FDA Declares Popular Alt-Medicine Kratom an Opioid (nbcnews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA Declares Popular Alt-Medicine Kratom an Opioid (nbcnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday February 7, 2018 @10:03AM from the natural-path dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The Food and Drug Administration declared the popular herbal product kratom to be an opioid on Tuesday, opening a new front in its battle to get people to stop using it. New research shows kratom acts in the brain just as opioids do, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said in a statement. And he said the agency has documented 44 cases in which kratom at least helped kill people -- often otherwise healthy young people.

"Taken in total, the scientific evidence we've evaluated about kratom provides a clear picture of the biologic effect of this substance," Gottlieb wrote. "Kratom should not be used to treat medical conditions, nor should it be used as an alternative to prescription opioids. There is no evidence to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use." The FDA released detailed accounts of several of the deaths. The victims often had mixed kratom with other substances, including chemicals taken out of inhalers and found in over-the-counter cold and flu drugs.

124 of 230 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

You know, if people want to.... by cayenne8 · 2018-02-07 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

...voluntarily take themselves OUT of the gene pool, who are we to protect them from themselves?
Maybe this is just nature at work, and putting some needed chlorine into the gene pool?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
1. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-07 10:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The point is, kratom is not dangerous. This is just government over reach.
2. Re:You know, if people want to.... by bobbied · 2018-02-07 10:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Where I get your position....I'm not sure I agree.
  It seems to me that the FDA has a purpose and if something being sold openly in stores is killing folks, they might just have the responsibility to respond. I think they see this as a matter of public safety, and I think they have at least some justification for this. They've restricted other products for less, even if those being killed are being stupid and using more than recommended to get high...
  Now calling something an opioid that's not actually derived from similar sources as opium does seem a bit heavy handed, because that puts this substance on a path to be made illegal to posses or use. It may act in similar ways as opium, however it's not actually opium...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
3. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Khyber · 2018-02-07 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, yes it does. It binds to many of the same receptors.
  It is how I got my mother off of opiate medications after her surgery. Sure it isn't as effective at killing pain but it is nowhere near as addictive (still is addictive) and much easier to quit using once you desire to do so.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
4. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · 2018-02-07 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I'm with you, screw using kratom, go back to heroin or $randomfentanalog instead. Way safer.
5. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Archangel+Michael · 2018-02-07 10:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  FDA has a purpose
  Yes. But probably not the purpose its name implies. When you can't outline PROVABLE facts about FOOD, because only DRUGS (FDA approved) can treat illness and disease. That's why if you get Scurvy, they will PRESCRIBE vitamin C, but if you say Citrus Fruits, strawberry's can kiwis can cure scurvy, you're breaking the law turning food into drugs.
  Once you realize this, then it all makes better sense.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
6. Re:You know, if people want to.... by arglebargle_xiv · 2018-02-07 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Beat me to it. They don't want it to compete with the opioids they're selling by the million, it's bad for business.
7. Re:You know, if people want to.... by harrkev · 2018-02-07 11:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not quite. Close, though.
  The problem is testing. To get a drug approved takes mega-bucks. However, with conventional medicines, the company has a patent on the medicine so they get a guaranteed period of income.
  Kratom, however, is just a plant. It could be a wonder-cure, but nobody will pay millions for the testing because, once approved, anybody with a greenhouse could sell it for less.
  
  --
  "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
8. Re:You know, if people want to.... by BlueStrat · 2018-02-07 11:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Right, it binds to the same receptors, but is not an opiate. It just emulates an opiate, and it won't kill you.
  You forgot the important part that's mostly the reason behind this FDA move.
  It takes money away from lobbying & contributing pharma companies, health care networks/hospitals, clinics, doctors, and franchise pharmacies. Same reason marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I Narcotic by the FDA.
  That, and the billions of dollars in kickbacks to US officials from SA drug cartels hidden in offshore accounts
  Always follow the money.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
9. Re:You know, if people want to.... by pr0fessor · 2018-02-07 11:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you go to a doctor because you have scurvy he will prescribe vitamin c to get you better fast and recommend you change your diet so you don't have a problem with it again.
  if you go to a doctor and he just happens to find a vitamin deficiency that's not causing an illness he will recommend changing your diet because that promotes long term health and only prescribe a supplement if that fails
  If your doctor is having you follow up constantly prescribing medications that you would need to be on for the rest of your life instead of trying to find a way for you live without medication then you are very sick (maybe diabetes) or you need a second opinion.
10. Re:You know, if people want to.... by rogoshen1 · 2018-02-07 11:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is probably just a fun way to shoe-horn in banning designer drugs (even those that are yet to have been formulated), without having to actually go through all the trouble of specifically banning anything in specific terms.
  Example: there's a ton of different cannabinoids (natural, and synethetic). A precedent like this would allow for the banning of all similar substances (natural or synthetic) because they 'bind to the same receptors as THC'.
11. Re:You know, if people want to.... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-02-07 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  Last thing I need is "harmless" drug dealers getting my kids hooked on "harmless" drugs.
  So do you also protest your local liqueur store because alcohol dealers are going to get your kids hooked on it? While I agree with you that it's not harmless, it certainly seems to be less so than alcohol from what I've seen.
  It seems to me that if the government can tax and control marijuana like it does alcohol, then it greatly reduces the viability of it as a business for drug dealers. Plus people actually know what they are purchasing and won't be getting a product that's been laced with who knows what. It also removes a large chunk of income from organized criminals.
  Are you such a piss poor parent that you can't educate your kids about such things? It's been my experience that happy well adjusted educated kids don't go out looking for drug dealers. And with the demand for drugs, it's not like most drug dealers are going around looking for customers. Maybe it's different where you live.
12. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Obfuscant · 2018-02-07 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  So do you also protest your local liqueur store because alcohol dealers are going to get your kids hooked on it?
  If a local liquor store sells to kids, then yes, I would, because it is illegal for them to do so. There are also well-known and well distributed warnings regarding alcohol.
  
  Are you such a piss poor parent that you can't educate your kids about such things?
  Who educates the parents? This is a "natural plant product". What's the danger?
  
  It's been my experience that happy well adjusted educated kids don't go out looking for drug dealers.
  You don't have to "go out looking" to find kratom dealers.
13. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Theils+Blood+Boy · 2018-02-07 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want my kid using drugs but I'd much rather my child not have a public arrest record that keeps them from getting a job. I said arrest. If you are arrested and released with no charges you still get an arrest record and it's just about as difficult to clear as a criminal record. You're unaware of such things because arrest records are private in russia, Boris.
14. Re:You know, if people want to.... by quonset · 2018-02-07 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  If it behaves like an opioid then people need to be aware of the danger associated with it.
  Why? No one has bothered to listen to the dangers of drug use which have been going on for decades, nor had second thoughts as people of all walks of life, including celebrities, die from drug use.
  You have to remember, people are smarter than the experts and when told something may kill you, or are shown people who have died from using/doing the same, they'll be sure to show you how smart they are by doing the very opposite.
  As some on here would say, it's their life. Let them do what they want. They'll die just to prove you wrong.
15. Re:You know, if people want to.... by bobbied · 2018-02-07 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, which is why I consider this a bit heavy handed by the FDC, they are side stepping the normal process here. Not that I would support legalization efforts, I don't, I just don't like the way the FDC is taking advantage of the perception of an opioid problem for something that really isn't an opioid derived from the usual sources.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
16. Re:You know, if people want to.... by bobbied · 2018-02-07 12:52 · Score: 2
  
