
The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry - mrfusion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/12/the-dea-is-reversing-its-insane-decision-to-ban-the-opiate-like-plant-kratom-for-now/?0p19G=c
======
nikcub
> 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
scheduling process requires reform, and this impacts a large part of the world
since drug scheduling (and patent protection on pharma) are part of American
trade agreements.

Almost every action the DEA has taken has worsened the opioid epidemic and
benefited the Mexican cartels. They didn't require doctor licensing or
tracking for lower-level pain medication, they were then slow to crack down on
the pill mills - once a large part of the population was addicted, they were
then very slow to license more methadone programs and suboxone doctors for the
fresh wave of addicts, and now they want to shut down one of the only free and
working treatment options (Kratom)

The only result you can expect from the DEA's actions are more and more opioid
deaths. It is up to 18,000 a year now - over 3x as many Americans who were
killed in Iraq in total - so 3 Iraq wars _per year_.

The NYTimes has an excellent series of stories on the opioid epidemic - the
video of the woman overdosing in a supermarket while her child attempts to
wake her up are shattering:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/addicted-parents-get-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/addicted-parents-get-their-fix-
even-with-children-watching.html)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/sunday/how-
doctors...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/sunday/how-doctors-
helped-drive-the-addiction-crisis.html?_r=0)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/well/family/opioids-may-
in...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/well/family/opioids-may-interfere-
with-parenting-instincts-study-finds.html)

~~~
Fargren
>>over 3x as many Americans who were killed in Iraq in total - so 3 Iraq wars
per year.

I know what you mean, but it really bothers me that you are only counting
American deaths. The total number of Iraqi deaths arising from the Iraq war is
highly disputed, but it seems to be somewhere between 150,000 and a bit over
1,000,000, depending on the survey and whether it only counts direct deaths of
combatants vs. surveys that count civilian deaths and indirect effects. In any
case, deaths arising from opioids are nowhere near any amount of "Iraq wars
per year".

~~~
microcolonel
Because this is a matter of U.S. government policy, the responsibility is to
the people of the United States.

Seems pretty simple to me.

~~~
yusee
All humans have the responsibility to not kill each other.

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

~~~
Fargren
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.

------
miles
The DEA reversing course due to public outcry (and common sense)?! What
alternate reality have we slipped into?!

Previously:

DEA will ban chemicals contained in kratom, a popular herbal supplement
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12410083](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12410083)

Call to Action to save Kratom plant from DEA's uninformed Schedule I decision
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12438605](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12438605)

~~~
oxide
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 maintenance drugs like methadone and suboxone.

The withdrawals from long-acting maintenance opiates like these can last
_months_ making it nearly impossible to get off of them cold-turkey.

Switching to kratom, which has a shorter, more forgiving withdrawal, can be of
great benefit to an addict looking to get off of these maintenance drugs.

For an addict, kratom stops withdrawals in their tracks. It doesn't get you
high, and taking more to get high would be pointless.

To an opiate-naive individual kratom will at most give a mild buzz. It's not
like taking heroin, hydrocodone, or even codeine. just a mild buzz.

Kratom is usually sold as a powdered leaf. You can't overdose on kratom,
because if you take too much of the powdered leaf you just throw up, well
before you're able to ingest a dangerous amount. It's very self-regulating in
that way.

You can't smoke or snort the powdered leaf. It is usually swallowed as a
powdered leaf with a thick juice or simply brewed into a tea.

~~~
hiisukun
For those that may have read this comment and found it strangely familiar,
I'll save you the trouble googling. It appears oxide regularly comments on
opiate related threads, so his above anecdote isn't a copy of someone else's
comment - it is just him re-stating his experiences he has posted before.

I mean no criticism of your story oxide; merely commenting for those who
thought something might be awry.

~~~
oxide
I suppose I did start parroting what I said last time I commented here on
kratom thread, yeesh.

I ought to have qualified it with a disclaimer if I was just going to repeat
myself. I feel it's decent basic information on kratom for the uninitiated,
but I didn't mean to parrot myself like that. It's been a long week.

My apologies, and thank you for clarifying.

------
WhitneyLand
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 "natural" substances or "plants" are not always safe. This
misconception is so common and dangerous it shouldn't be used to mock the ban
(real logic will suffice).
[https://web.stanford.edu/~jpc/overture.htm](https://web.stanford.edu/~jpc/overture.htm)

There are plenty of valid reasons to argue against a ban. For example the
chill on research, the low rate of fatalities, the likelihood it will make use
more dangerous, and the probability a ban would have no net benefits.

