Actually reasonable decision from the DEA under RFK. Scheduling concentrated/semi-synthetic kratom products while leaving the weaker leaf-based products alone is a good compromise to reduce harm without criminalizing kratom (which has beneficial uses for opioid recovery and maintenance therapy) in general.
Raw leaf Kratom seems to be helpful for some with what I would consider a manageable and acceptable addiction danger. You can get hooked on it, realize there is an issues and cut back or come off it without it destroying your life. I see no reason to make it illegal. I've even seen is used by people to get off "harder" Kratom concentrates. Sorta like how we regulate beer and wine a bit differently than whiskey... same drug, same abuse potential in theory but massive abuse difference in practice.
You have anything backing up the last bit? My intuition/life experience doesn't lead me to believe an alcoholic preferring whiskey is particularly worse off than an alcoholic preferring beer, nor that whiskey is more likely to lead one to alcoholism than beer. Claude surfaced this review tending to agree with me, with the exception of acute overdose being more of a risk with the hard stuff.
Hard liquor is absorbed faster than beer which leads to a stronger rush effect. It's similar to snorting vs shooting cocaine. When the effect hits faster, the psychological association between the stimuli and the effect (sensitization) becomes stronger.
This effect has been demonstrated with rat studies using cocaine:
It's easier to drink more units of alcohol faster when it's more concentrated, and not full of bubbles.
I don't think its so much that it's absorbed faster than it's just physically possible to drink 200 ml of liquor faster than it is to drink 1600ml of beer.
My intuition tells me most people can't put down whiskey like they can beer. My guess is both of these are actual relevant things that affect behaviors, but I have no idea which is stronger.
Prescribing opioids in the US is heavily monitored and scrutinized now. Doctors (and NPs, of which my mother is one) have to document the justification, meet state law restrictions, verify the prescription drug monitoring checks with their state, and complete the EHR workflows[†] before they can send in the prescription. There are more checks after that too that the pharmacist has to complete, and the insurance company will have oversight checks they'll do as well.
Not saying people can't or won't get addicted to the drugs prescribed by doctors, but there's a lot more checks and oversight to it (these days) than there is for kratom right now.
[†] At least in my mother's case, their EHR system will also flag opioid prescriptions for review by a board.
This is a very overblown assertion about kratom. I've heard of people getting addicted, but no one I've known personally has ever had any issues.
I have been using kratom almost daily for about a decade, and it has been one of the most useful substances for managing my physiology in response to my environment. It's great for stress reduction, but my most common use is actually ADHD treatment (which I doubt would be "on-label" if it went through the healthcare clusterf*dge)
The ability to self-titrate is one of **the most important parts**. I know how much I need, and when I need it. With doctors or psychiatrists, you gotta schedule appointments and then try out a dosage for a while, then schedule a recheck and refine the dosage, etc etc etc. I have not had much success with prescription drugs, and I have tried many
> but my most common use is actually ADHD treatment
Glad it's working out for you. My partner's brother had been trying to do the same and it has completely changed him for the worse. Blown up his job, marriage, relationship with his young children, and he's damned fortunate that his siblings were raised better than me 'cause if it were my brother we'd be done already.
Adderall had always worked fine for him but we're living in a world where it's exceedingly difficult to keep a Schedule II drug prescription active and fulfilled.
You cannot prescribe a schedule 1 substance (which is what the temporary schedule has placed into), and even if you could, you need FDA approval of the substance unless it is medical marijuana which recently had a specific carveout making it federally legal to non-FDA approved dispense through state licensed facilities.
About 10 years ago, when it was less well-known, you could find better raw leaf powder and it was helping people get off actual opiates.
IIRC there's an effect where the actual chemicals get stronger for older leaves. The bigger market has caused the harvest period to shorten, making the powder worse quality, and creating room for the concentrated extracts and stuff like 7-Oh.
Tragedy of the commons I guess. I knew people who started taking way too much, but also people who were able to use it responsibly. People say "let doctors prescribe", but that ignores how in order for that to happen, a pharma company will need something they can patent, pay for the years of testing, get sole control over it for a period, and years later a generic can come about. All when you can dry a leaf and use it as-is. There should be room for plants to be consumed. Screw it, enjoy poppy, cannabis, kratom, tobacco, etc.
It probably shouldn't be sold in gas stations but it probably also shouldn't be outright banned, as we'll just get new, more dangerous analogues.
They didn't have to include women in drug trials until 1993.
I'm not going "science isn't always right!" but it can absolutely be a racket with major blindspots and regulatory capture that ensures cures and treatments can only reach patients if it makes sufficient profit.
Kratom didn't just sprout up one day in 2014. It's been used as a form of traditional medicine in its home regions longer than there's been an FDA.
It's one thing to say "I think chemical compounds marketed as medicine should be given rigorous study", but a whole other thing to declare classes of unrefined plants illegal because not enough fingers are in the pie yet.
I'm convinced half the reason we don't have realistic cannabis regulation in this country is because it grows like a weed and cannot be controlled to the extent it would need to be in order for companies to build up full control.
> People say "let doctors prescribe", but that ignores how in order for that to happen, a pharma company will need something they can patent, pay for the years of testing, get sole control over it for a period, and years later a generic can come about.
Is there not universies that could just do this research on the leaf itself?
Theres a guy Grant Harding on YT etc. who sends gas station pills for testing and some of the things he finds are scary. Seriously addictive drugs being sold OTC with no meaningful consumer warning or guardrails
This was happening during the early 2000s, though in more "reputable" places (like nutrition and supplement stores; different "drugs" and chemicals, though). Not really surprised it is still going on in the weird little label producers.
Salvia is great if you're in the right setting and headspace. Its been years since I used it, but I'm glad I did. There's one trip in particular that I sometimes think about and has remained a meaningful part of my life.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in existence and it is sold everywhere. If governments actually cared about addiction risk, a whole lot of things would have to disappear from normal stores.
You have to provide ID and be over 21 to purchase nicotine. You can't advertise nicotine products. You have to be licensed to sell nicotine products.
Same for alcohol. Restrictions on who can buy, who can sell, and how you can advertise and market.