  FDA has a purpose
  Yes. But probably not the purpose its name implies. When you can't outline PROVABLE facts about FOOD, because only DRUGS (FDA approved) can treat illness and disease. That's why if you get Scurvy, they will PRESCRIBE vitamin C, but if you say Citrus Fruits, strawberry's can kiwis can cure scurvy, you're breaking the law turning food into drugs.
  Once you realize this, then it all makes better sense.
  LOL.. I guess you don't like the FDA at all then.. But in this case, we are not dealing with food are we?
  Now if you are one of those people upset with the FDA because they take a dim view of medical claims made by supplement makers, I point out that we didn't have the FDA for a good part of our existence, and during that time literally ANYBODY could create some "medication" that cured everything from baldness and hoof rot to your wife's hair color and sell bottles of turpentine mixed with wood alcohol and tar on the street corners (and many people did). As long as you got out of town before folks got sick and moved faster than the rumor mill, you could make good money. The FDA fixed all that, thankfully. Yes they get a bit overbearing on this supplement thing at time, but I can see the FDA's point too. You simply CANNOT be allowed to make medical claims for things which are not licensed as drugs when you are selling them, or all the snake oil sales people would be free to ply their trade on the gullible again.
  The FDA also deals with food safety and distribution issues and licensing actual drugs (prescription and over the counter) sold in this country. I think they are a necessary evil.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
17. Re:You know, if people want to.... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-02-07 13:02 · Score: 2
  
  So do you also protest your local liqueur store because alcohol dealers are going to get your kids hooked on it?
  If a local liquor store sells to kids, then yes, I would, because it is illegal for them to do so. There are also well-known and well distributed warnings regarding alcohol.
  And this is exactly my point. If marijuana is sold with state/federal oversight I would expect the same type of regulations. I believe the current regulations are if you have the cash you can get it in an unmarked bag. If it's sold and regulated in the same manner that alcohol is currently, then it would be much safer then the current situation.
  
  Are you such a piss poor parent that you can't educate your kids about such things?
  Who educates the parents? This is a "natural plant product". What's the danger?
  Who educates them on alcohol currently? Hell, it's a just "natural yeast byproduct". It's yeast piss, what could possible be dangerous about that. Yeast is the stuff that's used to make bread.
  
  It's been my experience that happy well adjusted educated kids don't go out looking for drug dealers.
  You don't have to "go out looking" to find kratom dealers.
  I thought we were discussing marijuana. At least that's the post I was replying to.
18. Re:You know, if people want to.... by MobyDisk · 2018-02-07 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  According to the article, there are
  
  44 cases in which kratom at least helped kill people — often otherwise healthy young people.
19. Re:You know, if people want to.... by ColdWetDog · 2018-02-07 14:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  1) 44 people who had the substance in their system. Correlation is not causation.
  2) 44 people is a teeny tiny number. About the same number of people that are killed by toasters.
  3) All drugs are poisons (Paracelsus, 1580 or thereabouts).
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
20. Re:You know, if people want to.... by ColdWetDog · 2018-02-07 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Too lazy to look up the specifics but LOTS of drugs bind to opiate receptors. Including most antidepressants. It's an absolutely asinine way to attempt to regulate a drugs. It is fast, handy but it isn't science.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
21. Re:You know, if people want to.... by ChrisMaple · 2018-02-07 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  The FDA, like many federal agencies, has a long history of corruption and arresting innocent people. As long as these behaviors are intact, the FDA should not be making any decisions to prohibit anything. Since, in fact, these behaviors will never end as long as the FDA exists, it should be disbanded and a new agency created with far less scope and power. Basically, the FDA should do nothing but test for purity and shut down firms that sell adulterated products. Banning and chasing down mind-degrading drugs should be limited to the DEA.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
22. Re: You know, if people want to.... by c6gunner · 2018-02-07 14:48 · Score: 2
  
  I'm willing to bet a fuck of a lot more people own toasters than take kratom. Most people have never even heard of it.
23. Re: You know, if people want to.... by BlueStrat · 2018-02-07 14:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Nigga please. Weed is Sched.1 because its an easy charge to lay on minorities and lefties. Try following the Rightwing Corpratist Agenda instead moran.
  That was the original impetus that drove the creation of drug laws in the US. Chinese-opium, Hispanic/black-marijuana/cocaine.
  Today however both liberals and many, many white middle-aged conservatives use marijuana. At the higher levels the reasons are as I stated in my first post, at street-level cop, it's about having yet another charge on the books available to use as a reason to harass/search/arrest, etc the 'little people' of whatever race or ethnicity if they happen to be guilty of perceived disrespect of cop, or they just need to pad their contact/arrest stats for the next performance review.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
24. Re: You know, if people want to.... by c6gunner · 2018-02-07 14:58 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  It takes money away from lobbying & contributing pharma companies, health care networks/hospitals, clinics, doctors, and franchise pharmacies. Same reason marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I Narcotic by the FDA.
  Gotta love these idiotic conspiracy theories. The entire opioid market is worth only about $13 billion annually. That's about the same as the "diatery supplements" market, which is mostly useless garbage. On a global scale, diatery supplements are a $200 billion market, while opiods are only about $24 billion.
  If things worked the way that simpletons like you think they do the alt-med and supplement markets would have far more sway over policy than "big pharma" and their eeeeevil pills.
25. Re: You know, if people want to.... by c6gunner · 2018-02-07 15:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  True. This is why I grow my own willow trees to make willow tea; because aspirin is too damn expensive.
26. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · 2018-02-07 17:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And how many fatal overdoses were avoided because people were able to get off heroin (the primary use of kratom; some use it recreationally but most people use it for quitting harder opioids)? I'm guessing way more than 44. There's nobody that's going right now "Oh, well if the FDA makes kratom illegal that's it for me, I'm going to stop using opiates". No-bod-y. Users will invariably switch to a more dangerous opiate instead.
27. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · 2018-02-07 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if we replace prohibition with education, prevention, and treatment, using regulated commercial products, users would just OD. In reality, the number of addicts in general, and the percentage of addict ODs specifically, would plummet (see Portugal and Heroin Maintenance Programs).
28. Re: You know, if people want to.... by BlueStrat · 2018-02-07 18:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Gotta love these idiotic conspiracy theories. The entire opioid market is worth only about $13 billion annually.
  Opioids are only one of the medications that kratom displaces, not to mention the doctor/health care appointments never made, tests not ordered/paid for, other treatments, specialist fees, medical billing/insurance, etc etc.
  It's always about the money and control. Kratom (and marijuana) threatens that, so it (they) must go.
  
  Gotta love these idiotic conspiracy theories.
  
  No conspiracies required, just your bog-standard entities in an industry using the tools at their disposal to protect and grow their incomes as we see in other industries and business sectors on an almost daily basis in the news.
  
  simpletons like you
  Exsqueeze me? For someone who apparently only looks at issues surface-deep as you've demonstrated by only looking strictly at opioids in this case, you have no room to cast aspersions.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
29. Re:You know, if people want to.... by GuB-42 · 2018-02-07 22:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sure, it is not an opiate, it is an opioid. But it doesn't matter when it come to risks.
  The difference is that opiates are extracted from the opium poppy, while opioids include all chemicals acting on opioid receptors. Morphine, codeine and heroin are opiates and opioids. Fentanyl and kratom are opioids but not opiates. The origin of the substance or whether it is natural or synthetic doesn't matter to your body.
30. Re: You know, if people want to.... by drinkypoo · 2018-02-07 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm willing to bet a fuck of a lot more people own toasters than take kratom. Most people have never even heard of it.
  More people have toasters than an addiction to opiates, but if you've got your way, that will change. MAGA!
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:You know, if people want to.... by crypticedge · 2018-02-08 00:10 · Score: 2
  
