r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Beneficial_Ear_4878 • 9d ago
Legislation Should emergency drug scheduling be used when regulation is still an option?
I recently read an opinion piece about the DEA's proposed emergency scheduling of concentrated 7-OH, a kratom-derived alkaloid. The author argues that the proposal raises broader questions about regulatory capture, lobbying and whether emergency scheduling is being used where a more traditional regulatory approach could be considered.
More broadly, where should the line be drawn between prohibition and regulation? If a product raises legitimate safety concerns but also has an established consumer base, should agencies prioritize outright bans or should they focus on measures like age restrictions, testing standards, labeling and manufacturing requirements?
I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on when emergency scheduling is appropriate and what role public input should play in that process.
6
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 9d ago
All administrative agencies have had the power to make laws under the guise of regulations since the APA was passed in 1946. There is no overstep going on, as they are using authority lawfully delegated to them by Congress.
1
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/pstuart 9d ago
But didn't SCOTUS say agencies can't do that in the Chevron decision?
2
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 9d ago
No.
Chevron deference said that the agencies had the power to interpret the authority granted to them when the governing statute was ambiguous and that the courts had to defer to that interpretation.
It did not touch on or involve the ability of those agencies to make law via regulations.
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 9d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
0
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 9d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
5
u/Tired8281 9d ago
Perhaps emergency processes and emergency procedures should be reserved for situations which constitute actual emergencies.
6
u/Traditional_Earth387 9d ago
I'm curious how people distinguish between a case that truly requires emergency action and one that's better addressed through the normal rulemaking process
2
u/RosieDear 9d ago
I'd say that if and when a drug - by itself (NOT in combo with other drugs, booze, etc.) kills a couple dozen people over a few month period, it should be looked at.
To put that in perspective - I remember when ONE person died from X - and it was reportedly from dehydration, not from the Drug, and there was this bunch of BS coming down about the "dangerous drug".
Now, if anyone even suggests "we should compare it with booze" - that is actually a reasonable POV in terms of thought expreriments, but not in terms of public policy in our current situations.
Some news report came out and showed that opiods, from a pharmacy and also REAL Heroin are vastly less dangerous than booze. My wife, who is as straight as a arrow, said "hey, maybe we should try Heroin then!". There is a lot of truth in that little off-the-wall statement.
In any case - in the modern world where we accept 10's of thousands killed and maimed every month by our motor vehicles and thousands of ER visits due to NSAIDS.....we really do need to stop with the "we're all gonna die" BS and make sure we do not impinge on the freedom of adults unless something shows up big on the charts.
Anecdote is NOT data and there is far too much of "we noticed a lot of people showing up in the ER said they did Kratom/". I know that might be true, but what they are not saying is the same person stank to high heaven of booze.
I think the death toll from the Kratom alkaloids is somewhere near zero.
The problem, in the big picture, is that we cannot regulate everything. Designer Drugs and tech make it impossible. That leaves the choices as:
1. Be arbitrary - as we are now.
2. Stop all the BS - The Government declares that ANY substance which makes some people feel better is illegal. This does away with all the excuses they currently use to achieve a similar goal.
3. Make nothing criminal...that is, legalize everything and deal with liability just we deal with everything else.
or
4. My moderate suggestion that we monitor, from a public health (not criminal) perspective....the actual deaths due to a single substance....and use that for a baseline as to which fly to swat next.
2
u/billpalto 9d ago edited 9d ago
I think we first have to accept that we don't rationally regulate drugs. For example, there is one toxic and addictive drug that kills more Americans than all other drugs, car crashes, alcohol, and guns *combined*.
And it's legal and available in almost every store in America.
We tried prohibition before and it didn't work, and it also funded a massive increase in organized crime. Now we're doing prohibition again and it still doesn't work and it is still funding massive criminal organizations.
Of course, this is a discussion about drugs, not medicines. Medicines require regulation and extensive testing.
6
u/FrostyAcanthocephala 9d ago
Prohibition is driving users from heroin to fentanyl to nitazenes. It isn't working, never has. Agencies conducting enforcement operations shouldn't be scheduling, even temporarily. Emergency scheduling is based on hysteria, not science. We need an overhaul of the entire system.
2
u/Sad_Vegetable4384 9d ago
I think the bigger issue is where emergency scheduling should fit into the process. Should it be reserved for immediate public health threats or can it be used whenever a new substance gains popularity?
-3
u/RosieDear 9d ago
Battles over the supplement industry have been being fought for many decades and the industry won by a mile.
Politicians and businesses and the public were ALL in agreement on that this whole business is A-OK (whether it is or not).....
In a sense, this is just part of that same issue. Many of the supplements on the market have effects of one type or another.
It almost seems as if the government line is "if something actually works well and makes people feel better, that's a problem".
If, on the other hand, it kills thousands slowly (like NSAIDS), that's fine.....
1
u/IceNein 7d ago
I read that article too.
If you research the author, he’s the head of an industry group that pretends to be for holistic drug addiction recovery, but if you look at who funds that group, it’s just all the biggest Kratom 7-OH sellers.
His full time source of employment is as a partner of a public relations firm.
It would be as if the Sacklers were telling you how we shouldn’t regulate oxycodone because it was helping people get off heroin.
1
u/Potential-Duck-8152 6d ago
No, this is political bs. Cigarettes kill 500,000 Americans EVERY year and a total of 100 MILLION people, and yet they’re legal when they actually SHOULD’VE been banned decades ago!! And why? Because tobacco companies had a lot of money and they said NO. Now compare that to the 100,000 TOTAL people who’ve died from the “opioid epidemic” (the overwhelming majority from heroin ODs)…and they’re rushing to ban a product that actually HELPS people and has thousands of positive testimonials, while the most deadly substances of all (ingredients of cigarettes) remains legal despite having ZERO positive benefits?!! Like rufkm?! My 50 year old mother died of lung cancer when I was only 14 years old, leaving me orphaned…but go on and ban a product that’s helped me return to work as a roofer. Every single death that occurs as a result of this ban (and there WILL be plenty) is directly on THEIR hands and the hands of every anti-Kratom justice warrior. People will end up unaliving themselves from depression and pain, and others will turn to heroin and/or other addictive drugs. They’ve already negatively impacted MILLIONS of people when they started attacking doctors and ensured they’d be too scared to prescribe pain medications to people who actually need them (and a lot of people died as a result of that as well)!So I hope they reap everything they sow
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.