These are not the same as some random pill from a gas station sold to anyone with cash with zero regulations, safety, restrictions, or even any requirement to tell you what's actually in it.
Better regulation, better enforcement, anti-smoking advertising campaigns, banning public smoking, and drastically reduced amongst youth and the general public.
Cigarette regulation to reduce smoking starting in the mid/late 90s is the poster child for public policy done well.
Kids can still order wine and cigars from the internet without ID. When I was a child I did it. The law doesn't require signature on delivery, and the deliveryman has no idea what's inside and thus will accept signature from anyone including me when I was a child.
The regulations on selling tobacco in person AFAIK are only for cigarette and cigeratte labeled type rolling tobacco. You can still order perfectly cigarette smokable "pipe" tobacco online straight from an internet "vending machine" and probably a real one. Very few people know this though because it turns out to not actually be a much of a problem.
Or, heaven forbid, a kid could spill a pinch of bread yeast into a bottle of fruit juice, wait a week or so, put it in the freezer overnight, and get some alcohol stronger than wine! No internet required!
In practice I think most young people who want to drink will just get it from a "cool older brother" or steal it, whether from parents or corner stores. At least that is what I saw in semi-rural America.
People will do what they want to do, with or without vending machines and online ordering.
I wish that was true. In the case of tobacco and alcohol, there's enough monied interests to ensure it would never be illegal.
So this defines the classic simple argument about the issue: alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and other than a weird House episode, have no medical value, and yet society has decided that some dangerous drugs are ok, because the right people are making money from it.
Propaganda has effectively sold the War on Drugs as "protecting people", but it's never been about that -- it's about enabling tools of oppression.
This is always mentioned when people talk about addictive substances being widespread. However, I think the key thing to think about isn't whether somethings addictive or not, but if said addiction comes with significant negative consequences/attributes. I don't think you'll find many people saying Caffeine is GOOD for you, but it just doesn't have significant negative outcomes like Tobacco.
There's lots of evidence for positive influences of Caffeine on the body (some negative as well), especially the brain. In particular, there's active and promising research on the neuroprotective effects for Alzheimer's [1] and Parkinson's [2].
"There is a wealth of accumulating biological, epidemiological and clinical evidence to support the further investigation of selective adenosine A2A antagonists, as well as caffeine, as promising candidate therapeutics to fill the unmet need for disease modification of PD."
Psychology in general tends to make the same distinction. There are lots of behaviors which may be considered abnormal but do not have a meaningful impact on the quality of life of the person or those around them, and so there little reason to pathologize it. The goal of medicine (and, in my mind, well-designed public policy) is to prolong quality of life and not to ensure everything adheres to strict standards.
caffeine addictions are good for you? so i guess all of the people taking stomach meds are doing it for fun and not how much coffee wrecks your stomach. also the number of our teens/young adults addicted to energy drinks is insane and no one can argue that stuff isnt a net negative to the body
Huh, i should look at this. I've been an aggressive drinker for most of my adult life (2 pots a day at my height), but for kicks i decided to cut all caffeine for about 9 months. No real issues aside from very short term headaches, though even those i mitigated by gradually moving down in quantity.
Aside from the headaches what addictive effects are you referencing?
Huh, don't think i had any of those. Though arguably i had "Lack of focus", difficult to say how much is due to the lack of caffeine or due to undiagnosed ADHD though.
Generally i felt fine. I'll keep it in mind, thanks
Sugar in moderation is a fine thing the issue the US has is more focused on how pervasive sweeteners have become in what looks like savory food. A ban would be a very silly thing but at some point America needs an FDA with teeth to actually crack down on labeling requirements.
I had a biology teacher who was fond of repeating " everything is toxic, it's just a matter of dosage"
And it's true, you can die from water toxicity.
Water and air are ubiquitous, so we've naturally evolved defenses against overdosing.
Sugar has always been rare and valuable as a food source. In fact most organisms existence revolves around collecting enough chemical energy. It's only in the last 100 years that sugar has become cheap enough for many humans that overdosing is now a problem, and we have little in the way of evolved defenses that keep us from overconsumption.
The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative.
Different things are bad in different ways and need to be handled differently. You can’t functionally just go “both can be addictive and kill people therefore your argument is moot.” You’ve removed all qualifiers and context.
To compare them is to respond to a discussion on the threat of guns with some point about people weaponizing their cars and running people over because both can cause bodily harm. I think we can both agree that comparison strips all context and nuance from most conversations about guns OR cars and makes it difficult to talk about either in productive ways outside of the narrow/niche discussions.
TL;DR: this comparison spikes the conversation. Sugar and kratom do not present enough analogous health issues or enough of the same types risks to those around you to warrant lumping them together like that.
Nicotine is far more regulated and generally won’t lead you to pass out behind the wheel of a car or drown in a hot tub. You can’t even smoke in the vicinity of many buildings, but kratom? It’s basically an unregulated opiod that anyone over 18 can get and use wherever, whenever, with little to no control over what’s actually in it because it’s not food, medicine, etc.
Not really but great talking point. The exact quote is it's as hard to quit smoking as heroin. But in reality getting off heroin cold turkey can kill you, where you need to be locked in room sweat it out. People quiting smoking still go to work but their mood is poor. Not the same at all.
Also you can just walk in a farmer's field, pick a mushroom out of a cow patty and boom - you're high AF! Someone should regulate cow shit, there's little to no control over it!
Our country loves to let unregulated & addictive drugs flood into the market, let people become dependent on them, pull the rug by making them illegal, and then arrest them for trying to comply with their addiction. Destroy their lives, cripple their families, send them to prison, get cheap labor. The American way.
It's kind of amazing that this took so long. On the other hand, this is just chapter 3025223 of the failed war on drugs and we can be confident that people will find something worse as an alternative.
My opinion is that long term daily kratom use is terrible for your health, but it doesn't carry an overdose risk so it should stay legal and the decision to use or not should be up to the user.
Ah yeah surely banning more substances will be the end of the problem this time! It definitely won't just push anyone who got hooked on this non-lethal opioid towards unregulated black markets filled with lethal fentanyl...