  TFS literally says people have died from it.
32. Re:You know, if people want to.... by rickb928 · 2018-02-08 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why is death the only 'harm' considered?
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
33. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-08 01:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Good lord, do think for a minute. Being classified as an opiate does not mean it's illegal. Even heroin isn't fully illegal, it's used in hospitals under a different name as to not freak people out (something like dymoriphine or something similar). And remember, opiates (codeine) are in prescription cough syrup. Being labeled an opiate simply means it has properties similar to opiates and as such should be treated as such. Certain drugs should be avoided while using it as it could lead to death for example.
  I swear, when people think opiates they only think of the super powerful ones and have no clue that it's an entire class of drugs, some of which are quite common. You just have to be careful with them do to their tendency to suppress various autonomic functions such as breathing and heart rate.
34. Re: You know, if people want to.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-08 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Screw you, I have an addiction to toasters. You can't understand the suffering I go through every day when I'm forced to be separated from them because I have to go to work to make money to buy more toasters. They won't let me keep toasters on my desk. They said it was weird and it made people anxious.
35. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Talderas · 2018-02-08 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Now calling something an opioid that's not actually derived from similar sources as opium does seem a bit heavy handed, because that puts this substance on a path to be made illegal to posses or use. It may act in similar ways as opium, however it's not actually opium...
  Opiates are drugs that are derived from opium. Opioids are chemicals which bind to the receptors that opium binds to. All opiates should be opioids but not all opioids are opiates. Fentanyl and methadone are two synthetic chemical opioids which are not derived from opium. If kratom binds to the same receptors as opiates then kratom is an opioid and the FDA is classifying them correctly.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
36. Re:You know, if people want to.... by edtice1559 · 2018-02-08 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly, in order to bring a medication to market, there is a *lot* of data that is required. You can't just start selling and hope nobody does. The FDA isn't saying this product can't ever be sold just that it has to come to market like any other drug.
37. Re: You know, if people want to.... by Bengie · 2018-02-08 03:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Toasters are a gateway appliance into toaster ovens. You've never lived until you've cooked a small pizza in a toaster oven in a fraction the time of a full sized oven.
38. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-08 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  If kratom is added to Schedule 1, then federal dollars cannot even be used to study the beneficial uses of it.
  That is what has been done to Ibogaine, which is an effective way to get people off of Heroin this is used globally
39. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · 2018-02-08 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Love it when poorly informed comments get modded up by people who also don't know what's going on. The government is actively attempting to ban kratom. There was an emergency scheduling action against it, which was only slowed to a normal schedule action after popular outcry. Making this classification bolsters the case for scheduling, as alluded to in the very first sentence of the summary. Customs routinely seizes any kratom imports they find coming into the country.
  Not all opiates should be treated the same. They're planning on putting kratom on Schedule I, aka a complete ban. In this case, no scheduling is appropriate, and in fact will cause great harm. I'm not objecting to the classification in general, but this finding goes a lot further than simply recognizing the obvious. Please try to refrain from trying to correct others on subjects where you're not closely following the topic.
40. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · 2018-02-08 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  Well we can't have a cheap plant with no patents competing with methadone and buprenorphine, can we?
41. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · 2018-02-08 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Close; opiates are naturally occurring opioids. The endogenous chemicals morphine mimicks, e.g. endorphins and enkephalins, are also opiates. Then opioids are divided into synthetic (fentanyl) and semisynthetic (oxycodone, which is derived from the natural opium alkaloid thebaine).
  This action by the FDA is going farther than just saying 'since this binds to opiate receptors it's an opioid', which was already a universally accepted scientific fact, it's an action designed to bolster the case for scheduling it and banning it.
42. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-02-08 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Tylenol kills 150 people per year.
43. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Biogoly · 2018-02-08 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Just because a chemical is not derived from morphine (main opioid in opium) doesn't mean the FDA can't call it an "opioid". There are a handful of "synthetic" opioids out there...they are not found in nature, but nonetheless bind to the same receptors and create euphoric effects similar to morphine. Fentanyl and its derivatives would be probably the best example... a synthetic opioid orders of magnitude more powerful than morphine.
44. Re: You know, if people want to.... by Biogoly · 2018-02-08 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  This is actually a great example. The pharmaceutical industry took "natural" salicylic acid, which caused horrible gastric upset, and created the much more palatable aspirin. There are loads of other examples of pharma taking products from nature, improving them and then patenting the resulting product for market. So the whole "it's a plant man, big pharma is keeping it down to protect their profits" is BS. If Kratom was this miracle plant, I'm sure pharma companies would be quick at work trying to unlock its secrets, but I strangely haven't heard anything about that. From what I can tell Kratom seems to have effects very similar to another synthetic opioid called tramadol...it's a weak opioid, but deceptively addictive. I've met plenty of people who have gotten hooked on tramadol.
45. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · 2018-02-08 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  The FDA and DEA want it placed on Schedule I, which will make it virtually impossible to study. And yeah, it's a plant, you absolutely should just be able to start selling it.
46. Re:You know, if people want to.... by edtice1559 · 2018-02-09 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody is selling the plant. They are selling capsules of powder derived from the plant.
Stupidity rules by nospam007 · 2018-02-07 10:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The victims often had mixed kratom with other substances, including chemicals taken out of inhalers and found in over-the-counter cold and flu drugs."
So flu drugs and inhalers 'contributed' to their deaths as well as the child laxative used to dilute heroin.
Best to forbid everything.
People had taken up to _9_ different things and only 44 cases?
That's not science, that's anecdotes.
1. Re:Stupidity rules by NettiWelho · 2018-02-07 10:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's not science, that's anecdotes.
  It gets even better; the whole war on drugs is completely unconstitutional.
2. Re:Stupidity rules by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-07 10:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I came to inject my personal experience with Kratom a good decade back.
  Due to an injury and a multi-month stay in the hospital for many surgeries, once out and a good way through recovery I found myself physically dependent on actual opioids, becoming unbearably sick whenever I just stopped taking them.
  I found it was easier to lower my dosage by a certain percent every few days, and initially worked with my doctors to do just that.
  About a month in they ended up simply cutting off my prescription while only down to 25mg/day from my original 100mg/day.
  In absolute terror to feel like I did when cold stopping, I turned to a friend who somehow managed to remain prescribed a large quantity prescription that he was basically doing the same thing as I was, tapering down, but he wasn't working with his doctor for it and remained on the same dosage the full time.
  This helped a lot to continue my plan, at least up until he was sent overseas for work for six months.
  Not wanting to either go down the hardcore path, or the withdraw agony, it was suggested I try Kratom pills.
  So here's the thing. They did work to trick the body and brain enough to not experience withdraws, so clearly there is something in the stuff that acts similar to the real thing.
  But it is VERY mild. There is no high, no pain relief, no other effects.
  However to get even the relief from withdraws, I had to take 6-8 giant capsules every 4 or so hours. Basically a $40 bottle a day.
  I can totally see why someone would turn to shooting up instead of that crap.
  These pills are like most "natural herbal" pills you see peddled, huge size "triple zero" gelcaps packed with powder. These are the kind that suck to take even one of, let alone 8 at once.
  They also float, so its a bitch to swallow them with water so you don't gag and choke.
  They also do quite a number on your stomach inducing cramps and all.
  When they were suggested to me, the same person said it needs a larger than usual dose, aka 6-8 pills instead of what it said on the bottle. The funny part was 6 pills WAS what was suggested on the bottle.
  I can't even imagine how many you would need to take at once to get any sort of recreational effects out of the things.
  I'm not even sure I could physically get enough down at a time to get any more effect without throwing up.
  I know people will go to some amazing extremes to get high, but damn!
  Granted this is just my own experience, and I had a lot going on with my body at the time, but I find it a bit hard to believe that the Kratom itself is what caused these deaths.
  Your comment about mixing it with other chemicals seems to me to be spot on.
3. Re:Stupidity rules by Archangel+Michael · 2018-02-07 10:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Promote general welfare" doesn't mean "provide health insurance /healthcare ". But you can try to claim it does. It also reflects back to the previous statement in the preamble.
  
