Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldpie | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of how you feel about drugs for personal use, enjoyment, or their health benefits, ask yourself: how would society benefit by putting these users in jail or setting them back financially? Do we have a Kratom problem? Have you ever even heard of Kratom before? Is continuing to put our resources into jailing otherwise-productive members of society the best way to use those resources?

View on HN

I think the idea is to go after the distributors and importers; not the end users. They're trying to prevent a commercial industry from growing around it before it starts (just like it did with the "synthetic marijuana" that we now know to be incredibly toxic).

Also, Kratom is already illegal basically everywhere it grows because it does cause many of the same societal problems that other narcotics do. It is known to be chemically addictive and can cause death via overdose or through interactions with other drugs. While a knee-jerk schedule 1 classification is too harsh (I don't think we know enough about it to declare it as having no theraputic use); it certainly shouldn't go unregulated either.

If you leave it unregulated, vultures with no regard for human life will swoop in and start marketing it as diet pills, herbal painkillers, etc. with few regards for its safety or effectiveness. If you regulate it early, you can prevent large amounts of it from flooding the market and start to educate people as to what it is before it becomes a problem. IMO it's specifically a problem because it's so unknown in the West that people will assume it's not dangerous.

No, this is wrong. Thailand scheduled Kratom in the 1940s specifically because it was competing with their opiate trade. People use Kratom to wean themselves off of opiates. Additionally, Thailand is now considering removing the ban precisely because it doesn't have the same problems as drugs [0]. Now, what you've said about regulation I think is important, and something we need to look at. I do agree with that. There are unscrupulous suppliers of Kratom out there, and the deaths the DEA is talking about are mostly from bad suppliers spraying their Kratom with other opiates (most commonly O-Desmethyltramadol). The other deaths all involved mixing Kratom with other chemicals.

[0] http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-09-17/thailand-s-cure-meth-a...

>Thailand scheduled Kratom in the 1940s specifically because it was competing with their opiate trade.

Exactly the reason the DEA is banning it in the US.

> it does cause many of the same societal problems that other narcotics do

This, and the evidence of the failure of prohibition of existing opiate and opiod drugs to mitigate those harms, is the best reason not to prohibit it.

1. You know synthetic marijuana only exists because of prohibition right?

2. I have never heard of a single death by Kratom overdose. I have heard of countless people kicking their opiate addiction with help of Kratom.

I really don't know what to even say about your third paragraph.

I'm not arguing for prohibition (schedule 1). I'm saying that we should make it schedule 2 (which would allow federal funding for medical research), study it in detail (since it's a relatively un-researched drug) and come up with guidelines around how to use it safely.

Your #2 is anecdotal evidence. Not saying it's wrong and that Kratom has no benefits; but this is exactly why more study is needed. In the meantime, we have to keep the snake oil salesmen at bay.

There were 15 recorded cases of people dying from kratom from 2014-2016. To put that in perspective, 15,000+ people die each year in America from NSAIDs like aspirin, and from similar causes (taking massive amounts, preexisting conditions, mixing it with other drugs).

The good that kratom is doing for people far outweighs its minimal dangers, which can be mitigated by educating people on how to use it safely.

A bunch of those deaths have been attributed to Kratom that was sprayed with opiates and other adulterants.

You have a denominator problem.

15 recorded (likely underreported) cases of people dying, but how many people took it in that time frame? How many people fully knew the risks? Given the lack of quality control, how much was due to contaminates?

Millions of people take aspirin each year and the risks are well known with NSAIDs and they are produced at a very high quality.

The absolute numbers are very misleading without knowing the exposure rates. I don't take a position one way or the other on Kratom, because I don't know anything about it, but your argument is not very compelling from a statistical perspective.

Maybe only 15 people took it and they all died. Should Schedule 1 classification be used for a drug that only 15 people want to take?

"From February 2014 to July 2016, over 55,000 kilograms of kratom material were encountered by law enforcement at various ports of entry within the United States. Additionally, another 57,000+ kilograms of kratom material offered for import into the United States between 2014 and 2016 are awaiting an FDA admissibility decision. Together, this material is enough to produce over 12 million doses of kratom." [1]

Seizure rates are very low for drug shipments, so we're likely talking about about hundred of thousands of people who're using kratom, which has risen dramatically in the past year.

[1] https://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2016/hq083016.shtml

That's a fair argument, but it's impossible for me to compare them because there's no data on how many people use kratom. I'm not saying it's less dangerous than NSAIDs necessarily, as kratom is poorly researched at this point. What I'm trying to say is that we allow people to freely use NSAIDs in spite of the regular death that they cause, because of the benefits they provide. I don't see what makes kratom any different from that - it seems like a knee-jerk reaction in the middle of an opiate epidemic, just because it seems to be agonistic.