Fun fact, this is one of two """temporary""" opioid schedulings happening right now. The DEA is also banning 5,6-Dichloro Desmethylchlorphine (SR-17018), which has minimal to no recreational value and is the current most promising breakthrough therapy for opioid withdrawals. It is hard for me to read the combination of these two bans as anything but active malice.
> It is hard for me to read the combination of these two bans as anything but active malice.
Reading the document...
> In recent years, online forum users have begun to discuss recreational use of these four synthetic opioids and commonly compared these four synthetic opioids to other traditionally abused opioids, such as morphine and fentanyl (schedule II substances). However, unlike these two drugs that have FDA-approval for use in specific medical treatments, the four synthetic opioids have no currently approved medical use and, based on positive identifications of these four substances in forensic drug exhibits and toxicology samples, are likely to be trafficked and abused similarly to other synthetic opioids, such as brorphine (schedule I).
Do you trust the DEA, especially under this administration, to be a reliable narrator?
I would strongly recommend doing your own research, because I cannot even begin to tell you how many distinct accounts I have read of people _finally_ getting through opioid withdrawals using SR-17018 for decidedly non-recreational purposes
One of the big dangers I've heard of with 7-Oh is it seems like treatment centers don't really know how to treat withdrawal from it, which I've heard is extremely rough.
I am skeptical though since I presume their capsules are much stronger than natural kratom powder. The linked YouTube video seems to say that Feel Free intentionally includes higher concentrations of 7-OH. So a bit confused.
I hope the Feel Free does experience the crack down. Seems like someone just needs to test the Feel Free product's 7-OH concentration level, and if it exceeds 0.05%, as it likely does, the ban will apply.
Feel Free (and similar) extracts like this are especially onerous. It's no longer Kratom powder that takes a lot of effort to get into trouble with.
These extracts are not very well studied, and may be stronger than many Schedule II opioids. Especially for certain brain chemistries.
In no world should Feel Free execs not be in prison at this point. They know precisely what they are doing, and their marketing is especially nasty since they market it towards addicts as a safe alchohol alternative.
Kratom powders of 15 years ago can be defended in many ways. These extracts have absolutely no leg to stand on. They are an end-around opioid scheduling.
I am quite familiar with it. It’s supposedly fermented leaf. Either way the impact is similar, and nothing like the natural leaf in effect or potency. Fermentation is its own form of chemical alteration.
It’s certainly not ground up leaf put into a water bottle as implied.
It’s wild that this stuff has remained unregulated for so long. Usually that can be attributed to the demographics (perceived or real) of the users though.
He's an odd guy who likes to investigate some really dodgy stuff. And I suspect many here on HN would appreciate him.
That led to 7-OH showing up in my feed at some point. In a nutshell, it's the strongest of the active compounds in the kratom plant, that binds to opioid receptors. 7-OH is the marketing name for the alkaloid 7-hydroxymitragynine that is being refined from kratom. It's not clear to me if it's simply extracted, or as some quick research suggests, it might also be a chemical alteration of the more commonly occurring compound in kratom mitragynine.
Anyway, this stuff looks super habit forming, and, of course, the refined version is that much more addictive.
Here in Canada you're not allowed to 3d print a modded grip for the rifle you're not allowed to buy, but in the USA you can get OPIOIDS at a GAS STATION! ... things are definitely different down there.
> John Oliver discusses the sprawling industry of “gas station drugs” – a world of questionable supplements and boner pills – which is posing a risk to the public by putting underregulated substances over the counter, and, more importantly, could prevent people from saving up for a Honda Civic.
Kratom is a leaf that is primarily farmed in Asia which contains the active ingredient Mitragynine, which has some very mild partial-agonist opioid effects. When kratom is consumed, your liver converts a very small amount to a MUCH more potent molecule called 7-hydroxymitragynine. As with all natural drugs, some asshats in a lab decided to figure out how to create the latter molecule semi-synthetically and in bulk. They pressed them into pills and sell them in head shops and some gas stations. It's pretty addictive, nasty stuff.
I don't usually agree with prohibition, but 7OH is the kind of drug that spirals into a self destructive addiction VERY quickly. Most opioids require using for a number of weeks before you start to develop enough physical dependence to bring about withdrawal. 7OH has this weird withdrawal-like crash after even a single use that makes the user immediately feel terrible and often they seek more to make it go away. It's like the crack of the opioid world. On top of that, tolerance builds extremely quickly. Glad to see it go.
I’m not fully cognizant of the interaction between FDA and DEA, but I would’ve thought that following FDA’s announcement last year, kratom had already been outlawed.
Interesting that the drug enforcement administration can make it illegal to buy something as a chemical. Their name would suggest that they're merely the enforcement arm of the FDA regarding drugs.
The FDA and the DEA have no connection to each other.
The DEA is a law enforcement agency that aims to fight illegal drug trafficking. the FDA is regulatory agency that aims to ensure the food and medicine legally sold in the US is safe.
The DEA enforces FDA regulations though through criminal and civil prosecution of those using otherwise DEA-legal and properly prescribed substances that are not FDA approved. Except for medical marijuana which had specific executive order to place state-licensed cannabis exempted from FDA regulation, a legally prescribed controlled substance becomes a DEA enforceable illegal substance when it is dispensed without FDA approval of the material.
This is mostly incorrect. The DEA enforces the Controlled Substances Act and the list of scheduled drugs, not FDA regulations.
If you are out there using e.g some experimental cancer drug that hasn't been FDA approved yet, the DEA isn't going to stop you. Their mission is to stop recreational use of drugs that get you high.
FDA approval and regulation is how you end up with a legally dispensed controlled substance of a prescription. If you manage to get the controlled substances from a non-FDA approved source what you have is a pile of illegal controlled substances.
They are not going to give a shit about most experimental cancer drugs because they're not controlled substances.
I know very little of this but it seems like not all things kratom are affected.
> This temporary scheduling action does not apply to botanical kratom products that contain naturally occurring 7-OH below the specified threshold. Instead, it targets synthesized products and those containing elevated concentrations of 7-OH as outlined in the temporary scheduling order. DEA believes these substances pose an imminent threat to public safety given their effects are highly unpredictable.