  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
  The Constitution also outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. Which happens to be my view of taking of money from someone and giving it to another, under threat of force. If you think that is Liberty, then you're a great socialist. I happen to think it is evil.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
4. Re:Stupidity rules by sl3xd · 2018-02-07 11:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Ultimately, the SCOTUS decides constitutionality, not random citizens with a vision of how things would be if they were made Emperor.
  Questions about the constitutionality of regulating arms has been decided by the SCOTUS several times , in some cases over a century ago:
  * Presser v. Illinois (1886): The SCOTUS determined that states are able to regulate gun ownership - which is why we see state-approved firearms (ie. California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale )
  * United States v. Miller (1939): The SCOTUS said "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument"; specific weapons can be regulated.
  Social Security is similarly declared constitutional.
  Helvering v. Davis (1937): The SCOTUS determined Social Security providing the welfare of the people, and would almost certainly be used as a reason to allow universal healthcare.
  Standing armies and navies aren't banned - they merely require Congress to renew authorization every two years.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
5. Re:Stupidity rules by Theils+Blood+Boy · 2018-02-07 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Lol look at this fucking law genius. However did you and the whole rest of the internet get the time and motivation read and understood the entire constitution and every single related case and court ruling since?!?! It in it's current state it exists to fuck you and protect those with resources when it's time to fuck you. The constitution and the law in general is as useless and inaccessible to you as Elon Musk's car. I predict in the future those of you who fail to accept your deserved places in life will be used as wet food for celebrity show dogs so the sooner you start thinking of yourself as a slave the greater your chances of survival.
6. Re:Stupidity rules by Theils+Blood+Boy · 2018-02-07 12:27 · Score: 2
  
  It's bedtime in russia so Archangel Mikhail is sleep now.
7. Re:Stupidity rules by Theils+Blood+Boy · 2018-02-07 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  No no no this is silly talk. Random groups of people who learned the law off internet websites have discovered that the entire court system is illegal and the government has to pay you money if you fly the gold fringed flag of your family's proper coat of arms on your front lawn. Under international law the US government must respect your house's right to safe passage through it's waters. As the earth is 4/6th water this means that you're above prosecution unless they can trick you into appearing in a) a federal courtroom or 2) flying on an airplane in us airspace where you legally become the property of the FAA and can actually be pressed into slavery!!! This is how the FISA courts support the existence of black sites... the us government flies terrorists over the country, enslaves them, and then sends them to work in overseas prison plantations. Think about the historical implications "BLACK" sites.
8. Re:Stupidity rules by PrimaryConsult · 2018-02-07 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Did you try Loperamide (Brand name Imodium)... it's an opioid that does not cross the blood-brain barrier (the only reason it is OTC). Off-label use for sure, but some people cut off from prescriptions have had success with it ("poor man's methodone").
9. Re:Stupidity rules by fafalone · 2018-02-07 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  If SCOTUS ruled that the sky was red, it wouldn't change the fact that the sky is really blue and they're just making a ruling they know is wrong because they support the law. 'Regulate interstate commerce' meaning that a federal police force can arrest you for growing a plant on your own land, exclusively for your own use, in accordance with state law, as a bona fide medical treatment approved by a doctor, is absolute unmitigated bullshit on the scale of that sky color ruling (Raich upholding precedent from Wickard). They didn't want to undermine the drug war, so made a ruling that is blatantly intellectually dishonest in its direct contradiction of objective fact.
10. Re:Stupidity rules by fafalone · 2018-02-07 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  You have to be careful with loperamide. 100mg then tapering lower for a week or two is fine and will stop withdrawal 90% or better; but taking 800mg at once or 200+mg/day long-term (some people have taken up to 1200mg/day--- yes, 600 pills-- for months) is associated with heart rhythm abnormalities that have resulted in a number of fatalities.
11. Re:Stupidity rules by flopsquad · 2018-02-07 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution also outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. Which happens to be my view of taking of money from someone and giving it to another, under threat of force.
  The state constitution of Utah outlaws polygamy, and polygamy happens to be my view of going on a pub crawl. Burglary is illegal, and burglary happens to be my view of long division. Hey words are awesome when they can mean whatever I want them to!
  
  --
  Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
12. Re:Stupidity rules by drinkypoo · 2018-02-07 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Promote general welfare" doesn't mean "provide health insurance /healthcare ". But you can try to claim it does.
  How doesn't it? Use small words, you seem to have trouble with big ones.
  
  The Constitution also outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. Which happens to be my view of taking of money from someone and giving it to another, under threat of force. If you think that is Liberty, then you're a great socialist. I happen to think it is evil.
  Ah yes, the old "taxation is slavery" crowd. I bet you call yourself a Christian too, as little as you want to help people.
  Your lifestyle is predicated upon the suffering of others. It is only right that you should pay into the system to offset that suffering.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:Stupidity rules by kick6 · 2018-02-08 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ultimately the wealthy who can afford lawyers long enough to GET to the supreme court decide justice. Translation: there's no justice.
14. Re:Stupidity rules by Immerman · 2018-02-08 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  A trick I was recently introduced to for swallowing pills more easily: Tilt your head down to look at the floor as you swallow. Sounded ridiculous, but worked wonderfully.
  I suppose if you think about it, that's how we evolved to drink - out of a river or pond. Your tongue automatically does all the work to force water up and into your throat, and anything else gets carried along for the ride. And floating pills would end up being first down the gullet, I would think.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
15. Re:Stupidity rules by sl3xd · 2018-02-08 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Twenty years ago, I heard a guy say something that stuck with me.
  Courts are about law. Justice has nothing to do with it.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
16. Re:Stupidity rules by Biogoly · 2018-02-08 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  You swallow Kratom? I was under the impression that it was mostly smoked? This could definitely effect levels of euphoria. That being said, there can be a vast difference in drug metabolism between individuals.
17. Re:Stupidity rules by david_thornley · 2018-02-08 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Universal health care", "social security" - Congress has explicit authority to tax and spend for the common defense and general welfare. Congressional laws on spending money are almost always constitutional. Some people like to pretend that the General Welfare is restricted in some way, but that's not what the Constitution said.
  "restrictions on private ownership of armaments" - Whether the Second covers all armaments is debatable, but as I read it the ban on buying new automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
  "standing military" - Where does it say that? Congress has explicit authority to maintain an army and a navy, with the restriction that no appropriations bill for the Army can be for more than two years. Congress also has authority to tax and spend for the Common Defense.
  "war on drugs" - I find this to be really dubious, Constitutionally. We had a frippin' amendment to ban alcohol. The Feds can certainly finance anti-drug actions, including those of the states, and can regulate interstate commerce of drugs, but I don't see that the Federal Government has any authority to make drugs grown in one state and consumed there which are legal by state law illegal.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
18. Re:Stupidity rules by david_thornley · 2018-02-08 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  "Promote general welfare" doesn't mean "provide health insurance /healthcare "
  
  No, "Promote general welfare" is far more general. However, it's basically Congress's decision as to what constitutes General Welfare, in the absence of a more specific definition in the Constitution.
  
  The Constitution also outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. Which happens to be my view of taking of money from someone and giving it to another, under threat of force. If you think that is Liberty, then you're a great socialist. I happen to think it is evil.
  
