Latest Post

SITSA creates a new “Schedule A” that gives the Attorney General of the United States the power to ban any “analogue” of an opioid that controls pain or provides an increase of energy.


Image may contain: 1 person, plant, nature and outdoor

Kratom Advocates:

If you’ve had one of those days that starts with friends calling you with bad news, and the news just gets worse and worse as the day goes on – then that describes my day perfectly.

On Friday of last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, dropped a bill in the U.S. Senate that our lobbyists believe will give the FDA and DEA a backdoor way of banning kratom completely in the United States.

S. 1327 is euphemistically called the SITSA Act.  And a companion bill in the US House of Representatives has already been filed, H.R. 2851, by Representative John Katco of New York.

The SITSA Act stands for the “Stop Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017.”
SITSA creates a new “Schedule A” that gives the Attorney General of the United States the power to ban any “analogue” of an opioid that controls pain or provides an increase of energy.

That is kratom. Because kratom’s 2 primary alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, though not opioids, act similarly in some ways.
They could of just called this bill the “Schedule Kratom” Act.

This legislation will allow the Attorney General, and his supporters at the DEA, to add kratom to Schedule A on a “temporary basis” that will last for 5 years.
And once added to Schedule A, the Attorney General can convert it to a permanent schedule.
After everything that we’ve fought successfully against and endured together as a movement, our lobbyists are concerned that this is now the perfect storm for banning kratom.

Under the current Controlled Substances Act, the FDA and DEA have to prove conclusively that kratom is dangerously addictive and unsafe for consumer use. That’s why we were able to stop them in their tracks when they tried to ram through an “emergency scheduling” ban on kratom.

And it is why the FDA is having such a tough time in finding some justification to schedule kratom under regular rulemaking.

So now the anti-kratom bureaucrats in Washington want to ban kratom simply by claiming it has the same effects as an opioid – calling it an “analogue” of the opioid.

And the SITSA Act can enforce a ban on kratom by criminalizing any manufacturer or distributor of kratom. Ten years imprisonment just for manufacturing or selling a kratom product, and a fine of $500,000 if you are an individual, $2,500,000 if the defendant is a company.

If you import or export kratom, it is a 20-year sentence.

And then there are harsh penalties for what they call “false labeling” of a Schedule A substance.
That’s why am writing – because I need your help again.

We have to convince Sen. Grassley, Sen. Feinstein, and Representative Katko that they have to exempt natural botanical plants from the SITSA Act.
We have to act quickly, because I learned today that the House Judiciary Committee is looking to schedule a Hearing before they leave for recess next month.

So I hope you will help by doing three specific things:

1.    Click on the link below and sign our petition that the AKA will have delivered to every member of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. 

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION URGING LAWMAKERS TO REMOVE KRATOM FROM THE SITSA ACT.

2.    I need you to pick up the phone and call Sen. Grassley’s office, Sen. Feinstein’s office, and Representative Katco’s office. When the staff member answers the phone, tell them that their boss should exclude natural botanicals like kratom products from the SITSA Act.

Here are the phone numbers you should call:

Senator Grassley:    (202) 224-3744
Senator Feinstein:    (202) 224-3841
Congressman Katco:    (202) 225-3701

When you call, be polite, but firm.  Kratom should be exempted from SITSA.

3.    Please click on the donation link below and help us once again to take on this fight with a team of lawyers, lobbyists, and public relations professionals.  Please consider making a monthly contribution to the AKA.

DONATION LINK TO HELP THE AKA FIGHT THIS LEGISLATION.

I know I am asking a lot.

But we need to fight back hard, or they will steal our freedoms from us to make our own decisions about our health and well-being.

So please, sign the petition, call the the sponsors of SITSA, and please, please, give as generous a contribution as you can to help us put our team on the ground in Washington, D.C.

With your help, we have established ourselves as a real force in Washington.

With your continued help – help that I am so grateful for – we can win this battle against the enemies of kratom.

Your contribution will help us hire the lawyers we need for a brief on why this legislation violates due process and current law; our lobbyists to knock on doors on Capitol Hill; and our public relations team to rally the press to tell our story.

We will stand up for freedom.

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Susan Ash
Founder and Spokesperson
American Kratom Association
www.americankratom.org

http://mailchi.mp/americankratom/new-legislative-attack-on-kratom?e=2709219685

https://www.facebook.com/kratom.us/photos/rpp.260289027341069/873568049346494/?type=3&theater

Latest Post, Petition, Politics

Make the FDA Advisory, Not Mandatory


You should control what medicines you use, not the FDA. The FDA should make advisory recommendations only. It should NOT have the power to mandate which drugs you can buy, and which you cannot.

  • If pharmaceutical companies value the FDA seal of approval, then they can pay the FDA to evaluate their drugs.
  • If consumers value FDA approval, then they can decide to only buy FDA approved drugs.

If the FDA’s seal of approval is really so valuable, then it does NOT need to be mandatory. No coercion is necessary. Instead, the FDA should be able to sell its services through voluntary means, just like Underwriter’s Laboratory does.

Consumers and doctors should be free to consult available science, and make their own decisions about which treatments to try.