> Any botanical material of the plant Mitragyna speciosa, also known as kratom, and contains more than 0.050 percentage of 7-hydroxymitragynine on a dry weight basis
Indeed, thanks for catching that. No maximum for an actual kratom leaf but leafs cannot be too potent, right?
Everything in moderation. I know a few successful adults who have tried crack. Personally, I'd never want to try it but people can do what they want. I've been around people high on powder cocaine a few times and they were incredibly annoying.
This is the proper response. I'm sure heroin feels really really really good. The amount of addicts in this thread defending their addiction is surprising.
I have never used kratom, and I don't plan on it. But automatically assuming anyone who isn't hellbent against it is just a junkie "defending their addiction" is pretty close minded lol.
Then, fuck all the kratom vendors that absolutely irresponsibly market their products.
I've used kratom for 10 years for pain management and it was my best option at the time.
Drugs should not be illegal -- they should be regulated, for purity and for truth in advertising (in the case of kratom making it crystal clear that addiction is inevitable with regular constant use.
> I've used kratom for 10 years for pain management and it was my best option at the time.
Any weird side effects. My girlfriend and I tend to use Kratom for the mild stimulant effect.
The worst is ever done for me is make me nauseous enough to vomit, but I live in a state trying to ban all kratom now and the discourse around it is full of anecdotes of people claiming withdrawals as bad as heroin.
Now I’m not a big heroin user, but I’ve been mildly addicted to certain substances (nicotine, weed). I don’t think I’ve ever had withdrawals from Kratom or really felt any craving for it.
I’m really just hoping the busy-bodies don’t get their eyes on Kava.
I have side effects that are significant enough to warrant finding another avenue to address the pain. I knew what I was getting into, but chronic pain is a bitch and I'll do whatever I can to minimize it.
I can't agree more. Addiction treatment is expensive and out of reach for people who, lets say, aren't part of a political dynasty, and the money we dump into the war on drugs could fund free rehab for people who want to get better. I've been using 10-20mg of cannibis edibles per evening for a few years and I've never needed to increase my dosage.
And Yeah, I experimented with Kratom for stress/anxiety/sleep problems. It sucks. Your tolerance increases rapidly, and at the rate I was taking it, withdrawals weren't that bad, but it wasn't fun either.
Actually reasonable decision from the DEA under RFK. Scheduling concentrated/semi-synthetic kratom products while leaving the weaker leaf-based products alone is a good compromise to reduce harm without criminalizing kratom (which has beneficial uses for opioid recovery and maintenance therapy) in general.
Raw leaf Kratom seems to be helpful for some with what I would consider a manageable and acceptable addiction danger. You can get hooked on it, realize there is an issues and cut back or come off it without it destroying your life. I see no reason to make it illegal. I've even seen is used by people to get off "harder" Kratom concentrates. Sorta like how we regulate beer and wine a bit differently than whiskey... same drug, same abuse potential in theory but massive abuse difference in practice.
You have anything backing up the last bit? My intuition/life experience doesn't lead me to believe an alcoholic preferring whiskey is particularly worse off than an alcoholic preferring beer, nor that whiskey is more likely to lead one to alcoholism than beer. Claude surfaced this review tending to agree with me, with the exception of acute overdose being more of a risk with the hard stuff.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3888958/
Hard liquor is absorbed faster than beer which leads to a stronger rush effect. It's similar to snorting vs shooting cocaine. When the effect hits faster, the psychological association between the stimuli and the effect (sensitization) becomes stronger.
This effect has been demonstrated with rat studies using cocaine:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005...
Why would liquor be absorbed faster than beer given the same route (drinking)?
It's easier to drink more units of alcohol faster when it's more concentrated, and not full of bubbles.
I don't think its so much that it's absorbed faster than it's just physically possible to drink 200 ml of liquor faster than it is to drink 1600ml of beer.
I read the article and it's a bit tricky to tease out but the negative association with spirits does exist. To summarize:
1. The quantity of alcohol consumed per occasion is most strongly associated with harms.
and
2. "The more alcohol was drunk per occasion, the higher the proportion of it which was drunk in the form of spirits"
The choice of beverage and how much was drunk was more dependent on cultural, social, and other factors.
My intuition tells me it's physically more difficult to consume more alcohol from a lower-strength beverage.
My intuition tells me most people can't put down whiskey like they can beer. My guess is both of these are actual relevant things that affect behaviors, but I have no idea which is stronger.
Or, for that matter—the whole thing where Quechua folks chew coca leaf all day, and have for eons, without obvious ill effect…
Coca : cocaine :: kratom : the stuff that just got listed, right?
Counterpoint: https://youtu.be/TLObpcBR2yw
I agree this is a fine compromise. Sadly the zealots in my state won’t end there. They’re going after plain leaf powders too.
If it actually has beneficial uses let a doctor prescribe it. Kratom is extremely addictive and should be illegal yesterday.
The doctors will prescribe methadone or suboxone instead most likely, both of which are *massively* more powerful and addictive than kratom.
Prescribing opioids in the US is heavily monitored and scrutinized now. Doctors (and NPs, of which my mother is one) have to document the justification, meet state law restrictions, verify the prescription drug monitoring checks with their state, and complete the EHR workflows[†] before they can send in the prescription. There are more checks after that too that the pharmacist has to complete, and the insurance company will have oversight checks they'll do as well.
Not saying people can't or won't get addicted to the drugs prescribed by doctors, but there's a lot more checks and oversight to it (these days) than there is for kratom right now.
[†] At least in my mother's case, their EHR system will also flag opioid prescriptions for review by a board.
Let's ban weed and alcohol from recreational use too, if there was any benefit a doctor would prescribe it. /u
This is a very overblown assertion about kratom. I've heard of people getting addicted, but no one I've known personally has ever had any issues.
I have been using kratom almost daily for about a decade, and it has been one of the most useful substances for managing my physiology in response to my environment. It's great for stress reduction, but my most common use is actually ADHD treatment (which I doubt would be "on-label" if it went through the healthcare clusterf*dge)
The ability to self-titrate is one of **the most important parts**. I know how much I need, and when I need it. With doctors or psychiatrists, you gotta schedule appointments and then try out a dosage for a while, then schedule a recheck and refine the dosage, etc etc etc. I have not had much success with prescription drugs, and I have tried many
> but my most common use is actually ADHD treatment
Glad it's working out for you. My partner's brother had been trying to do the same and it has completely changed him for the worse. Blown up his job, marriage, relationship with his young children, and he's damned fortunate that his siblings were raised better than me 'cause if it were my brother we'd be done already.