  That definition applies to all taxes, since their use is to give money to people under some circumstance or another. Most people of all sorts of political and economic viewpoints believe that taxes are necessary to run a country. (There's a tremendous amount of debate on the details.) You don't have to be a socialist to believe in taxation and giving money to people. (Otto von Bismarck was not a socialist, for example.)
  Slavery and indentured servitude are cases where a master tells a slave or indentured servant what to do, and legally has to be obeyed. My boss can tell me what to do, and I can either do that or quit. Therefore, I'm neither a slave nor an indentured servant. Taking some of your money isn't slavery, since there's no actual legal requirement for you to make money. You want to earn money, you're participating in the system, and the system has to be financially supported.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
19. Re:Stupidity rules by Archangel+Michael · 2018-02-09 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  master tells a slave or indentured servant what to do
  Liberty is where a man is his own master.
  Stop paying your income taxes (one of the greatest evils IMHO), and see who your master really is. The master demands the product of your labor, allowing you to keep a portion. That sounds a LOT like slavery.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The FDA has zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-07 10:16 · Score: 1

They said the same thing about cannabis and it is *still* a Schedule 1 drug. Does anyone actually believe the FDA when they declare a useful plant to have no medicinal value?
1. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by fredrated · 2018-02-07 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  No?
2. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by xvan · 2018-02-07 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, Cocaine can be used for experimentation as a scheduled 2 drug.
  The reason marijuana is not type 2 is that the FDA doesn't admit valid use case for marijuana for wich is not already covered by another superior drug. Or maybe it's bigotry and war on drugs.
3. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by sjames · 2018-02-07 10:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Definitely the war on drugs. Since doctors DO prescribe marijuana and it is known to have beneficial effects, the DEA (not doctors) claiming it has no recognized medical use is complete BS.
4. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2018-02-07 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Given Jeff Session's opinion on the matter, we may just get lucky and have Congress take action to re/de-schedule it.
5. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by jonwil · 2018-02-07 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone in congress who even mentions support for such an idea (at least anyone who actually matters enough that they could possibly get a bill going) will get a nice fat campaign donation cheque from the lobby group representing the drug companies and that will be the end of that.
  The drug companies know that if medical cannabis becomes properly legal (rather than the grey area where its legal at state level in many states but remains 100% illegal at the federal level) it will hurt their bottom line as more patients use cannabis instead of the drugs owned and controlled by "big pharma" and will do whatever it takes to ensure that doesn't happen.
6. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-08 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm already backing the full legalization of discretionary cannabis use: it's a harmless intoxicant--like khat (cathinone), salvia divinorum (salvinorin A), and a few others--and we're wasting resources and destroying lives with our current policies. These such things should just be legal--at least for those age 21 and up (potentially 18 and up).
  My opponent is against legalization.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-08 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, hm. NORML scorecard for Elijah is actually B, for support of Medical Marijuana; but he doesn't seem to support full legalization for adults. Interesting... his position has changed over the last few years; he was listed as against medical marijuana a while back.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
8. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by david_thornley · 2018-02-08 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone opposing marijuana legalization also might get contribution checks from illegal drug dealers. Legalizing the stuff would cut down on their business hard.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Learning by markdavis · 2018-02-07 10:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Learn something new every day. Never even heard of "kratom" until today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"is a tropical evergreen tree in the coffee family (Rubiaceae) native to Southeast Asia in the Indochina and Malaysia phytochoria (botanical regions). M. speciosa is indigenous to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Papua New Guinea, where it has been used in traditional medicine since at least the 19th century. Kratom has some opioid- and stimulant-like properties."
1. Re:Learning by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-07 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  A bit more general info:
  Here (in Thailand) it's probably used in a similar way to the coca leaf in South America. It's a traditional pick-me-up used by manual labourers to get them through the day.
  From personal experience, when eaten it gives an intensely bitter taste, with a raw buzzy stimulating feeling akin to a couple of cups of strong coffee together, which diminishes over a couple of hours.
  I've seen taxi drivers wash down a couple of leaves with a Red Bull equivalent and then drive. I'd imagine that encourages erratic driving and is possibly the source of the 'all lorry drivers are on meth' accusations. And my nephews brew up some concoction of kratom and cough mixture, so I guess that's the stimulant/depressant combination that appeals to some. I suppose this is where it goes from "traditional use" to abuse.
  Over here it's illegal, and people are regularly arrested for transporting bales of 10s of kilos of the stuff. But then, it grows like weeds by the roadside. On it's own, it's one of natures medicines and no big deal to most users (though I feel the same way about cannabis). Like any mind-altering substance, it's abused to extremes by some.
Government For Sale by CanHasDIY · 2018-02-07 10:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm just going to leave this here...
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/r...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. Re:Government For Sale by dbreeze · 2018-02-07 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  "The love of money is the root of all evil."
  
  --
  When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
This is to be expected by rsilvergun · 2018-02-07 10:34 · Score: 1

The Republicans have taken a hard-line stance on any drug with mind altering affects, even vary mild ones. If it's not tobacco or booze they've been against it. The corporate Dems (Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin, Feinstein, etc) are the same. Mostly bought off by big Pharma & private prison industries. Here's hoping somebody at least primaries Feinstein.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not Helping Further Public Health by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-07 10:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

The first part of the finding, that Kratom acts similarly to an opioid, is a reasonable, scientific discovery. The next step, stating that it is not useful in treating any medical conditions, is complete bullshit. From WebMD: "Advocates say the herb kratom offers relief from pain, depression, and anxiety. Scientists say it may hold the key to treating chronic pain and may even be a tool to combat addiction to opioid medications." https://www.webmd.com/mental-h...
The FDA has no damn clue if Kratom is medicinally useful. If the FDA were reasonably interested in promoting the general health and welfare of the population, the next step would be to temporarily ban Kratom while THEY perform historic investigation, investigate anecdotal accounts of medicinal properties, and then if warranted perform voluntary double blind clinical trials to validate or refute the historical and anecdotal evidence. I have never heard of this herb, let alone taken it, but many naturally occurring plant components have medicinal properties.
All drugs have side effects, all drugs can be dangerous. To pull a medicinal herb without any plans to properly study it while giving blanket statements condemning its use is dishonest and fuels the antivaxers and alternative medicine movements that have been steadily growing in the US.

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
1. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-07 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  The next step, stating that it is not useful in treating any medical conditions, is complete bullshit.
  That is not what he said. He said there is no (scientific) evidence - which is true.
  
  There is no evidence to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use
  It is a very minimal, conservative statement. The rest is you filling in your bias.
2. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by TheRealMindChild · 2018-02-07 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Drugs that directly make you feel good are always classified as "not useful in treating any medical conditions"
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
3. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-07 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Except for alcohol (a glass of wine a day demonstrably reduces your chances of heart disease and stroke)?
  More recently there have been studies that show schizophrenics may have been self medicating with nicotine for generations, and it actually helps? http://www.schizophrenia.com/n...
  Pot (THC) is also still good for glaucoma, anorexia and medication related nausea and to facilitate weight gain.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
4. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by sl3xd · 2018-02-07 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  The FDA has no damn clue if Kratom is medicinally useful.
  That's exactly the problem. The FDA was given power to ban claims without proof of therapeutic effect.
  
  , the next step would be to temporarily ban Kratom while THEY perform historic investigation
  The FDA tried to enact a temporary ban. People complained, petitioned congress, etc.
  The FDA is not authorized to spend a dime of taxpayer money to prove a drug is safe or effective; their duty is to prevent potentially dangerous or addictive substances from being sold until proven safe. The prospective seller is the one who has to foot the bill to prove it's safe and effective.
  
  many naturally occurring plant components have medicinal properties.
  You're not wrong. The problem is focus blindness, like this picture from Finding Nemo.
  The only safe assumption to make about an unknown plant is that it will do some seriously bad shit to you until proven otherwise -- which is exactly what the FDA is doing.
  That's doubly true with any plant that binds to opioid receptors.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
5. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by MobyDisk · 2018-02-07 14:15 · Score: 2
  
  You are misunderstanding what the FDA is saying.
  
