Could this bill grant sessions the ability to ban kava and other psychoactives

[ThePiper]

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/115.S.1327 - Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act.pdf

People are concerned that this is going to be used to ban K@. People are writing to the senators introducing this bill to urge them to please EXCLUDE ALL BOTANICALS from this bill (Ffs it even says synthetics in the name, but experts in law seem to be concerned) So i thought, who's to say it can't extend to the sale of kava if our lovely friend Jeff Sessions sees fit? Probably not on the radar now, but whos to say it won't lay the foundation for an uphill battle down the road?

 

[ThePiper]

did you read the bill?

 

[ThePiper]

The american K@ association has a team of lawyers who are alarmed about this and seem to think it can appply to natural substances, and that the word synthetic is just for the name and not the content of the bill

 

[ThePiper]

I could be way off base. thats why i posted it as a question. it seems extremely broad to apply to almost anything

 

[ThePiper]

So because we are approved does that mean that we are nearly untouchable by the fda if someone were to say have liver failure from eating a kava extract made with the above ground parts? are we safe from witch hunts in general for the most part?

 

[Dr.Krunk]

My issue would be more along the lines that even though Kava may not technically fit into that category, it still wouldn't necessarily stop officials from incorrectly grouping it with others such as K@.

I live in Indiana where they have managed to pass a vague law essentially banning anything "synthetic," by deeming it illegal. They inforce those laws here even if it doesn't fit. K@ cannot be sold here because it supposedly fits the bill even though it technically doesn't.

But with that said you can still buy Kava so it may not be an issue on the national level. In my humblest of opinions I would have a hard time seeing them trying to change anything when the drink has strong cultural roots in Hawaii.

 

[verticity]

Ah, ok, I see why the K@ people are going crazy:
"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 K@! Because K@’s 2 primary alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, though not opioids, act similarly in some ways."

No relevance to kava though. Kava is approved as a dietary supplement. Anyway, I am sure the "big K@" will probably just carry on as usual. It's not like what they do now is even remotely legal.

K@ isn't just an "analog" it literally is an opioid. (It is not an opiate) The word "opioid" itself basically means "opiate analog"

That language would not include kava in any way, because kava is completely unrelated to opioids.

 

[verticity]

Ok, I took a closer look at this bill. Because this is not a political forum, I will refrain from commenting about the names listed as sponsors of the bill, although I have a lot to say about both of those individuals (seriously don't get me started), and simply note that this legislation is bipartisan, so would seem to have a good chance of passing.

The language establishing "Schedule A" literally says:

So... if I were a defense attorney (which I jolly well am not) in a case against a K@ seller I would say something along these lines to the judge:

"K@ and it's active ingredients are not scheduled substances. That's settled. The active ingredients in K@ are opioids, but they are unique and their chemical structures are not similar to any scheduled opioid. Therefore paragraph 6.A.i.I doesn't apply here."

So, it would seem that according to the letter of the law, this would not affect K@.

However, I think K@ advocates are right to worry, because the prosecution could say something like:

"The spirit of the law is clearly intended to apply to things like K@. And anyway, K@ has a similar effect on opioid receptors to scheduled opioids, and therefore the chemical structure must be similar enough in some way to count as an analog."

Like I said this bill definitely does not apply to kava. It would seem that the law does not apply to kava, but the language is worryingly vague and not specifically about opioids. And the kind of ignorant attitudes that led to this bill very much do apply to kava. Those attitudes being:
1) "All drugs in a particular category such as opioids are equally harmful." and
2) "All drugs are equally harmful."

Just read the news and it is clear there are people in very high places who literally believe #2 above.

I hope this post is not too political. I will be happy to remove or amend it if it is, but I feel these things need to be said.

 

[verticity]

The more I think about it, the worse this bill sounds. I'm not a legal expert, and there must certainly be exceptions in the controlled substances act for existing supplements, but the letter of this bill, by itself, would appear to ban things like melatonin (an LSD analogue, lol)

 

[SelfBiasResistor]

K@ is already illegal to sell for the purpose of human consumption. Does anyone care about it? We see bar owners giving it away for free to kids/students, we see restaurants encouraging people to "try our new K@ teas".

There have been K@ vendors shut down due to accusations of marketing for consumption. That is why users commonly claim to use it as incense when talking about specific vendor products -- to protect the vendors, not themselves. Once it is on the controlled substance list, it will not be just up to regulators, there will be raids, arrests, etc.

In my opinion, it's counterproductive to assume kava will always have a good legal status just because its natural and not known to cause harm. Our VP thinks K@ is a synthetic, I seriously doubt he is any more aware of kava.

 

[verticity]

So because we are approved does that mean that we are nearly untouchable by the fda if someone were to say have liver failure from eating a kava extract made with the above ground parts? are we safe from witch hunts in general for the most part?

As long as there are people who believe in witches no one is ever safe.