Adderall had always worked fine for him but we're living in a world where it's exceedingly difficult to keep a Schedule II drug prescription active and fulfilled.
> This is a very overblown assertion about kratom. I've heard of people getting addicted, but no one I've known personally has ever had any issues.
My brother in law has a horrible kratom addiction. He now lives in a car with no insurance.
> I have been using kratom almost daily for about a decade
Hmm...
You cannot prescribe a schedule 1 substance (which is what the temporary schedule has placed into), and even if you could, you need FDA approval of the substance unless it is medical marijuana which recently had a specific carveout making it federally legal to non-FDA approved dispense through state licensed facilities.
Kratom is such an interesting drug.
About 10 years ago, when it was less well-known, you could find better raw leaf powder and it was helping people get off actual opiates.
IIRC there's an effect where the actual chemicals get stronger for older leaves. The bigger market has caused the harvest period to shorten, making the powder worse quality, and creating room for the concentrated extracts and stuff like 7-Oh.
Tragedy of the commons I guess. I knew people who started taking way too much, but also people who were able to use it responsibly. People say "let doctors prescribe", but that ignores how in order for that to happen, a pharma company will need something they can patent, pay for the years of testing, get sole control over it for a period, and years later a generic can come about. All when you can dry a leaf and use it as-is. There should be room for plants to be consumed. Screw it, enjoy poppy, cannabis, kratom, tobacco, etc.
It probably shouldn't be sold in gas stations but it probably also shouldn't be outright banned, as we'll just get new, more dangerous analogues.
>All when you can dry a leaf and use it as-is.
With no evidence of efficacy that the aforementioned expensive years of testing/trials provide.
They didn't have to include women in drug trials until 1993.
I'm not going "science isn't always right!" but it can absolutely be a racket with major blindspots and regulatory capture that ensures cures and treatments can only reach patients if it makes sufficient profit.
Kratom didn't just sprout up one day in 2014. It's been used as a form of traditional medicine in its home regions longer than there's been an FDA.
It's one thing to say "I think chemical compounds marketed as medicine should be given rigorous study", but a whole other thing to declare classes of unrefined plants illegal because not enough fingers are in the pie yet.
I'm convinced half the reason we don't have realistic cannabis regulation in this country is because it grows like a weed and cannot be controlled to the extent it would need to be in order for companies to build up full control.
> People say "let doctors prescribe", but that ignores how in order for that to happen, a pharma company will need something they can patent, pay for the years of testing, get sole control over it for a period, and years later a generic can come about.
Is there not universies that could just do this research on the leaf itself?
Without an official blessing from a pharma company the insurance won't pay for it and doctors are unlikely to prescribe it.
Official blessings come from government officials (such as those working at the offices of the Food and Drug Administration), not pharma companies.
Pharma companies have to apply for official blessings, just the same as universities would have to.
However, taxpayers do not want to spend money on expensive trials to prove efficacy.
Theres a guy Grant Harding on YT etc. who sends gas station pills for testing and some of the things he finds are scary. Seriously addictive drugs being sold OTC with no meaningful consumer warning or guardrails
This was happening during the early 2000s, though in more "reputable" places (like nutrition and supplement stores; different "drugs" and chemicals, though). Not really surprised it is still going on in the weird little label producers.
You used to be able to find some wild stuff in GNC ~20 years ago, the 'pro-hormone' era was funny.
All the cannabinoid analogs are a good example too, people just want to get high.
I do miss salvia extracts though. Being able to pick that up in a head shop was nice before it got banned.
GNC used to sell freaking GHB in the 80s and early 90s!
you miss salvia extract??? everyone i know who has done it(myself included) their response was "never doing that again!"
Salvia is great if you're in the right setting and headspace. Its been years since I used it, but I'm glad I did. There's one trip in particular that I sometimes think about and has remained a meaningful part of my life.
>Seriously addictive drugs being sold OTC
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in existence and it is sold everywhere. If governments actually cared about addiction risk, a whole lot of things would have to disappear from normal stores.
You have to provide ID and be over 21 to purchase nicotine. You can't advertise nicotine products. You have to be licensed to sell nicotine products.
Same for alcohol. Restrictions on who can buy, who can sell, and how you can advertise and market.
These are not the same as some random pill from a gas station sold to anyone with cash with zero regulations, safety, restrictions, or even any requirement to tell you what's actually in it.
I find it interesting when traveling.
I remember traveling to mexico and being surprised.
Giant "Marlboro Man" billboards.
Television advertisements for hard alcohol.
but what was also funny was Coca-Cola ads always had something like "Siempre come frutas y verduras" (Always eat fruits and vegetables)
(nowadays mexican food labeling is even more specific, saying stuff like "excess calories" or "excess sugars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_labeling_in_Mexico )
When I was a kid, there were cigarette vending machines.
I am not that old.
Then what happened?
Better regulation, better enforcement, anti-smoking advertising campaigns, banning public smoking, and drastically reduced amongst youth and the general public.
Cigarette regulation to reduce smoking starting in the mid/late 90s is the poster child for public policy done well.
Yeah, and where are they now?
now they have vape vending machines!
Kids can still order wine and cigars from the internet without ID. When I was a child I did it. The law doesn't require signature on delivery, and the deliveryman has no idea what's inside and thus will accept signature from anyone including me when I was a child.
The regulations on selling tobacco in person AFAIK are only for cigarette and cigeratte labeled type rolling tobacco. You can still order perfectly cigarette smokable "pipe" tobacco online straight from an internet "vending machine" and probably a real one. Very few people know this though because it turns out to not actually be a much of a problem.
Or, heaven forbid, a kid could spill a pinch of bread yeast into a bottle of fruit juice, wait a week or so, put it in the freezer overnight, and get some alcohol stronger than wine! No internet required!