  The FDA has no damn clue if Kratom is medicinally useful.
  Agreed. And the FDA seems to be saying that too. Read on...
  
  The next step, stating that it is not useful in treating any medical conditions, is complete bullshit.
  They did not say that.
  They said:
  
  Kratom should not be used to treat medical conditions, nor should it be used as an alternative to prescription opioids. There is no evidence to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use.
  So they are merely saying that thereis no proof yet that this drug is safe or effective.
  
  the next step would be to temporarily ban Kratom while THEY perform historic investigation...
  This is a common misconception. The FDA does not do such investigations. The FDA reviews claims and evidence provided by others and make decisions based on it.
  
  To pull a medicinal herb without any plans to properly study it
  The FDA did not "pull" the herb. They merely stated two scientifically-backed statements: That it acts like an opioid, and that there is not yet evidence it cures any disease. If someone wants to sell this, then they need to do that research and submit it to the FDA.
6. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by Michael+Woodhams · 2018-02-07 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with what you are saying here, but there is a big gap in the current system. When a potentially useful drug is patented by a pharma company, that company has an incentive to do the drug trials. When a potentially useful drug is for some reason not patentable (as in this case) there is nobody to pay for trials. Stage I and stage II trials can probably get done on academic grants, but it would be hard to fund a stage III trial like that.
  I am not a pharmaceutical researcher or funder, I am happy to accept correction from more knowledgeable people.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
7. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by PrimaryConsult · 2018-02-07 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Except the best disease it seems to be useful for is opiod addiction. The thing everyone in politics claims to want to address without actually addressing. And which is caused by the FDA in the first place. Prescription pain pills are cut off while people are addicted, and the cheapest / easiest thing to get their hands on is fucking Heroin, because getting Oxy / Vicodin on the black market is more expensive. Why were they on those opiods in the first place? Because Acetaminophen, Asprin, Ibuprofen are not strong enough, cannabis might be helpful but it is banned.
  So now they're hooked on something, they find this Kratom which might help, and now that's banned too. People were using Imodium to get off their addictions, so some states started to limit how many can be sold to one person at a time. Can't be using it for anything other than diarrhea, no matter how impossible it is to get high from.
  The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that the epidemic of opioid addiction is completely intentional.
8. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by drinkypoo · 2018-02-07 22:45 · Score: 2
  
  You are misunderstanding what the FDA is saying.
  He is not.
  
  The next step, stating that it is not useful in treating any medical conditions, is complete bullshit.
  They did not say that.
  They said:
  Kratom should not be used to treat medical conditions, nor should it be used as an alternative to prescription opioids. There is no evidence to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use.
  When you boil the two statements down, the same thing is left in the bottom of the kettle. Also, their statement is an outright lie. There is evidence that kratom is effective for medical use. Meanwhile, many prescription medications approved by the FDA aren't safe. The side effects are worse than the illness they "cure".
  
  the next step would be to temporarily ban Kratom while THEY perform historic investigation...
  This is a common misconception. The FDA does not do such investigations. The FDA reviews claims and evidence provided by others and make decisions based on it.
  And that's why the FDA is shit. It's only negative. It doesn't do anything positive.
  
  To pull a medicinal herb without any plans to properly study it
  The FDA did not "pull" the herb. They merely stated two scientifically-backed statements: That it acts like an opioid, and that there is not yet evidence it cures any disease. If someone wants to sell this, then they need to do that research and submit it to the FDA.
  Only one of those statements is scientifically backed. The FDA says precisely the same thing about cannabis. They claim that "there are no FDA-approved studies" means the same thing is "there is no evidence" but it does not. Here you are, repeating their lies, which makes you a useful idiot at best.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by drinkypoo · 2018-02-07 22:46 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with what you are saying here, but there is a big gap in the current system.
  The "big gap" comes in the form of NIH. Other countries do perform these kind of studies, but we won't accept the results of any study not performed in the USA because we're better than everyone else in the world and none of them have anything to say that we would be interested in. At least, that's how the FDA operates.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by e3m4n · 2018-02-07 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  I find it interesting they say 'works similar to opiods'.... by that do they mean it triggers a dopamine reaction? If so why the hell is sugar and HFCS still legal? They also do it. In fact this known sugar high is exactly why the fucking straws at mcdonalds are so large you could almost suck a marble through them. They want to speed up the absorbtion of sugar in the sodas so you associate this sugar high with their stores.
11. Re: Not Helping Further Public Health by Immerman · 2018-02-08 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Might be worth reconsidering your position of " just dried vegetable matter. So it's not exactly super dangerous to...the health of the vast majority of people". There's an awful lot of plants that are extremely dangerous to consume. Tobacco will only kill you with prolonged, or very high, exposure. Deadly nightshade is considerably faster and more lethal, and far from the most dangerous. And there's thousands of other examples (pro tip castor bean tea is NOT a suitable replacement for castor oil). You may have noticed that plants can't run away when under attack, so instead they defend themselves with unpleasant tastes, spikes, and a wide range of poisons.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
12. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by Immerman · 2018-02-08 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Probably "binds to opioid receptors". Of course, binding to them doesn't necessarily translate to "activates them in the normal manner". Lots of pharmaceutical drugs work precisely by binding to different chemical receptors while failing to activate them.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
13. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-08 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Their statement "There is no evidence to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use." is 100% a lie.
  The actual true statement would be: "There is no FDA backed/approved studies to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use." Two very different things, as the FDA does not have exclusive rights to objective reality.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
14. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-08 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  The root problem though is this is not a drug, this is a plant. Phara companies arent interested in plants because they can't patent naturally occurring compounds. This plant could turn out to be a 100% safe and effective cure for opoid addiction, but without someone to do the research, the FDA has just shafted thousands of addicts.
  This is obviously speculation, but it is a real problem with the FDA and why growing numbers of Americans are ready to see the agency gutted and totally re-organized with a mandate to improve the health, quality of life and life expectancy of Americans, rather than churning out approvals for dangerous drugs that bring in the ever critical FDA funding.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
15. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-08 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  That should change, at least to be updated with a list of countries whom we have found to be rigorous and accurate with their trials (probably most of Western Europe, Australia, etc.) and there should be an automatic investigation triggered in the US if ANY study found medicinal value in a naturally occurring substance. This is actually what people want their tax dollars funding...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
16. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by MobyDisk · 2018-02-08 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Except the best disease it seems to be useful for is opiod addiction
  Read the article. The entire point of the FDA statement is because there is no evidence that it is useful for opioid addiction. They just linked to a bunch of studies showing that. There are better alternatives, and they are often free.
  
  they find this Kratom which might help, and now that's banned too/quote>
  The FDA did not ban Kratom.
17. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by MobyDisk · 2018-02-08 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your entire post is nothing but an ad-hominem attack on the FDA. The bottom line is that they made a claim, and cited tons of articles backing-up the claim. I'm sorry that you prefer to follow the word on the street instead of science.
  
  There is evidence that kratom is effective for medical use.
  
  So you claim. All I see is an article citing studies to the contrary.
  
  Only one of those statements is scientifically backed
  Read the article. They have citations for the entire thing.
  
  The FDA says precisely the same thing about cannabis.
  
  No they do not. Even if they did your statement is irrelevant, since this is a scientific article about Kratom not Cannabis.
  
