Kratom becomes illegal 30th sept

[medievalman1]

IMO it should, it's highly hypocritical and stinks of corruption to allow some substances but not others. If we don't want any dangerous narcotics then ban them all or none at all. Try and jail people who commit crimes under the influence, just being high should not be a crime.

Yeah, that's not how society/business/life/this world works. Also, narcotics are a specific class of drug... did you mean to say that (as that is a very small subset of substances that can potentially cause harm). Additionally, any substance used in extreme amounts is deadly, this has nothing to do with corruption/hypocrisy with their continued allowance and/or use, as is the case with narcotics.

[frogger237]

I'm not siding one way or another about Kratom, but... just because there are substances that are currently legal that cause deaths on a regular basis (a debate for another thread regarding their legality), does not mean other substances that also can lead to death but to a lesser degree should be legalized because of the legal status of the deadlier substances.

Also there are more people using alcohol and shit than Krantom. Tons of people die as a result of sticking their dicks in a woman they shouldn't have(killed by someone for it, gotten a disease,etc) while one dumbass died from sticking his dick in a bikes spokes. Doesn't mean everyone should be banging bicycles instead of women.

[Dug]

Yeah, that's not how society/business/life/this world works. Also, narcotics are a specific class of drug... did you mean to say that (as that is a very small subset of substances that can potentially cause harm). Additionally, any substance used in extreme amounts is deadly, this has nothing to do with corruption/hypocrisy with their continued allowance and/or use, as is the case with narcotics.

Okay not corruption, idiocy is more fitting. When marijuana is under the same classification as heroin..

[medievalman1]

Okay not corruption, idiocy is more fitting. When marijuana is under the same classification as heroin..

under federal law, I presume? well, that's changing state side and will likely change federally soon-ish. The two are most definitely not medically under the same classification.

[Dug]

under federal law, I presume? well, that's changing state side and will likely change federally soon-ish. The two are most definitely not medically under the same classification.

Yes under federal law. Thank jesus we're starting to move away from such a stupid classification.

[anyaka21]

TBH, this isn't surprising. This is a move about money. The cog that makes american medicine move.

American medicine isn't about curing the sick, it's about profit. It's why drugs are astronomically expensive when compared to other countries. Further, it's also about alleviating symptoms and not finding cures.

This is most definitely a move via big pharma to try and take advantage of Kratom and guaranteed, they'll come out with a "new" drug based on Kratom that costs 1000x more.

My experience, I've had asthma all of my life. Used inhalers since I was 10 (I'm 50 now). For 38 years, I basically went thru, on average, 1 inhaler a month, that along with other asthma meds. After a while I stopped taking my asthma pills, and just stuck with the inhaler. When the place I worked with closed, and I had to find a new job, I started to use an over the counter inhaler, Primatine Mist. This worked amazingly well. Well, big pharma stepped in and made non-hfa inhalers illegal. Supposedly under the guise of no chloro-floro-carbons. Thus my inhaler alternative was being made illegal, and I was insuranceless. Primatine, after a year or so, came out with an hfa inhaler, but the FDA wouldn't allow it because, of all things, it didn't have a counter. (modern inhalers have counters on them so people know how much they've used.) Not because it wasn't a good product, or that it killed people, but because it didn't have a fucking counter.....

Being a frustrated person, I started googling a little, and to my surprise, I searched Amazon for an asthma alternatives and possible ways to get inhalers. Asthma cure came up as one of the search alternatives, so I clicked it. You know what I found? Vitamin D. A little mini book, but he gist of it was take fucking vitamin D. So I did.

Since I started taking it, I don't need asthma meds, and I now barely ever use an inhaler. So from asthma meds, uninsured inhalers that cost over $60, and the last time I visited an asthma specialist, they wanted me to take pills as well as some other asthma control meds that was like $300+ (flovent or something like that). Now, about $10 for a years supply of vitamin D, and my asthma's never been better.

Fuck american medicine.


edit: there is also apparently a cure, supposedly available in England, that they were giving away for free to their citiziens. But has there been any noise or possibility of it coming the the US? And how much would it cost if it did.... American medicine and big pharma will find a way to make sure that it doesn't come to the US or find a way to charge the consumers $10k or more after coming up with their "new asthma cure".

[Pipebomb]

Looks like the feds have backed off for now.

DEA is withdrawing the August 31, 2016 notice of intent; and soliciting comments from the public regarding the scheduling
of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine under the Controlled Substances Act.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-insp...2016-24659.pdf

[Shibito]

How many people died from tobacco or alcohol between 2014 and 2016? I rest my case.

The usual crap i see, you know people get fucked up in the head by weed right? BUT BUT ALKOHOL

[Luxxor]

Jenkem still legal, majorly fucked up

[Annoying]

Jenkem still legal, majorly fucked up

Damnit, I google that at work. Uggghhh.

[zEmini]

Good news. But the fight still goes on.

Nothing pisses me off more than some agency trying to take away ones personal freedoms.

[soulzek]

How many people died from tobacco or alcohol between 2014 and 2016? I rest my case.

This isn't an issue of logic of fairness, it's an issue of profit.

[Deletedaccount1]

TBH, this isn't surprising. This is a move about money. The cog that makes american medicine move.

American medicine isn't about curing the sick, it's about profit. It's why drugs are astronomically expensive when compared to other countries. Further, it's also about alleviating symptoms and not finding cures.