In practice I think most young people who want to drink will just get it from a "cool older brother" or steal it, whether from parents or corner stores. At least that is what I saw in semi-rural America.
People will do what they want to do, with or without vending machines and online ordering.
Governments have spent considerable effort on it, but it's tough to ban something as popular as tobacco or alcohol.
Voters tend to get what they want, and a sizeable fraction of voters smoke or drink.
> Voters tend to get what they want
I wish that was true. In the case of tobacco and alcohol, there's enough monied interests to ensure it would never be illegal.
So this defines the classic simple argument about the issue: alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and other than a weird House episode, have no medical value, and yet society has decided that some dangerous drugs are ok, because the right people are making money from it.
Propaganda has effectively sold the War on Drugs as "protecting people", but it's never been about that -- it's about enabling tools of oppression.
So is caffeine.
This is always mentioned when people talk about addictive substances being widespread. However, I think the key thing to think about isn't whether somethings addictive or not, but if said addiction comes with significant negative consequences/attributes. I don't think you'll find many people saying Caffeine is GOOD for you, but it just doesn't have significant negative outcomes like Tobacco.
There's lots of evidence for positive influences of Caffeine on the body (some negative as well), especially the brain. In particular, there's active and promising research on the neuroprotective effects for Alzheimer's [1] and Parkinson's [2].
"There is a wealth of accumulating biological, epidemiological and clinical evidence to support the further investigation of selective adenosine A2A antagonists, as well as caffeine, as promising candidate therapeutics to fill the unmet need for disease modification of PD."
1: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/13/6/967 2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33349580/
Psychology in general tends to make the same distinction. There are lots of behaviors which may be considered abnormal but do not have a meaningful impact on the quality of life of the person or those around them, and so there little reason to pathologize it. The goal of medicine (and, in my mind, well-designed public policy) is to prolong quality of life and not to ensure everything adheres to strict standards.
caffeine addictions are good for you? so i guess all of the people taking stomach meds are doing it for fun and not how much coffee wrecks your stomach. also the number of our teens/young adults addicted to energy drinks is insane and no one can argue that stuff isnt a net negative to the body
Nicotine has positive and negative effect tobacco is one delivery method.
Huh, i should look at this. I've been an aggressive drinker for most of my adult life (2 pots a day at my height), but for kicks i decided to cut all caffeine for about 9 months. No real issues aside from very short term headaches, though even those i mitigated by gradually moving down in quantity.
Aside from the headaches what addictive effects are you referencing?
Side effects of caffeine withdraw? Lack of focus, nervous, poor sleeping, vivid dreams.
Huh, don't think i had any of those. Though arguably i had "Lack of focus", difficult to say how much is due to the lack of caffeine or due to undiagnosed ADHD though.
Generally i felt fine. I'll keep it in mind, thanks
And sugar
Sugar in moderation is a fine thing the issue the US has is more focused on how pervasive sweeteners have become in what looks like savory food. A ban would be a very silly thing but at some point America needs an FDA with teeth to actually crack down on labeling requirements.
Sugar is required for biology. I'm no more addicted to sugar than I am to water, air or just being alive.
I had a biology teacher who was fond of repeating " everything is toxic, it's just a matter of dosage"
And it's true, you can die from water toxicity.
Water and air are ubiquitous, so we've naturally evolved defenses against overdosing.
Sugar has always been rare and valuable as a food source. In fact most organisms existence revolves around collecting enough chemical energy. It's only in the last 100 years that sugar has become cheap enough for many humans that overdosing is now a problem, and we have little in the way of evolved defenses that keep us from overconsumption.
Sugar addiction is real.
Your last sentence is non-sequitur.
The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not).
This is in the same category of statements as "ACTUALLY, everything in food is a chemical".
Which is true. The idea of "chemical-free" food and water is absurd.
The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative.
These are incredibly reductionist arguments y’all are engaging in.
How so? Sugar is having taxes added in many jurisdictions due to the health effects & habituation it can cause.
Different things are bad in different ways and need to be handled differently. You can’t functionally just go “both can be addictive and kill people therefore your argument is moot.” You’ve removed all qualifiers and context.
To compare them is to respond to a discussion on the threat of guns with some point about people weaponizing their cars and running people over because both can cause bodily harm. I think we can both agree that comparison strips all context and nuance from most conversations about guns OR cars and makes it difficult to talk about either in productive ways outside of the narrow/niche discussions.
TL;DR: this comparison spikes the conversation. Sugar and kratom do not present enough analogous health issues or enough of the same types risks to those around you to warrant lumping them together like that.
Nicotine is far more regulated and generally won’t lead you to pass out behind the wheel of a car or drown in a hot tub. You can’t even smoke in the vicinity of many buildings, but kratom? It’s basically an unregulated opiod that anyone over 18 can get and use wherever, whenever, with little to no control over what’s actually in it because it’s not food, medicine, etc.
So are most OTC drugs. Doesn't change the fact that you can get them everywhere. And long term nicotine use causes dependence similar to heroin.
It doesn’t even compare man. I am pro legalization of drugs but it doesn’t mean they should be as unregulated as kratom currently is
Drug regulation should be very simple:
1. Purity, strength, and disclosure of ingredients.
2. Responsible advertising/promotion/distribution.
I'm pro kratom but I find it abhorrent the way it's marketed and sold without any warnings or acknowledgements of addiction.
Not really but great talking point. The exact quote is it's as hard to quit smoking as heroin. But in reality getting off heroin cold turkey can kill you, where you need to be locked in room sweat it out. People quiting smoking still go to work but their mood is poor. Not the same at all.
Also you can just walk in a farmer's field, pick a mushroom out of a cow patty and boom - you're high AF! Someone should regulate cow shit, there's little to no control over it!
most states require farmers to put additives in their cow feed to specifically prevent those mushrooms, they are already actively regulated
Got a source for that? Ive never heard of that in my life and ive worked on multiple dairy and beef farms.
Thank God, we can't just have people getting high for free.
You just made that up, didn't you?
Our country loves to let unregulated & addictive drugs flood into the market, let people become dependent on them, pull the rug by making them illegal, and then arrest them for trying to comply with their addiction. Destroy their lives, cripple their families, send them to prison, get cheap labor. The American way.