  And that's why the FDA is shit. It's only negative. It doesn't do anything positive.
  Keeping dangerous drugs off the street is positive. Keeping bad medical devices out of doctors offices and hospitals is positive. Complaining that congress didn't give the FDA authority or money to invent new drugs is a lame criticism.
18. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by MobyDisk · 2018-02-08 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  The actual true statement would be: "There is no FDA backed/approved studies to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use." Two very different things, as the FDA does not have exclusive rights to objective reality.
  The FDA does not only look at "FDA backed/approved" studies. Heck, the FDA doesn't even "approve" studies. That isn't even what they do.
19. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by sl3xd · 2018-02-08 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Arguing that a substance can’t be a drug because it’s a plant is disingenuous.
  Many of the more popular recreational drugs are plants.
  Cannabis
  Coca
  Tobacco
  Peyote
  Opium
  Some require a bit of cooking - tea, coffee.
  Others require a bit of solvent extraction from the plant – cocaine being a prime example.
  An Opioid is just a substance that triggers the brain’s opioid receptors. So if this herb triggers the same receptors, yes, it’s every bit as much an opioid as the latex from the flower of an opium poppy.
  Coca leaves are illegal in the US - and has been for generations. Banning plants isn’t a new idea at all; the ancient story of the Garden of Eden starts with the banning of a fruit.
  I don’t see unregulated opium as giving the user life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I see the opposite: unregulated opium leads to slavery, misery, and death.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
20. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by drinkypoo · 2018-02-09 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  So you claim. All I see is an article citing studies to the contrary.
  That's because you're willfully ignorant.
  
  The FDA says precisely the same thing about cannabis.
  No they do not.
  Yes, yes they do. A Schedule I drug is one which is considered to have no medical benefit. You don't even know what the claims are! What makes you think you can make a contribution to the discussion? The FDA backs up the DEA here, and vice versa, so there is no conflict there either.
  
  Even if they did your statement is irrelevant, since this is a scientific article about Kratom not Cannabis.
  My statement is relevant because it establishes poor faith on the part of the federal government when it comes to the characterization of chemical compounds, including the FDA. The FDA is an ideal expression of greed and arrogance. Any study which wasn't done precisely by their guidelines is considered to be completely invalid, even if it is superior to a typical FDA-approved study overall. If it was Not Invented Here, then it's "no evidence". That's bunkum.
  
  Keeping dangerous drugs off the street is positive. Keeping bad medical devices out of doctors offices and hospitals is positive. Complaining that congress didn't give the FDA authority or money to invent new drugs is a lame criticism.
  Preventing bad things isn't positive, it's just avoiding bad things. The FDA can only smite, it cannot reward nor can it further science, only retard it. I think that's dumb. Since the FDA is being wielded as a weapon by Big Pharma, it's not just stupid but actively harmful.
  The federal government does this kind of thing all the time. There always was evidence that milk from cows treated with BGH/rBST is inferior to milk from other cows, for example; it increases udder infections which is known to increase the pus content of milk by a significant percentage. But milk producers who labeled their milk as non-BGH were forced by the USDA to also carry a disclaimer stating that there was no difference between the two, which is an outright lie that they knew was a lie. Essentially the same force is at work here. They know that there is evidence that Kratom has medical benefits, but they are stating otherwise. This is a fraud perpetuated against The People, and you are making yourself a party to it by claiming otherwise.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by drinkypoo · 2018-02-09 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  That should change,
  Many things should change, but both parties are too addicted to Big Pharma's campaign contributions (side effects may include treason) to even think about it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by MobyDisk · 2018-02-12 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's because you're willfully ignorant [scientificamerican.com].
  A citation, thank you! Now read it - it completely agrees with what the FDA said. The FDA says that Kratom does not cure any disease, and that it is not the best drug for getting people off of Opioids. The SciAm article you linked to, which is over 4 years old merely BTW, says that there is potential for using it to get people off Opiods.
  
  Yes, yes they do. A Schedule I drug...
  That's the DEA, not the FDA. Wrong organization. :-/
  
  any study which wasn't done precisely by their guidelines is considered to be completely invalid, even if it is superior to a typical FDA-approved study overall. If it was Not Invented Here, then it's "no evidence". That's bunkum.
  That's not how the FDA works. The term "FDA approved" doesn't apply to studies, it applies to medical device claims and pharmaceutical claims. "Claims" are statements about how a device or a drug works. The FDA looks at studies done by all kinds of organizations, from commercial companies to foreign universities.
  
  Preventing bad things isn't positive
  Now you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
  
  The federal government does this kind of thing all the time. There always was evidence that milk from cows treated with BGH/rBST is inferior to ...
  Hold up here. First you complain that the FDA's job is just to ban things, but now you are complaining that they didn't ban something. Apparently, all you want to do is complain when the science doesn't agree with your opinion. Trust me dude, the FDA does more than just read SciAm. If you really want to debate the FDAs conclusions on Kratom, stop complaining about congress, the DEA, the FDA, the USDA, and citing pop science articles. There's probably real valid discussion here, but nothing you have posted here in any way refutes the FDAs evidence.
  Let's bring this back to the topic:
  There's a limited amount of research on this drug. Maybe in the future it will be a safer alternative to Methadone for getting people off Opioids. But today, it is not. And people are lying about it, with some claiming it is a magical cure-all for pain, and others using it in really high dosages as a Methadone alternative. This kind of fraudulent and unsafe behavior is why the FDA made this statement. You pointed out that once something is schedule 1, that federal research money into it is limited. So hopefully the DEA won't do that, or if they do, maybe congress will change their funding rules. Same thing happened with marijuana and we lost decades of valid pain research. I personally know 2 people on medical cannabis for pain (one for back pain, another for cancer.) So I get your beef with the DEA. But none of this has to do with the very modest statement that the FDA made, which is completely solid: Kratom acts like an Opioid, and we don't have any current medically-proven use for it. That's all they said.
23. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by MobyDisk · 2018-02-14 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  FYI: I just came across an article on SoylentNews, that says NIH research is key to new drug development. It sounds like that is who you should petition to study Kratom.
And yet you can still buy and grow opium poppy. by hey! · 2018-02-07 11:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

The exact same plant our military is attempting to eradicate in Afghanistan. It's just technically illegal to harvest and store "opium poppy straw", but if you harvest and milk seed pods for opium tea nobody is going to stop you; the DEA literally doesn't want to know because then it's got to crack down on gardeners. Or if you don't have a garden you can buy the dried seed pods at the florist for flower arrangements, and when you're done with them make your opium tea from them.
I'm not saying there's nothing to be done on the supply end, but even if you stopped all the heroin coming into the country and outlawed the "garden" poppy, addicts would just turn to synthetic opioids, some of which can be synthesized from innocuous precursors. The primary fight has to be prevention and treatment of addiction.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Re:And yet you can still buy and grow opium poppy. by bill_mcgonigle · 2018-02-07 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  The exact same plant our military is attempting to eradicate in Afghanistan.
  Actually they're guarding the fields and helping the warlords traffic it. "Economic stability".
  But, yeah, they should ban poppy seeds if they're thinking about banning kratom.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What the devil are you on about? by rsilvergun · 2018-02-07 11:49 · Score: 1, Flamebait

are you suggesting Kratom is killing folks, because it's not. The FDA says that the deaths were caused by mixing Kratom with other substances, but don't really go into details and their own data seems to prove otherwise.

