~~~
lightbyte
That's quite funny considering some friends and I occasionally took a few
grams of kratom in college to help us study the day before important exams.
For us, it was almost exactly the same effects as drinking a few cups of
coffee, minus the jittery-ness and with a horrible taste.

~~~
fizgig
There are stimulating (green, I think) and sedating (red, I think) varieties,
so both experiences are likely. I bought a sampler pack from one of the better
sellers recommended from /r/kratom a year or so ago. Was enjoyable enough to
mellow out with, but I couldn't stomach the bitterness no matter what I mixed
it with so I tossed most of it.

------
rdlecler1
So the drug interacts badly with other drugs and causes seizures. It's not
clear that this is sufficient. Some people die eating peanuts.

~~~
wcummings
They should let the FDA do their job so the labeling is all up to snuff and
leave it at that

------
jostmey
The US government will ban kratom but can't even bring itself to ban asbestos.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I think asbestos is actually banned already?

------
gragas
I've used kratom and honestly it's no more potent than a good cup of coffee on
an empty stomach. I really enjoy it. It made me more talkative like when I
drink tea or coffee, but also feel more relaxed like beer. I would describe it
as having the good qualities of being drunk while not being intoxicated or
cognitively impaired.

Really though, you can't get high off kratom. There are three levels: you take
too little, you don't feel any different. You take the right amount, you feel
kinda good for a little bit (like having a beer and a coffee). You take too
much, you throw up. There is no high. There is no outsize health risk. Why
make it schedule I?

~~~
Zelphyr
Also, it tastes like ass. Bigfoot's ass.

~~~
GordonS
No, it just tastes like bitter vegetation. Not pleasant, but there is worse
(like Bigfoot's ass, for example :)

------
forloop
Land of the free.

Whatever the US can do, the UK can do better! We've got a the Psychoactive
Substances Act 2016[0].

The act is so broad it can be applied to many things. And it's so broad it's
functionally unenforceable.

A quote from Wikipedia:

'The law has been criticised as an infringement on civil liberties. Barrister
Matthew Scott described the act as an attempt to "ban pleasure", saying it
could drastically overreach by banning areca nuts, additives used in
vapourisers and electronic cigarettes, hop pillows, and the sale of toads and
salamanders that naturally produce psychoactive substances. Scott went further
and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce
an emotional response'[1].

You know...

* Think of the children.

* It's good for society.

* The social contract.

* And all the other BS people like to come up with to trample on individuals.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_2016)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_2016#Criticism)

~~~
vidarh
> and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce
> an emotional response

I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court.
Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would
presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots,
and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a
viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you
standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).

This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to
abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.

~~~
forloop
> I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court.
> Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would
> presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots,
> and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be
> a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you
> standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).

Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.

> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to
> abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.

This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence.
One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (&
continue once it does happen).

------
MichaelBurge
The main points the DEA brought up in the notice are

A.) Foreigners don't label their kratom correctly when they export it to the
US.

B.) Calls to a poison control center involving kratom have spiked by a factor
of 10 in the past few years.

C.) Foreigners are exporting medical products that make claims not validated
by the FDA.

It's being placed in Schedule I rather than more permissive classification
because (according to the notice) "A substance meeting the statutory
requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed
in schedule I". It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I
permanently.

Drug use can be a matter of national security, so the DEA should have the
power to act in these cases. I'm thinking of the Opium Wars, where the British
got the Chinese hooked on opium and then went to war to force them to legalize
it when they banned it. Widespread drug use being imposed by foreigners can
harm a country.

I'm not sure this kratom qualifies. It doesn't seem that bad. I can see
banning imports and production for foreigners, but I can't see a good reason
to ban US citizens conducting research on the drug. It seems like it's only
like this because of the restrictive law.

And if the manufacture, sale, and consumption happens entirely in a single
state by US citizens who are residents of that state, I don't even think the
DEA should be constitutionally allowed to regulate it on a permanent basis.

On the whole, I guess I support this ban, though they should amend the law to
allow a milder response.

~~~
brandoncordell
> Calls to a poison control center involving kratom have spiked by a factor of
> 10 in the past few years.

660 calls to poison control over a 6+ year span does not sound like an
"imminent public health risk" to me.

> It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I permanently.

Worked well for Marijuana's temporary scheduling.

~~~
MichaelBurge
> Worked well for Marijuana's temporary scheduling.

Are you saying that this same process has been used to permanently classify
Marijuana as schedule I? That means you're implicitly claiming a few things:

* That the DEA issued a temporary classification on Marijuana that would've expired after 2 years.

* That the DEA has the power to - by itself - schedule a drug permanently. (If it went through Congress, that's a different process)

* That the DEA has the power to schedule Marijuana freely. In particular, there are no treaties forcing it to be classified a certain way.

* That the DEA used its power to freely classify Marijuana, and chose to label it as schedule I. (As a consequence, they could relabel it at any time.)

I don't know the history of marijuana or which of these is true or not. If all
true, I'd like to see a different government agency do the
classification(maybe the FDA? or some Congressional committee?) and the DEA do
the enforcement.