They did this same dance about 10 years ago, and last minute caved to American Kratom Association and did not ban.
This time AKA is lobbying FOR this ban, as 7oh gives kratom a really bad name.
It's kind of amazing that this took so long. On the other hand, this is just chapter 3025223 of the failed war on drugs and we can be confident that people will find something worse as an alternative.
Kratom has been beneficial for me. Extracts can go but the leaf should stay.
My opinion is that long term daily kratom use is terrible for your health, but it doesn't carry an overdose risk so it should stay legal and the decision to use or not should be up to the user.
You have a source on this?
Do people normally have sources on their opinions?
I mean, they did specifically say it was their opinion.
Ah yeah surely banning more substances will be the end of the problem this time! It definitely won't just push anyone who got hooked on this non-lethal opioid towards unregulated black markets filled with lethal fentanyl...
Fun fact, this is one of two """temporary""" opioid schedulings happening right now. The DEA is also banning 5,6-Dichloro Desmethylchlorphine (SR-17018), which has minimal to no recreational value and is the current most promising breakthrough therapy for opioid withdrawals. It is hard for me to read the combination of these two bans as anything but active malice.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/01/2026-13...
> It is hard for me to read the combination of these two bans as anything but active malice.
Reading the document...
> In recent years, online forum users have begun to discuss recreational use of these four synthetic opioids and commonly compared these four synthetic opioids to other traditionally abused opioids, such as morphine and fentanyl (schedule II substances). However, unlike these two drugs that have FDA-approval for use in specific medical treatments, the four synthetic opioids have no currently approved medical use and, based on positive identifications of these four substances in forensic drug exhibits and toxicology samples, are likely to be trafficked and abused similarly to other synthetic opioids, such as brorphine (schedule I).
Do you trust the DEA, especially under this administration, to be a reliable narrator?
I would strongly recommend doing your own research, because I cannot even begin to tell you how many distinct accounts I have read of people _finally_ getting through opioid withdrawals using SR-17018 for decidedly non-recreational purposes
https://www.reddit.com/r/recoverywithoutAA/comments/1t5yzoe/... https://www.reddit.com/r/recoverywithoutAA/comments/1t5yzoe/... https://www.reddit.com/r/SR17018/comments/1unksbn/my_experie... https://www.reddit.com/r/withdrawl/comments/1rk2ohi/sr17018_... ...
aka "gas station heroin"
Gas stations have the best drugs
Whereas the sushi is hit or miss.
You've never been to Japan then, have you?
One of the big dangers I've heard of with 7-Oh is it seems like treatment centers don't really know how to treat withdrawal from it, which I've heard is extremely rough.
more war on drugs slop / drivel as if no lessons were learned from alcohol Prohibition
Good, Kratom (as sold in products like Feel Free) is fucking awful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLObpcBR2yw
Free Free is celebrating this DEA rule because they say they're exempt due to their use of natural kratom leaf, not synthetic: https://botanictonics.com/pages/consumer-education
I am skeptical though since I presume their capsules are much stronger than natural kratom powder. The linked YouTube video seems to say that Feel Free intentionally includes higher concentrations of 7-OH. So a bit confused.
I hope the Feel Free does experience the crack down. Seems like someone just needs to test the Feel Free product's 7-OH concentration level, and if it exceeds 0.05%, as it likely does, the ban will apply.
Feel Free (and similar) extracts like this are especially onerous. It's no longer Kratom powder that takes a lot of effort to get into trouble with.
These extracts are not very well studied, and may be stronger than many Schedule II opioids. Especially for certain brain chemistries.
In no world should Feel Free execs not be in prison at this point. They know precisely what they are doing, and their marketing is especially nasty since they market it towards addicts as a safe alchohol alternative.
Kratom powders of 15 years ago can be defended in many ways. These extracts have absolutely no leg to stand on. They are an end-around opioid scheduling.
Look again. Feel Free does not contain Kratom extracts. It contains leaf.
I am quite familiar with it. It’s supposedly fermented leaf. Either way the impact is similar, and nothing like the natural leaf in effect or potency. Fermentation is its own form of chemical alteration.
It’s certainly not ground up leaf put into a water bottle as implied.
This doesn't ban Feel Free and similar products because they don't contain 7-OH. They just contain powdered Kratom leaf.
It’s wild that this stuff has remained unregulated for so long. Usually that can be attributed to the demographics (perceived or real) of the users though.
Anyone got a quick primer on what 7-Oh is? That's a new term for me and the web search doesn't seem reliable.
I first learned of kratom in the last year from Elijah Lemard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5ixJIqbGY&t=267s
He's an odd guy who likes to investigate some really dodgy stuff. And I suspect many here on HN would appreciate him.
That led to 7-OH showing up in my feed at some point. In a nutshell, it's the strongest of the active compounds in the kratom plant, that binds to opioid receptors. 7-OH is the marketing name for the alkaloid 7-hydroxymitragynine that is being refined from kratom. It's not clear to me if it's simply extracted, or as some quick research suggests, it might also be a chemical alteration of the more commonly occurring compound in kratom mitragynine.
Anyway, this stuff looks super habit forming, and, of course, the refined version is that much more addictive.
Synthetic opioids sold at gas stations.
Here in Canada you're not allowed to 3d print a modded grip for the rifle you're not allowed to buy, but in the USA you can get OPIOIDS at a GAS STATION! ... things are definitely different down there.
To be fair, it is a relatively weak one that people claim has medicinal benefits
But the prison sentence once caught is much shorter in Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Hydroxymitragynine
recent jon oliver last week tonight segment on kratom and the wider 7-oh stuff.
Gas Station Drugs: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZqHzDG_c8
> John Oliver discusses the sprawling industry of “gas station drugs” – a world of questionable supplements and boner pills – which is posing a risk to the public by putting underregulated substances over the counter, and, more importantly, could prevent people from saving up for a Honda Civic.
Kratom is a leaf that is primarily farmed in Asia which contains the active ingredient Mitragynine, which has some very mild partial-agonist opioid effects. When kratom is consumed, your liver converts a very small amount to a MUCH more potent molecule called 7-hydroxymitragynine. As with all natural drugs, some asshats in a lab decided to figure out how to create the latter molecule semi-synthetically and in bulk. They pressed them into pills and sell them in head shops and some gas stations. It's pretty addictive, nasty stuff.