This is most definitely a move via big pharma to try and take advantage of Kratom and guaranteed, they'll come out with a "new" drug based on Kratom that costs 1000x more.

I don't know how you can possibly construe the consequence of government regulation to the failure of the free market but you are ignoring the real issue at hand.

The FDA has killed thousands if not millions of Americans indirectly through overregulation. A major flaw of government lies in the public's tendency to blame lack of regulation on the government but not the negative consequences of regulation.

For instance, back in the 70s, the FDA banned beta blockers for close to a decade despite the fact that they were already legal in Europe. They did this out of fear that there was not enough publicly available information about the consequences of beta blockers. If there had been 1 death from their use, it would have been the FDA who was held responsible.

10 years later, the FDA approved the use of beta blockers and remarked that legalizing their use would save thousands of lives every year. So indirectly, the FDA basically killed tens of thousands of people by preventing access to medication sooner. They did this because the government is not held accountable for the negative externalities of their actions like businesses are.

But let's analyze your claim specifically that is a move of big pharma to take advantage of Kratom. This claim is similar to the claim that big pharma is the sole responsible entity for the dramatic price increase of the EpiPen.

That ignores the responsibility and power that the FDA has in establishing a cronyist system that would not exist without government intervention in the market.

If you want to read more about it, Scott Alexander (a leftist) details why the rise of prices in American medicine are the fault of the FDA and the government, not the free market.

[Underverse]

I don't know how you can possibly construe the consequence of government regulation to the failure of the free market but you are ignoring the real issue at hand.

The FDA has killed thousands if not millions of Americans indirectly through overregulation. A major flaw of government lies in the public's tendency to blame lack of regulation on the government but not the negative consequences of regulation.

For instance, back in the 70s, the FDA banned beta blockers for close to a decade despite the fact that they were already legal in Europe. They did this out of fear that there was not enough publicly available information about the consequences of beta blockers. If there had been 1 death from their use, it would have been the FDA who was held responsible.

10 years later, the FDA approved the use of beta blockers and remarked that legalizing their use would save thousands of lives every year. So indirectly, the FDA basically killed tens of thousands of people by preventing access to medication sooner. They did this because the government is not held accountable for the negative externalities of their actions like businesses are.

But let's analyze your claim specifically that is a move of big pharma to take advantage of Kratom. This claim is similar to the claim that big pharma is the sole responsible entity for the dramatic price increase of the EpiPen.

That ignores the responsibility and power that the FDA has in establishing a cronyist system that would not exist without government intervention in the market.

If you want to read more about it, Scott Alexander (a leftist) details why the rise of prices in American medicine are the fault of the FDA and the government, not the free market.

A couple of points:

Intervention itself is a cost. Killing someone with your shitty drug is not the same thing as someone dying because you decided that a particular drug needed more investigation.

You're not considering the averted cost of under-regulation. Under-regulation of some drugs, such as antibiotics, leads to the evolution of resistant organisms which can then lead to many more deaths. There needs to be a balance; regulation isn't always bad. Many drugs also have an environmental impact, both to humans (through infiltration into water supplies) and other organisms. Cost-benefit analyses that include items beyond the scope of direct effects on the patient are warranted. This can be especially difficult for market forces to contend with.

The market is capable of many things. Good things, and bad things. Regulation seeks to weed out the bad. Again, a balance is desirable here, and no one has ever claimed that all regulations are perfect.

[Deletedaccount1]

A couple of points:

Intervention itself is a cost. Killing someone with your shitty drug is not the same thing as someone dying because you decided that a particular drug needed more investigation.

You're not considering the averted cost of under-regulation. Under-regulation of some drugs, such as antibiotics, leads to the evolution of resistant organisms which can then lead to many more deaths. There needs to be a balance; regulation isn't always bad. Many drugs also have an environmental impact, both to humans (through infiltration into water supplies) and other organisms. Cost-benefit analyses that include items beyond the scope of direct effects on the patient are warranted. This can be especially difficult for market forces to contend with.

The market is capable of many things. Good things, and bad things. Regulation seeks to weed out the bad. Again, a balance is desirable here, and no one has ever claimed that all regulations are perfect.

My point is not that all regulations are bad, my point is that the government is rarely held accountable for bad regulations. In the instance of the EpiPen, the FDA is essentially solely responsible for the current situation. Mylan does lobby the government but if the FDA did not have the authority to shoot down potential competitors in US markets, Mylan would not be able to have an indefinite monopoly.

I can't speak as to your example about antibiotics because I don't know anything about it.

But to use another example, think about it like this. Judges in the US can set new laws based off of court cases, this is a part of a common law system. Lets say a judge makes a bad decision that creates a law that sets the US per capita income down by say, 0.01%. That would likely go unnoticed or the decisions may eventually be overruled. In that process however, millions of dollars are lost in net that the judge is never held accountable for.

The problem here is that the government is able to create laws and regulations while not being held accountable for the negative externalities that these create. It is given the authority that no other institution has to remain unpunished for a market failure.

[yetgdhfgh]

This is a stunning victory against the DEA and iam so proud of all those who fought tirelessly to get the DEA to reverse its decision!

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...ative-42757189

[Deletedaccount1]

This is a stunning victory against the DEA and iam so proud of all those who fought tirelessly to get the DEA to reverse its decision!

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...ative-42757189

Very good news.