All human beings are unique. Treatments that might be dangerous for one person, could be the only possible solution for another. There is zero chance that one-size-fits-all dictates can possibly account for the vastness of human variability. Patients and doctors must have the flexibility to deal with individual human uniqueness.

The FDA should serve, not rule.

Talking Points:

There are thousands of reasons why the FDA should lose its power to coerce you and your loved ones. Some of these reasons will be listed below, so that you can use them when writing to Congress, or when asking your friends to contact Congress on this issue . . .

The FDA gives consumers a false sense of security. Americans assume that the FDA is actually protecting them, but it is not. For instance . . .

The Union of Concerned Scientists surveyed 6,000 FDA scientists in 2006, and 1,000 of them responded with the following disturbing admissions:

  • 17% admitted that they had been “asked explicitly by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media, or elected/senior government officials.”
  • Less than half agreed that the FDA “routinely provides complete and accurate information to the public.”
  • 47% admitted to being aware of instances “where commercial interests have inappropriately induced or attempted to induce the reversal, withdrawal, or modification of FDA determinations of actions.”

The FDA is constantly attempting to expand its powers. The people in that agency are relentlessly pushing into areas that are NOT part of their mandate — even where there is NO problem that needs to be fixed.

For Example: The FDA has made repeated attempts to regulate vitamins and supplements, even though there is no evidence that these things present any danger. Quite the contrary — vitamins and supplements are a powerful example of how health outcomes can be improved, without FDA involvement. The website of the Life Extension Foundation is full of scientific citations to demonstrate this. For instance . . .

A review of 2009 information for “adverse events” reported to the national control center’s data system shows that, NO major adverse events or deaths were reported for . . .

  • Botanical supplements like St. John’s wort, ginseng, and Echinacea
  • Hormone supplements like DHEA, melatonin, and pregnenolone
  • Phytoestrogen supplements
  • The joint- and cartilage-support supplements glucosamine and chondroitin
  • Vitamins A and E, and only one adverse event each was reported for vitamin B6 and C

In total, 41 major adverse events were reported for the entire spectrum of supplements including botanicals, amino acids, and vitamins, and only one was a death.

In contrast, more than 7,000 major adverse events were reported for pharmaceutical drugs, including a total of 496 deaths. And based on previous studies, we know the overall death rate for physician prescribed drugs to be far higher.

The Downsize DC position is pro-choice. The FDA should serve, not rule.

Use the form at right to send your elected representatives a letter about this issue. It’s easy!

  • Your position will be counted by each Congressional office,
  • Will educate the Congressional staffer who reads it,
  • May be passed up the chain of command,
  • May receive a reply (many DC Downsizers get them). If you receive such a letter, please share it with us at Comments@DownsizeDC.org.

 

Send a letter to Congress

We provide the first few words of the letter so that Congressional offices will see the most important point

right at the start, and so that no one can hijack our system for another purpose.

Here’s the part we provide . . .

Make the FDA advisory, not mandatory.

LINK

CONTINUE READING….

Latest Post

Hunger in Kentucky still a reality


hunger

If you are reading this over breakfast and have enough to eat, consider yourself fortunate.

Because in Kentucky, many residents do not always know where they will get their next meal, The Courier-Journal’s Chris Kenning reported Sunday.

Percentages vary from affluent urban areas to impoverished counties of Eastern Kentucky, but on the whole, about 15.6 percent of Kentuckians are “food insecure,” meaning they can’t always afford the food they need. That translates into more than 670,000 of Kentucky’s 4.3 million people.

And while the numbers and percentages may seem abstract, the fear of going hungry is very real for many in the state who depend on food banks, run by charitable organizations, and the government Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps).

Among them is Lorraine Maggard, 75, of Mount Vernon, who regularly visits a food pantry run by the Christian Appalachian Project called Grateful Bread.

Living on about $800 a month in Social Security, Ms. Maggard notes that after her house payment, utility bills and car insurance, she has about $48 to live on each month. And the $74 she used to get in food stamps was cut to $47 a month after Congress declined to extend a temporary increase enacted in 2009 to help people through the recession.

“If I didn’t have the pantry, I don’t know what I’d do,” Ms. Maggard told The Courier-Journal.

Despite the stigma—the mistaken view food stamps are handouts for able-bodied adults unwilling to work—the majority of people who receive food stamps are in families where adults are working low-wage jobs, making so little they qualify for assistance. They earn 130 percent or less of the federal poverty level, about $25,400 a year for a family of three.

More than half of those who benefit from food stamps are children. One-fifth are elderly, such as Ms. Maggard from Rockcastle County, whose meager allotment isn’t enough to get her through the month without a trip to the local food pantry.

It remains a terrible truth that in this land of wealth and abundance that many people do not have enough to eat.

Kentucky is fortunate to have the Christian Appalachian food pantry and many other food banks that serve their communities.

But Kentucky must do more to expand possibilities for people to earn a fair wage, find decent jobs and provide for themselves and their families.

Easy political talk about “job creators” and “job killers” isn’t working.

The harder job is to keep working on conditions that cause hunger and poverty.

CONTINUE READING…