The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has announced to recategorize the over the counter drug known as Kratom, as a Schedule 1 drug. Kratom is a natural substance made from leaves from Mitragyna speciosa, a Southeast Asian tree. Kratom has been known to successfully treat opiate addiction, treat pain, combat depression, fight anxiety, and much more. Some users have stated that they were able to use Kratom as a step down drug; claiming it assists recovering opiate addicts, heroin addicts, and other users get off harder prescription drugs. Schedule 1 drugs are defined as drugs that have no current medical purpose and/or have a high potential for abuse. Schedule 1 drugs consists of drugs like LSD and heroin. As the drug has become more popular …show more content…
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s have declared Kratom as an “emerging public health threat”, on the basis that there have been 660 calls to U.S. poison centers related to Kratom in the last 6 years. But this is only a tiny portion of the U.S. poison centers calls, because they reach approximately 3,000,000 calls a year. There are a total of 30 deaths documented related to Kratom worldwide, whereas around 25,000 people died of prescription drug overdoses in 2014 alone. Over 100,000 people have signed the petition against the ban on Kratom, asking for President Obama to intervene with the DEA to stop the ban. With over 100,000 signatures by Thursday morning, the petition has reached the threshold of signatures needed for a response from the White House. It is not known yet if the White House will respond before or after the Kratom ban is put into effect. The ban is set to be put in effect at the end of the month and will last 2 years, where in the meantime the government will decide whether or not the ban is …show more content…
The author really focuses on the facts of the situation rather than incorporating their opinion. There's a lot of more discussion on how the drug is perceived as harmless rather than discussion on the reports of its dangers, although that most likely stems from the fact that the article is about how many people think the drug is harmless and was showing their reasoning. The only real time there are opinions or biases in the article is where the author is either quoting advocates or quoting the DEA’s statements. It's impressive to read an article with little author bias, especially when it's on a topic where both sides have strong feelings and reasoning behind
Both of these genres are trying to inform their audience about weed but the article does a better job reaching the audience because the author’s opinion is highly respected among peers. “Why I Changed my Mind on Weed” was written entirely as an informative piece and “Super High Me” was made to entertain as well as educate so older adults might not take that genre as seriously. Dr. Gupta wrote this article to inform an audience of intelligent older adults the truth about marijuana, telling them that they have been misled about the effects of marijuana and he conveys that message very well. He wrote the article for CNN.com and has been working on a documentary named “Weed” for the news station so the audience that the internet article is trying to reach are older adults who stay current on the news. Dr. Gupta had done research ...
Richard Lowry writes an article for the National Review, quoting a Council on Foreign Relations report on drug eradication policies
Those opposed to the legalization of the cannabis plant in a September 11th 2003 article claim that with legalization of cannabis will come further problems. They say that legalization would lead to greater drug use especially with children as well as drug trafficking from legalized areas. They claim the tobacco and alcohol cause enough problems and there is no reason to add a new product into the mix. The claim is also made that drugs such as cannabis lead to poverty, crime, and violence. They argue that although the drug war cannot be completely successful it is worth it to slow down drug trade and that truly very few people are brought up on a simple possession charge of cannabis. Finally they make the claim that if cannabis and other drugs were legalized it would prevent court ordered addiction treatment. I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from. Many arguments are made generally about the legalization of all illegal drugs including cannabis and I do agree that drugs other than cannabis should be kept illegal for all the reasons listed above. Where I find fault with the expose is the unfair grouping of cannabis into the article.
No one really knows the long-term effects of these substances, individually or in unpredictable combination, either on human health or on the health of the ecosystems upon which we, and all life, depend. The chemicals are not the same as the ones Carson indicted in Silent Spring, yet they are produced, sold, and used on an unsuspecting public by the same interconnected complex of profit-driven companies and government authorities. Carson’s words in her “Fable for Tomorrow” still apply, as if we lived in the future that she imagined: “No witchcraft, no enemy action” had produced our “stricken world. The people had done it themselves” (Carson, 1962,
Credibility material: Its intake results in adverse medical conditions that are further exalted by its addiction properties that ensure a continued intake of the substance. The drug can be abused through multiple means and is medically recorded to produce short-term joy, energy , and other effects such as increased heart rate and blood pressure. This ultimately results in numerous psychiatric and social problems; factors that played a major role in its illegalization after multiple and widespread cases of its effects were reported in the country during the 1900s. In addition to this, the drug results in immediate euphoric effect, a property which the National Institute of Drug Abuse (2010) attributes to be the root cause for its increased po...
