Science Government Style

The DEA moves to ban kratom:

But dedicated kratom users might want to stock up. As soon as Friday, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says it will classify kratom as a Schedule I substance, putting it in a class of drugs — along with heroin, peyote and marijuana — that, per U.S. government policy, have “no currently acceptable medical use.” The Schedule I designation will make kratom illegal to possess or sell and more heavily restricted than cocaine or oxycodone.

Kratom and its chemical compounds, said DEA Special Agent Jodie Underwood, “pose an imminent hazard to the public safety.

The DEA’s announcement has created consternation among scientists who study its effects and their potential medical benefits. This week, more than 50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives — including 28 Democrats and 23 Republicans — sent a letter to the DEA arguing its “hasty decision” to schedule kratom “will put a halt on federally funded research and innovation surrounding the treatment of individuals suffering from opioid and other addictions — a significant public-health threat.”

Washington Reps. Adam Smith and Denny Heck signed the letter.

“In the end, this is a disservice to science,” said Christopher McCurdy, chairman of Biomolecular Sciences at the University of Mississippi, which has been on the forefront of research into kratom as a non-opium-based painkiller and an herbal alternative to methadone or suboxone. For decades, the University of Mississippi also had the only contract with the DEA to grow marijuana for medical research.

Yeah. Something tells me this is more to do with the DEA ensuring its existence and less to do with public safety. 

And how did it come the DEA has this kind of power anyway? I wouldn't trust a single word that comes out of their mouths.

Science is only science when the government says it is.

Need more?



"Last Wednesday, the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report finding that reviews of several commonly used forensic methods—such as analysis of hair, bitemarks, and shoe-prints—"have revealed a dismaying frequency of instances of use of forensic evidence that do not pass an objective test of scientific validity."


"We remain confident that, when used properly, forensic science evidence helps juries identify the guilty and clear the innocent, and the department believes that the current legal standards regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence are based on sound science and sound legal reasoning," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal. "While we appreciate their contribution to the field of scientific inquiry, the department will not be adopting the recommendations related to the admissibility of forensic science evidence."

Any questions?

Remember, the government claims to be all rational sciency where climate system change is concerned.

When politicians talk about science always ask: Cui bono?


1 comment:

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.