This is more shitting on poor people and another extension of our racist drug policy. The goal is to fill the private prisons (which are now a convenient source of slave labor that _you_ compete with) while allowing roundabout institutionalized racism and segregation. There is literally nothing good about this.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:What the devil are you on about? by ChrisMaple · 2018-02-07 14:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The age of "racist drug policy" is long gone; the urge to ban substances is based on authoritarianism and dogooderism. Accusing people of racism where none exists weakens your case and makes you look like a fool.
  It gets worse. Your tying race to poverty reveals that you have racist beliefs.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
2. Re:What the devil are you on about? by flopsquad · 2018-02-07 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  It gets worse. Your tying race to poverty reveals that you have racist beliefs.
  No, but saying that implies that you either (a) don't understand Correlation != Causation, or (b) are willing to forget that you know (a) for long enough to make a fallacious racism claim.
  
  --
  Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
3. Re:What the devil are you on about? by drinkypoo · 2018-02-07 22:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The age of "racist drug policy" is long gone;
  
  False.
  
  the urge to ban substances is based on authoritarianism and dogooderism.
  And it disproportionately targets blacks and other minorities (but especially blacks.)
  
  Accusing people of racism where none exists weakens your case and makes you look like a fool.
  Pretending racism doesn't exist where it totally does exist weakens your case and makes you look like a white supremacist.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:What the devil are you on about? by edtice1559 · 2018-02-08 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  The first part of this post makes a lot of sense and deserves the +5. The second portion needs a -1. No idea how one would moderate that. Guess it depends on who has points. The prison industrial complex certainly isn't racist. They don't care who is filling a bed as long as they get paid. On the other hand, you only have to look out the window to see that our long history or racism in this country is still having a profound effect.
You know what's not an opioid? by WillAffleckUW · 2018-02-07 12:07 · Score: 1

MJ. Seriously, it's not an opioid, but is very effective in pain management and not being addictive.
But don't overdo it or you shouldn't drive.
Problem is, pharmaceutical companies don't get rich off of this, so the FDA persists in the myth that it's Schedule 1.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's "odd"... by MetricT · 2018-02-07 12:13 · Score: 1

...how much time our government spends worrying about plants that haven't killed anything other than corporate profits, and how very little time they spend worrying about an opioid epidemic which was largely created by pharmaceutical companies.
Re:So.. it's officially just "medicine" now? by sl3xd · 2018-02-07 12:28 · Score: 1

How can they at the same time claim it's an opioid and that it is not effective for any medical use
Let's think of "sweeteners" for a moment. A "sweetener" is anything that activates the "sweet" receptors on the tongue. Sugars are the sweeteners our bodies really care about. Some sugars are sweeter than others. There are also compounds which are thousands of times sweeter than sugar. Lead diacetate is a sweetener known in antiquity, and is kinda... bad.
Opioids are defined in the same way: They activate opioid receptors. The pituitary gland creates opioids (which we call "endorphins" -- a contraction of endogenous and morphine). Much like sweeteners, there are compounds from many other sources which are far more powerful than natural endorphins.
So that's how they can classify it as an opioid: it binds to or activates the opioid receptor.
Cannabinoids, and nicotinoids are classified similarly.
To sell a food or drug in the US, it has to meet standards of safety and purity. The onus falls on the seller to prove it's safe and/or effective. TFA states there have been no studies about the safety or effectiveness of Kratom.
Proving any opioid is safe without a prescription will no doubt be very difficult to do. Opioids in particular have a long, dark history in "patent medicines" - over the counter "medicine" which were neither effective or safe -- and one of the primary reasons the FDA was created by Congress.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
...and sugar / HCFS? by filesiteguy · 2018-02-07 12:31 · Score: 1

when will the FDA protect us against those drugs?

--
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Their cases are all mostly flawed by ZosX · 2018-02-07 13:00 · Score: 1

Many are people that toxicology reports stated had multiple drugs within their bloodstream. The cases in sweden were laced with a synthetic opiate too. In one case, one person died of a fucking gun shot wound but somehow ended up on their report until they redacted it!
But hey, let's just take their word for it.....

--
zosxavius photography
I know you are but what am I by rsilvergun · 2018-02-07 15:23 · Score: 2

is what I'm hearing. Your arguments don't hold up to math. Even accounting for all control factors (income, location, family status, etc) blacks are 2-3 times more likely to be arrested for drug violations and get harsher sentences. This is a statistical fact you can prove for yourself with a few minutes on google. If we can't acknowledge facts, even when they make us uncomfortable, well, I don't know what to do. I really don't. But you're not going to see legalized drugs unless we attack the underlining reasons people support keeping them illegal. Remember, it takes a significant amount of political will to maintain our drug policy, and we need to be firing on all cylinders if we want to change it.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:Despite addiction risk, are necessary in cases by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-07 15:38 · Score: 1

The drug parks in Europe helped reduce the black market where drugs are marketed to new users thus helping put them out of business.
By trying to go down the war on drugs path again we are repeating all the same mistakes again. rather than criminalize the drug we should instead address underlying cultural and social problems that are leading to their use, like the very poor moral exemplars coming from hollywood, the lack of virtue, morality and ethics in our mainstream culture as promoted by Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, etc. and the manner in which many communities have been rendered rustbelts by disasterous trade and offshoring policies which devastated many communiites, causing people to turn to drugs to relieve their pain. If we help people living fulfilling happy lives and promote a family values culture of stable marriage and so on, and teach the youth morality, virtue, and to cherish adn respect their country rather than the moral depravity and debasement of the present mass media and the constant villification of this country, the drug use will go down.
Great marketing! by VeryFluffyBunny · 2018-02-07 16:29 · Score: 1

Yes, this means that the FDA has officially announced that kratom has similar therapeutic effects to other opioids. Anyone looking to reduce their prescription charges or kick an oxycodone or hydrocodone habit (apparently it's less addictive) now knows that this is a medically legitimate option rather than some pseudo-science scam.

--
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
No thank you by PopeRatzo · 2018-02-07 16:46 · Score: 2

If three fingers of bourbon and a quarter ounce of weed can't take me there, I ain't going.
[This message has been brought to you by the Association of California Marijuana Dispensaries. Please smoke and drive sensibly, and wait until you're twenty-one. If you're pregnant, ask your doctor before scarfing down that bag of edibles you dumb cow. That's how you got knocked up in the first place.]

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Weird Classification by moehoward · 2018-02-07 17:03 · Score: 1

The pathway that opioids take in the pleasure centers is the same as alcohol. This was discovered in the 1960s. Different drugs (and experiences, etc.) take different pleasure pathways. Alcohol and opioids take the same path, and has to do with at least 4 important chemicals in the brain (serotonin, GABA, etc.). There are lots of different paths, but booze and opioids take the same one.
Why would this thingy be classified that way just because it affects the brain the same as opioids? Alcohol does. So alcohol is now an opioid?

--
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Fuck the Trump administration. by mrseth · 2018-02-08 04:29 · Score: 1

Fuck the Trump administration. This decision is what will kill many, as kratom helps legions of people get off truly dangerous opiates. Kratom is not at all dangerous. Cheeseburgers are more dangerous than kratom. I thought it was impossible for me to hate the Trump administration any more than I already do, but now I hate them even more. How is it we keep electing the most awful people in the country?
Keep them slaves and serfs addicted by doccus · 2018-02-08 08:16 · Score: 1

It sure wouldn't do to have a safe and easy cure for all those people tied to the nuts on methadone and other strong opioids.
On one hand they decry the "opioid epidemic" but on the other they collude with the suppliers to keep everyone addicted. What other possible reason for smuggling thousands of tons of heroin and growing the largest poppy fields in Afghanistan they've ever had .. all guarded by US troops, BTW. I wouldn't be surprised if the poppies were the main impetus to invade Afghanistan, rather than oil.
"There's gold in them thar bulbs!"
Actually I really like fresh opium. It's a real treat.. Unfortunately, since I no longer travel in those circles, I probably won't see any, anymore in my lifetime. Ahh well..