 

[SelfBiasResistor]

Hmmmm. how come we then see countless bars openly serving K@ or even offering it to kids? Even some of the leading newspapers have published photos from K@ (ekhm "kava" bars) with K@ on their menu. I think many K@ vendors have been taking the piss with their marketing tactics and behaviour and have clearly been ignoring even the existing laws, so perhaps the government feels there's no other option than going full nuclear on K@? It's pretty obvious everybody has been treating the existing unequivocal ban on selling K@ for human consumption as a total joke. I mean some guys are even selling K@ ON TAP!

There are bad vendors for every product out there and usually the worst are also the ones that seem to make the most money since they deceptively advertise and bend the rules as you've pointed out many times. The K@ community (IE not reddit) does not support these vendors and is concerned about the damage they will do to K@ from a legal standpoint. As far as marketing to kids, I can't really see that happening. It's more than likely targeted at college students. Children will need to get money from their parents to buy these expensive beverages. Most parents are going to want to know what their kid is needing $7 to buy. Not to mention cigarettes and alcohol are well known and more available to them.

As far as the government going nuclear, that would be a far worse situation. We fought a revolution to establish a government that works for the people, not the other way around. That's been eroded but it is the reason why K@ has been unsuccessfully banned by the DEA and why 20% of the states have now legalized recreational cannabis.

I hope you're right that kava will forever be legal and we'll always have access to it but this is a very dangerous bill that will give the AG the ability to temporarily schedule substances for 5 years. Even the existing DEA temporary scheduling only lasts for 2 years before the permanent ban must be approved by congress.

As a side note, the AKA is pushing to have language added to exclude ALL botanicals.

 

[Go Krunk Yourself]

I doubt anyone is going to come after Kava. It's just not that serious. K@ is proving to be a different story.

 

[YourOlePalAl]

When it comes to government, never have faith in them doing the right thing. I think we should definitely be writing our senators and representatives about this bill.

 

[verticity]

When it comes to government, never have faith in them doing the right thing. I think we should definitely be writing our senators and representatives about this bill.

Agreed. I don't like kava bars selling K@, as I have said elsewhere, but I do think K@ should remain legal. Kava's position is relatively more secure, but I think this bill could potentially be bad for kava also, even if only as the first domino in a cascade.

 

[ThePiper]

And it could really threaten all kinds of other things if sessions sees fit What if this year the West learned about some obscure kava-like plant medicine that's been used for centuries by a culture we don't interact with much, and it turns out to have just as much potential as kava, but gets banned before anyone can even discover it's potential. I don't think it's exactly a far-fetched though. More realistically and more importantly though, this is an act that supplements the drug war in a big way. It's not every day they add a whole new class of scheduling with unique provisions. This kind of legislature is extremely dangerous in the hands of our current officials (and possibly any official)

 

[lonnyzone]

Vague wording like "substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V" has me very, very concerned as to how this could affect the legal status of Kava in the US. Who's to say what is and isn't "substantially similar"?
It's especially terrifying considering the fact that if I'm reading the "Penalties" section correctly, if they decide to put Kava in "Schedule A", you could get 10 years in prison for possessing it...

 

[ThePiper]

I think the 10 years is for selling, and 20 years for importation

 

[Plantacious]

Ah, ok, I see why the K@ people are going crazy:
"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 K@! Because K@’s 2 primary alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, though not opioids, act similarly in some ways."

I can't find that quote anywhere in the bill. Could you give me an idea where it's located ?

 

[LeVon]

I couldnt find that line either. I think the way this is worded gives to much power to the attorney general. Though this bill would be useful for dangerous rcs and the like that are regularly killing people in the USA, it is worded very scary. If i am understanding this right. Not just K@, but any botanical I believe should be left out of this bill. This basically states that any botanical could be banned. Schedule A would be anything that they thought was substantially similar to the strength of a controlled substance. (page2) So the way this is worded, if they thought the stimulant effect of Coffee was substantially similar in strength to any stimulant controlled substances it could be banned. (this is theoretical) And the only have to run it by the Secretary of state, and Human services.

They can also consider making something schedule A, just because it has a current or relative "POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE" . Who decides if something has potential for abuse? Giving this power to the Attorney General alone is just a scary thought, not to mention a dangerous thing to do, giving someone this kind of power by themselves.

In page 5 it states that the Attorney General can temporarily make a substance a Schedule A substance if they think it might prevent abuse or misuse of that substance. So couldn't they just ban something because they think it might be possible to abuse or misuse? Before it has even been abused or misused? And it states that a substance scheduled in this way is not subject to judicial review. (im not quite sure what that means)

Im not saying this would be a bad thing, especially with all the dangerous chemicals and drugs being imported and sold in the USA. I just think it should invole more peoples opinions, and that botanicals do not belong on this list. I am not saying this will directly effect kava, i just think it gives the Attorney General the power to ban anything he so pleases. The wording is so vague that he could just ban ANYTHING he thought could be bad. Even if it has not caused any problems yet, but he thinks it could lol.

Sorry for the long post this is the first time i actually read the bill. I just assumed since it said "Synthetic" in the title it had nothing to do with botanicals or kava. And now i am very worried lol. PLEASE correct me if i am misunderstanding this.
(I am not a lawyer, and do not frequently read bills like this so the wording is hard for me to understand.)