I don't usually agree with prohibition, but 7OH is the kind of drug that spirals into a self destructive addiction VERY quickly. Most opioids require using for a number of weeks before you start to develop enough physical dependence to bring about withdrawal. 7OH has this weird withdrawal-like crash after even a single use that makes the user immediately feel terrible and often they seek more to make it go away. It's like the crack of the opioid world. On top of that, tolerance builds extremely quickly. Glad to see it go.
Last year, the FDA had already said that if kratom is added to food, it is considered adulteration of food. It also cannot be a dietary supplement.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-...
I’m not fully cognizant of the interaction between FDA and DEA, but I would’ve thought that following FDA’s announcement last year, kratom had already been outlawed.
> I would’ve thought that following FDA’s announcement last year, kratom had already been outlawed.
The FDA can say you can't sell it as a supplement or food. But they can't stop you from possessing it or selling it as a chemical.
When the DEA schedules it, it is illegal to possess or sell in any capacity.
Interesting that the drug enforcement administration can make it illegal to buy something as a chemical. Their name would suggest that they're merely the enforcement arm of the FDA regarding drugs.
The FDA and the DEA have no connection to each other.
The DEA is a law enforcement agency that aims to fight illegal drug trafficking. the FDA is regulatory agency that aims to ensure the food and medicine legally sold in the US is safe.
The DEA enforces FDA regulations though through criminal and civil prosecution of those using otherwise DEA-legal and properly prescribed substances that are not FDA approved. Except for medical marijuana which had specific executive order to place state-licensed cannabis exempted from FDA regulation, a legally prescribed controlled substance becomes a DEA enforceable illegal substance when it is dispensed without FDA approval of the material.
This is mostly incorrect. The DEA enforces the Controlled Substances Act and the list of scheduled drugs, not FDA regulations.
If you are out there using e.g some experimental cancer drug that hasn't been FDA approved yet, the DEA isn't going to stop you. Their mission is to stop recreational use of drugs that get you high.
FDA approval and regulation is how you end up with a legally dispensed controlled substance of a prescription. If you manage to get the controlled substances from a non-FDA approved source what you have is a pile of illegal controlled substances.
They are not going to give a shit about most experimental cancer drugs because they're not controlled substances.
See, where you went wrong was… you started taking something called ‘Kratom’… from a local gas station.
Good. That kratom crap can go.
I know very little of this but it seems like not all things kratom are affected.
> This temporary scheduling action does not apply to botanical kratom products that contain naturally occurring 7-OH below the specified threshold. Instead, it targets synthesized products and those containing elevated concentrations of 7-OH as outlined in the temporary scheduling order. DEA believes these substances pose an imminent threat to public safety given their effects are highly unpredictable.
According to the ROI (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/06/2026-13...), the threshold isn't yet fixed but the suggested value would be 1 milligram or 5% of the dry-mass. Doses sold are in grams so this would ban kratom.
Paragraph A,not paragraph B applies to actual kratom leaf.
> Any botanical material of the plant Mitragyna speciosa, also known as kratom, and contains more than 0.050 percentage of 7-hydroxymitragynine on a dry weight basis
Indeed, thanks for catching that. No maximum for an actual kratom leaf but leafs cannot be too potent, right?
Kratom is great. I used to make a kratom chai tea, felt similar to hydrocodone
Crack is great, it gets you really high.
Everything in moderation. I know a few successful adults who have tried crack. Personally, I'd never want to try it but people can do what they want. I've been around people high on powder cocaine a few times and they were incredibly annoying.
This is the proper response. I'm sure heroin feels really really really good. The amount of addicts in this thread defending their addiction is surprising.
PS: Is that a Mr. Show reference?
I have never used kratom, and I don't plan on it. But automatically assuming anyone who isn't hellbent against it is just a junkie "defending their addiction" is pretty close minded lol.
The Mr.Show lie detector skit for anyone wondering.
Yep, go to the same place as cocaine and fentanyl which luckily nobody ever uses right?
I think we're all better off with cocaine and fentanyl not available at local convenience stores.
Fuck the DEA -- they need to be abolished today.
Then, fuck all the kratom vendors that absolutely irresponsibly market their products.
I've used kratom for 10 years for pain management and it was my best option at the time.
Drugs should not be illegal -- they should be regulated, for purity and for truth in advertising (in the case of kratom making it crystal clear that addiction is inevitable with regular constant use.
> I've used kratom for 10 years for pain management and it was my best option at the time.
Any weird side effects. My girlfriend and I tend to use Kratom for the mild stimulant effect.
The worst is ever done for me is make me nauseous enough to vomit, but I live in a state trying to ban all kratom now and the discourse around it is full of anecdotes of people claiming withdrawals as bad as heroin.
Now I’m not a big heroin user, but I’ve been mildly addicted to certain substances (nicotine, weed). I don’t think I’ve ever had withdrawals from Kratom or really felt any craving for it.
I’m really just hoping the busy-bodies don’t get their eyes on Kava.
I found this video from a kratom user very illuminating: https://youtu.be/TLObpcBR2yw
I have side effects that are significant enough to warrant finding another avenue to address the pain. I knew what I was getting into, but chronic pain is a bitch and I'll do whatever I can to minimize it.
I think if you're at the stage where it still makes you nauseous, you're probably not at the point where you would experience any withdrawals.
I can't agree more. Addiction treatment is expensive and out of reach for people who, lets say, aren't part of a political dynasty, and the money we dump into the war on drugs could fund free rehab for people who want to get better. I've been using 10-20mg of cannibis edibles per evening for a few years and I've never needed to increase my dosage.
And Yeah, I experimented with Kratom for stress/anxiety/sleep problems. It sucks. Your tolerance increases rapidly, and at the rate I was taking it, withdrawals weren't that bad, but it wasn't fun either.
John Oliver has a good segment about this
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZqHzDG_c8
"temporarily"
Downvoters must not know that when the DEA says they're temporarily banning something they mean permanently