According to the article, it is clear how a domino-effect has developed following the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs has had a dramatically negative
The controversy of legalizing marijuana has been raging for quite a while in America. From some people pushing it for medical purposes to potheads just wanting to get high legally. Marijuana has been used for years as a popular drug for people who want to get a high. All this time it has been illegal and now it looks as if the drug may become legal. There has been heated debate by many sides giving there opinion in the issue. These people are not only left wing liberals either. Richard Brookhiser, a National Review Senior editor is openly supportive of medical marijuana yet extremely conservative in his writing for National Review (Brookhiser 27). He is for medical marijuana since he used it in his battle with testicular cancer. He says "I turned to [marijuana] when I got cancer because marijuana gives healthy people an appetite, and prevents people who are nauseated from throwing up. "(Brookhiser 27) Cancer patients are not the only benefactors from the appetite enhancer in marijuana, but so are any other nauseous people. Arizona and California have already passed a law allowing marijuana to be used as a medicinal drug. Fifty Six percent of the California voters voted for this law. "We've sent a message to Washington," says Dennis Peron. "They've had 25 years of this drug was, and they've only made things worse." (Simmons 111) The Arizona proposition garnished an even wider margin of separation between the fore's an against in a sixty five percent support tally. Ethan Nadelmann insists that " these propositions are not about legalization or decriminalization. They're about initiating some non radical, commonsense approaches to drug policy." General Barry McCaffery disagrees saying, "I...
Legalization of marijuana in the United States has received much attention and controversy in recent months. The federal government outlaws the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, despite proven research studies that have discovered the plant’s potential to treat the lives of many Americans affected by disease and chronic pain. Medicinal use of the marijuana plant dates back to 2700 B.C. in China. Emperor Shen Nung discovered its’ healing properties and recommended marijuana for a variety of ailments (Mack and Joy 14). Today, bias views and laws plague the advancement of marijuana in present day medicine.
Psychedelics have always been a controversial subject in the world of drugs because they have the ability to alter one’s perception of reality. L.S.D, MDMA, and psilocybin are three of the main types of psychedelics on the drug market, all three of which are listed as schedule 1 by the DEA. A schedule 1 drug is considered to have a high addiction risk, has no medical value whatsoever, and is illegal to have in your possession. A schedule 2 drug is considered to have the potential for both medical purposes, and abuse. A schedule 3 drug is considered safe for medical use and can only be prescribed by a doctor. I however, believe that psychedelics should be reconsidered for at least schedule 2 as studies have shown an increase in the use of psychedelics in psychotherapy and can even help the terminally ill come to terms with their own deaths.
Ecstasy alone makes people biased towards ecstasy without even doing the research necessary to judge it. There are some 500,000 regular users of the drug Ecstasy in the United Kingdom alone. (lec.org/DrugSearch/Documents.Ecstasy.html, p.1) It can't be all that bad, can it?
for drugs that helps lead to problems with prostitution, gambling, and even human organs. Society is suffering from the unsuccessful and costly results of prohibition. Although drug regulation has steadily been increasing, drug use and drug related deaths have increased steadily. Even though spending to combat the...
With the major and ongoing controversy of the legalization of marijuana, medical marijuana has been thrown into the limelight as an excuse as to why marijuana is “good.” But with medical marijuana’s supposed advancements, more and more doctors are prescribing it to anyone who claims to have a headache and now they are moving their clientele base to young children and teens who are not even old enough to know the long-term damage of the “medicine” their doctors are so willingly prescribing. While many doctors are beginning to jump on the medical weed train, others are continuing to speak against the effects; especially on minors. In order to prevent permanent damage to the young children, medical marijuana needs to be outlawed for anyone under the age of 18.
Illicit drug use and the debate surrounding the various legal options available to the government in an effort to curtail it is nothing new to America. Since the enactment of the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914 (Erowid) the public has struggled with how to effectively deal with this phenomena, from catching individual users to deciding what to do with those who are convicted (DEA). Complicating the issue further is the ever-expanding list of substances available for abuse. Some are concocted in basements or bathtubs by drug addicts themselves, some in the labs of multinational pharmaceutical companies, and still others are just old compounds waiting for society to discover them.
Kaufman, Stephen. "Obama Drug Strategy: Prevention to Reduce Demand." America - Engaging the World - America.gov. 12 May 2010. Web. 02 Mar. 2011. .
There has always been controversy about marijuana and the affects it has on health and the issue of legalization. Some people believe it is very destructive to one’s health, and yet others feel the complete opposite about it. Is Marijuana truly harmful to one’s health? “Marijuana, the Deceptive Drug”, written by George Bierson, was published in the Massachusetts News. In this article, Bierson determines that marijuana is harmful in many ways. He seems to think that it damages the brain, the reproductive system, and also contributes to the halt of production in the immune system. Bierson also tries to persuade the reader that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that leads to larger drugs in the future. However, by conducting research of my own, I have come to the conclusion that Bierson’s article simply lacks truth.