Right; there has to be a middle ground between "zero regulation" and "total prohibition". Schedule 1 classification effectively prevents research, which is a bad idea. But likewise, no regulation means this stuff will start showing up in bodegas with all sorts of claims attached to it and very little quality control -- a bad idea for a substance that is known to be capable of causing death in large quantities.

There has to be a middle ground.

That's in the US though, which had only received 600 or so cases reported in 5 years. There's a point to be made about regulating it while still a fringe fad.

It also causes tachycardia and high blood pressure so while it may be providing people relief for some of their symptoms, it's a potentially dangerous substance for certain patients.

Those deaths were from Tramadol as the vendor(Krypton Kratom) spiked their kratom with O-desmethyltramadol. Link to the study about the toxicology can be found here:

http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/4/242.long

I thought Tylenol killed many more people than all the NSAIDs combined?

The reason Thailand banned kratom was because around the time their government was receiving taxes from opium. As kratom provides a way for opium addicts to get off of opium it seems they considered it a conflict of interest.Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitsiri is working to end the 70 year old ban on kratom in Thailand as well.

link to an article about this can be found here:

http://speciosa.org/Thailand-looks-to-legalize-kratom-justic...

Kratom actually does not cause respiratory depression and there is doubt the powdered leaf (not concentrate) alone can causes death. It began to be used in place of opium in Malaysia starting in 1836. [1]

It has already been on the market in the US for many years. It was researched by Smith, Kline & French (acquired by GlaxoSmithKline) and one of its alkaloids was patented in 1963. [2] It is aiding people in quitting opiates/heroin and is much easier to withdraw from.

Companies sell it as botanical specimens, soap ingredients, and generally label it as not for human consumption and consumers understand what they are getting. There has not been a problem, aside from the contamination with O-desmethyltramadol and consumers mixing drugs. In fact, the CDC reported only one death in six years involving kratom, as well as paroxetine and lamotrigine. There are 16 deaths where kratom has been found in autopsy reports and 14 in the scientific literature. [3]

Regulation is important. Users should be able to know that the product they are buying is safe and would probably like to know the alkaloid content, the same way marijuana strains are tested. Schedule 1 is not appropriate for this plant. It is going to encourage synthetic alkaloid production. In fact, PZM21 is being synthesized to be able to curb addiction without respiratory issues. [4] While this is great for addiction treatment, it is unfortunate that kratom will not be available for those who use it in place of opiates.

If you are interested in the research that is available, someone has uploaded it all here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B_SMhCuwVcKjZWxS...

1. http://gradworks.umi.com/15/87/1587128.html

2. https://www.google.com/patents/US3324111

3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2016/09/01/the-deas-...

4. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...

In case it gets removed, here are individual links to the research:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23725528

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23024321

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20869223

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846544

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24314525

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25216455

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25616583

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25825913

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3419199

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22133323

https://www.google.com/patents/US8648090

https://www.google.com/patents/US8247428

https://www.google.com/patents/US20100209542

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268515893_Marketing...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268183866_Molecular...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10428019

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202507/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22018854

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482427

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11419-009-0070-5

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25950592

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19536806

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19294483

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17882605

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25081682

http://gradworks.umi.com/15/87/1587128.html

http://www.americankratom.org/science

Absolutely agree with you. Schedule 1 seems inappropriate and would needlessly restrict any research into potential medical applications. Schedule 1 prevents organizations that receive federal grant money from studying it -- which is basically any organization capable of conducting a respectable study.

But at the same time, if left unregulated, the Internet hype machine will take it from "this stuff can be beneficial when taken as part of an opiate addiction treatment plan" to "A HEALTHY ALTERNATIVE TO OPIATES THAT MAKES YOU LOOK 30 YEARS YOUNGER! DOCTORS HATE IT!"

It has been unregulated for a while and already is encouraged as an alternative to opiates and has value as an antioxidant. [1] What do you have against people using this recreationally or outside of opiate addiction? How do you think regulation will curb statements about its value?

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25081682

You have to remember the original cause of synthetic marijuana use was making safer options illegal.

A large portion of people use Kratom instead of stronger more dangerous alternatives. Things like Vicodin, Oxycontin, and heroin. Regulating this will drive some users back to there harder alternatives, and there is no data that supports that this will make people safer. And it could make people less safe, not mention the issue with restricting adult's abilities to make decisions.

If you look for #iamkratom and #savekratom hashtags around the web and read the stories and watch the videos, the worst part of this decision is the kinds of people it will affect. Grandmothers, disabled veterans (such as myself), taxpaying citizens providing for their families. This is not a drug and there is not an abuse problem. I do encourage anyone and everyone to do their own research, and look for the testimonials. The DEA's decision is a very poor one.

How can you claim this is not a drug? It has a physiological effect when ingested.

