As a disabled veteran, former medical professional, and proponent for kratom access, I oppose this measure. Proponents of scheduling Kratom have argued in this post, in summary, that:
This is demonstrably false, and any medical professional should be ashamed to suggest this. Any researcher knows that making a substance schedule 1 will make it drastically harder, not easier to study. Look at the difficulties surrounding studies regarding new treatments for PTSD and cluster headaches via MDMA or psilocybin, or cannabis research in general over the last 40 years. Scheduled substances are drastically harder to study due to the high level of regulation and controls associated with the substances. Let’s not pretend that a scheduling is a gateway to research. Instead, put money towards research, which will be facilitated by access. People argue that there is no established treatment for Kratom… a ban will be a sure way to hamper discovering more science on Kratom.
2. The FDA has issued alerts and tried to schedule Kratom, therefore we should schedule it.
The FDA’s attempt to schedule Kratom was rebuked at just about every juncture, including bipartisan opposition at the congressional level, and failed due to lack of evidence and dubious pseudo-science within a short period of time. This is the same organization that opened the gates on oxycodone after accepting questionable studies and allowed the flooding of America with dangerous opiates. Follow the existing science, not an organization that has lost major public credibility in the last two decades.
3. We should do this for public safety—after all, Kratom is linked to deaths and a host of side effects.
The evidence needs to be carefully considered as to the real extent of this claim. Regarding deaths, there are almost no documented deaths from Kratom alone. The existence of Kratom in a poly substance death with far stronger compounds present is not likely a kratom death given the lack of actual kratom “alone” deaths. There are drastically more deaths each year from legal substances and fda approved medications yet the risk/reward is considered acceptable for many of these. Any public safety decision has to weigh the possible harms associated with each course of action. I believe, all things considered, that the harm from a ban would vastly outweigh the benefits, which could be accomplished by passing consumer protection legislation that sustains access for consumers.
4. There are no accepted treatments for Kratom
By this people mean that there are “no FDA approved” uses of Kratom. While quality, peer reviewed and repeatable studies are always the highest bar for establishing medical use, it would be unwise to ignore the massive anecdotal evidence surrounding Kratom use for a variety of conditions. Surely, both the ancient cultural track record and replete testimonies of kratom users should be a signpost to preserve access and catalyze research—not restrict access and hamper research.
Thank you for your consideration
Chris
Ret. USAF Pararescue