Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on 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.

41 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. You know, if people want to.... by cayenne8 · · 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 bobbied · · 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
    2. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Khyber · · 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.
    3. Re:You know, if people want to.... by harrkev · · 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."
    4. Re:You know, if people want to.... by BlueStrat · · 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.
    5. Re:You know, if people want to.... by pr0fessor · · 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.

    6. Re:You know, if people want to.... by rogoshen1 · · 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'.

    7. Re:You know, if people want to.... by The+Grim+Reefer · · 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.

    8. Re:You know, if people want to.... by bobbied · · 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
    9. Re:You know, if people want to.... by The+Grim+Reefer · · 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.

    10. Re:You know, if people want to.... by ColdWetDog · · 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!
    11. Re: You know, if people want to.... by c6gunner · · 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.

    12. Re: You know, if people want to.... by BlueStrat · · 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.
    13. Re: You know, if people want to.... by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True. This is why I grow my own willow trees to make willow tea; because aspirin is too damn expensive.

    14. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · · 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.

    15. Re:You know, if people want to.... by GuB-42 · · 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.

    16. Re:You know, if people want to.... by crypticedge · · Score: 2

      TFS literally says people have died from it.

    17. Re:You know, if people want to.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    18. Re: You know, if people want to.... by Bengie · · 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.

    19. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · · 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.

    20. Re:You know, if people want to.... by fafalone · · Score: 2

      Well we can't have a cheap plant with no patents competing with methadone and buprenorphine, can we?

    21. Re: You know, if people want to.... by Biogoly · · 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.

  2. Stupidity rules by nospam007 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 sl3xd · · 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.
    4. Re:Stupidity rules by Theils+Blood+Boy · · Score: 2

      It's bedtime in russia so Archangel Mikhail is sleep now.

    5. Re:Stupidity rules by Immerman · · 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.
  3. Learning by markdavis · · 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."

  4. Government For Sale by CanHasDIY · · 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 · · 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
  5. Re:The FDA has zero credibility by sjames · · 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.

  6. Not Helping Further Public Health by LeftCoastThinker · · 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 MobyDisk · · 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.

    2. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
    3. Re:Not Helping Further Public Health by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
  7. And yet you can still buy and grow opium poppy. by hey! · · 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.
  8. Re:What the devil are you on about? by ChrisMaple · · 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
  9. I know you are but what am I by rsilvergun · · 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/
  10. No thank you by PopeRatzo · · 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.
  11. Re:What the devil are you on about? by drinkypoo · · 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.'"