Well, cheese has a physiolocial effect when ingested. In fact, chemicals in cheese are known to bind to opioid receptors in our brains. But we don't call cheese a drug, do we? I think it's safe to say that Kratom isn't properly characterized as a "drug" in the same way that the DEA is characterizing it as a "drug".

people aren't eating it for its nutritional value. don't be ridiculous. it's being taken for medicinal purposes.

People aren't taking it to get high.

Actually, some people _are_ taking it to get high. I have seen people use it to help with Opiate addiction, however, I have also seen people use it recreationally. A couple of capsules of ground up kratom leaf have effects similar to a low dose of Vicodin.

that's not what I said. pay attention. "medicinal purposes". look, you can drop the pretense here. nobody gives a shit. you have an agenda. that's fine. state it clearly and don't think you won't get called out for distorting the facts.

No need to be rude. I'm telling you my definition and why it isn't a drug.

you're absolutely right. If we came to a consensus on the definition of what a drug is, we wouldn't have that much confusion going on. If we were to consider coffee, alcohol, cigarettes and cannabis drugs, this falls into a similar category. Cigarettes can have a euphoric effect sometimes referred as a "head rush" typically for new users though the effect goes away for addicted smokers and coffee has that effect in the morning where it ever so slightly perks you up since it's a stimulant. Kratom is somewhere around those but it's mostly similar to coffee sensation wise, though slightly stronger, but can have that slight euphoric effect as well, however that euphoria reaches a plateau nowhere beyond the effects of THC and taking more kratom will not get someone beyond that sensation. Kratom is also much less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes, much like cannabis, but out of all of these, kratom does show signs of medicinal purposes, very much like cannabis. We have an agenda, and that is to spread awarness about having a say in how Americans choose their method of treatment, as well as having more than a few options. If someone does not feel inclined to use prescriptions drugs, or has and they have no effect, then they should have the option to use Kratom if they choose too. We also want to spread the correct information about kratom that avoids biases, but that can be hard for those of who it has helped so much. There's so much more info to go into, (but im doing this off the cuff and barely scratching the surface) but the point being I don't want your initial observation about our community to seem like we don't consider it a drug, it's just when people try to avoid that classification, it's because of the implication the word has had throughout history.

coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis are all uncontroversially drugs. You can find lots of examples of interested parties who don't like the connotations of the word "drug" and therefore will deliberately use politicized, weasel-wordy speech to try and evade the label, but that doesn't really mean much besides that interested parties are interested parties.

none of those substances are ingested as foods. what, then, is a thing that a person ingests but not for nutrition? that's a drug. medicinal and recreational purposes are both different use cases for drugs. why is this subject to debate? this is just the basics of what it means to be a human animal. you take things into your body. if its not for food its for something else, clearly. what do you propose we call non-food items that we ingest?

I honestly don't care much about the politics of the now-suddenly-agrieved kratom user community. personally I'd vote in favor of full legalization but its not up to voters, the DEA is a very tyrannical agency and there isn't much accountability. Sorry dude, sucks, but that's how it is. We live in a prohibition state.

I think the strategy of saying "kratom isn't a drug" is not going to be even remotely effective at persuading the DEA to change their mind though. Its just absurd, honestly. Reconsider your tactics.

that moment when you realize that different people use the same words differently depending on their political agenda...

If you read the Erowid reports, sure as hell sounds like a drug...

https://erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=60574

"3:45 ~ I start to feel this intense warmth come over my entire body, it feels like a combination of my first MDMA high with a nice OxyContin like twist, along with the social aspect of Cocaine. "

https://erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=44963

"12:34-2:20- Between these hours I experienced the most fantastic high I have experienced. It is similar to an orgasm crossed with a MJ high. Shivers of warmth ran down my whole body and my fingers and other extremities went totally numb. I found myself playing a game in which I sat still in silence just experiencing these feelings. Any movement brought pleasant, warm tingling sensations all over my body although especially noticeable around the head and neck area. Any touch from another human was sensational and I found myself making excuses to be near people to feel their warmth and experience what I can only presume was their aura. There was a neutral sensation of pressure in my ears as well although that only added to my feelings of intoxication "

https://erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=46082

"After living through this hell of a detox, I was afraid to even start again, but here was this pound of kratom, beckoning. So of course I brewed some up, and drank it. Ah, bliss! And now it only took me 12 grams to get the same effect that 18 used to give me!"

Okay, that's pretty funny, I must admit. Kratom is like a weak version of coffee. Truly. So this kind of thing makes me chuckle. Can you imagine someone saying this about coffee?

I agree. I've used Kratom recreationally. It kind of sucks. You have to consume a large amount for any effect (10+ grams) and it has the consistency of ground cinnamon, so you can't simply eat it.

The people acting like a capsule is similar to a narcotic have likely never tried it. The high is subtle.

Caffeine is a drug. Coffee has been outlawed multiple times in the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com