~~~
cmdrfred
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.

~~~
unethical_ban
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.

~~~
slowmovintarget
>>highly addictive, and life-threatening if overconsumed

You mean like caffeine or nicotine?

~~~
unethical_ban
No.

1) Addictive as in, one "normal" dose causes high physical addiction.

2) Lethal, more specifically that it is easy to overdose, or that the
difference between "normal" and LD50 is low.

You don't get hooked on caffeine after one coke, and it's hard to kill
yourself drinking too much coffee.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
It is pretty rare for anyone to get addicted to a drug after one dose. Even
for things like heroin. I think I've read that at most, there is a 25% chance
of addiction. Still high, but still below the thresh hold. But admittedly, it
is rather hard to sort out fact from propaganda here. (and heroin does have
that second one, I'm guessing).

------
rosser
> _A group of 51 U.S. representatives wrote to the DEA saying that the DEA 's
> move "threatens the transparency of the scheduling process..."_

There's transparency in the scheduling process?

------
wtbob
> 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 folks
do their thing.

~~~
clock_tower
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.

~~~
ajmurmann
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...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-
hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/)). I wouldn't be
surprised if we had more drug enforcement related deaths in the US.

~~~
cshimmin
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.

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

------
supernintendo
The DEA should be abolished entirely. The War on Drugs has failed and was a
naive idea to begin with.

------
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?

~~~
metaphorm
> 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.

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

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

------
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.

------
jknoepfler
As with all things in Washington, I'd follow the money. I'd wager someone with
a lot of milk to spill lobbied hard to get the scheduling move reversed. I
wouldn't buy for a second that the needs of recovering addicts had anything to
do with it. The DEA has made it abundantly clear that it gives exactly zero
fucks about the facts regarding the narcotics it regulates or the consequences
for lay people of their regulation.

------
M_Grey
The DEA needs to go away. It's not a useful agency, and does little which
other agencies couldn't do to the extent that society actually requires it.

------
marsrover
I wonder if we could get weed legalized if we just started calling the DEA
about it all the time.

~~~
tracker1
I'd settle for seeing it off the Schedule 1 list, which would at least allow
for more information/research to happen.

------
kabdib
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 . . .

~~~
tracker1
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.

~~~
Turing_Machine
It's entirely possible for it to be both.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists)

------
Hydraulix989
"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.

------
patrickaljord
The whole concept of banning plants is absurd statism. What are they gonna do?
Ban evolution and photosynthesis? Send earth to prison?

------
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.

~~~
dmix
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.

~~~
cossatot
> 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...](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/obama-enforcing-
pot-laws-in-states-that-have-legalized-it-not-a-top-priority/)

~~~
dmix
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...](http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/10/dea-reduce-medical-marijuana-
research-restrictions/)

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.

------
BurningFrog
If you didn't know it before, this should make it clear these decisions are
political, not scientific.

------
rms
It feels good to still be in business at
[http://www.getkratom.com](http://www.getkratom.com) after all these years.
There has definitely been a Streisand Effect from all of the DEA's attention
but I don't think it was worth the stress.

I think I liked this article the most from the wave of press today.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/kratom-
dea-b...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/kratom-dea-ban-
reversal-culture-shift)

I'm one of the moderators of
[https://www.reddit.com/r/kratom/](https://www.reddit.com/r/kratom/) , check
it out if you want to keep up with news and community sentiment on this topic.

------
Bud
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?

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

~~~
sctb
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.

~~~
riffic
The title as given is awful, lacks context towards the plant being banned.

------
nathancahill
I read the title as, "The DEA is withdrawing to another planet after the
Internet got really mad"

~~~
jessaustin
Clearly, we need to get madder than we are already.

------
riffic
Can we put the subject of the ban (WHICH PLANT) in the title please? HN is a
bit more useless than the DEA with these obscure and clickbaity titles.

