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.

▲

lotsofpulp a day ago | parent | next [-]

>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.

	▲	MSFT_Edging a day ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

parineum a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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?

▲

Avicebron a day ago | parent [-]

Without an official blessing from a pharma company the insurance won't pay for it and doctors are unlikely to prescribe it.

	▲	lotsofpulp a day ago \| parent [-]
		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.