• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Contact your Representative NOW to stop the DEA from getting the power to ban anything they want

Basilico

Florida
Messages
948
What is happening:

The DEA is pressuring Congress to pass the SITSA act which will give the DEA a ridiculous amount of power, to the point that the DEA could decide to put any chemical (plants, supplements, drugs, etc, not just synthetic analogues of illicit substances) under a temporary 5 year ban just because they THINK it might be dangerous or addictive.

The DEA will not have to consult scientists and researchers in the medical field to confirm that said chemical is ACTUALLY dangerous or addictive. Additionally, under the SITSA act as drafted, there would be no way for the public to provide comments or challenge the DEA decision either administratively or in court (so unlike what happened with Kratom last year, if the DEA were to decide to ban a chemical it would be final). The SITSA act also contains a provision to change the ban from temporary to permanent at the end of the 5 years.

The DEA would have unlimited power to decide to ban whatever they want, including supplements/medicines that many here are currently using, or even medications approved in other countries that might help CFS.


What can you do:

The speaker of the House has decided to push the SITSA act through the House before the August recess, which could leave little time for consideration of any amendments because of the accelerated scheduling.

Below is a list of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, who will evaluate the amendments.

If you live in any of these districts, PLEASE contact your representative and ask them to support the American Kratom Association amendments to SITSA. They are currently discussing this. These amendments are aimed at limiting the power of the DEA only to actual dangerous substances. We need to tell our representatives that the SITSA Act is too broad and gives too much power to the Attorney General, without any scientific check on scheduling substances that are proven to be safe and not dangerously addictive.




Congressman District Phone Number
Trey Gowdy South Carolina 4th 202-225-6030
Louie B. Gohmert, Jr. Texas 1st 202-225-3035
Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. Wisconsin 5th 202-225-5101
Steve Chabot Ohio 1st 202-225-2216
Ted Poe Texas 2nd 202-225-6565
John Ratcliffe Texas 4th 202-225-6673
Martha Roby Alabama 2nd 202-225-2901
Mike Johnson Louisiana 4th 202-225-2777
Bob Goodlatte Virginia 6th 202-225-5431
Lamar Smith Texas 21st 202-225-4236
Darrell Issa California 49th 202-225-3906
Steve King Iowa 4th 202-225-4426
Trent Franks Arizona 8th 202-225-4576
Jim Jordan Ohio 4th 202-225-2676
Tom Marino Pennsylvania 10th 202-225-3731
Raul Labrador Idaho 1st 202-225-6611
Blake Farenthold Texas 27th 202-225-7742
Doug Collins Georgia 9th 202-225-9893
Ron DeSantis Florida 6th 202-225-2706
Ken Buck Colorado 4th 202-225-4676
Matt Gaetz Florida 1st 202-225-4236
Andy Biggs Arizona 5th 202-225-2635
Sheila Jackson Lee Texas 18th 202-225-3816
Ted Deutsch Florida 22nd 202-225-3001
Karen Bass California 37th 202-225-7084
Cedric Richmond Louisiana 2nd 202-225-6636
Hakeem Jeffries New York 8th 202-225-5936
Ted Lieu California 33rd 202-225-3976
Jamie Raskin Maryland 8th 202-225-5341
John Conyers, Jr. Michigan 13th 202-225-5126
Jerry Nadler New York 10th 202-225-5635
Zoe Lofgren California 19th 202-225-3072
Steve Cohen Tennessee 9th 202-225-3265
Hank Johnson, Jr. Georgia 4th 202-225-1605
Luis Gutierrez Illinois 4th 202-225-8203
David Cicilline Rhode Island 1st 202-225-4911
Eric Swalwell California 15th 202-225-5065
Pramila Jayapal Washington 7th 202-225-3106
Brad Schneider Illinois 10th 202-225-4835
 
Last edited:

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
It looks like the opposition to the bill is that people would be incarcerated instead of substance abuse programs? I couldn't find anything about banning.

Did I misread this?

There are some very credible groups opposing the bill.
 
Last edited:

Basilico

Florida
Messages
948
Just checked to see what the status is on this bill...

1) Representatives have not yet made a decision. If you haven't contacted your Rep to tell them you do not support SITSA giving the DEA unlimited power, please do so now!

2) Apparently a new Kratom association with questionable motives was justed created (possibly by the DEA) for the sole purpose of trying to confuse politicians (a very good, if devious strategy) and support the SITSA bill. Their website is professional but has no content, it was formed just the other day, and they sent a letter on behalf of the "Kratom community" saying that they support the bill. The language in their letter makes it obvious they are actually law enforcement, not regular citizens. The official Kratom Association has nothing to do with this letter.

I believe that now that states are starting to recognize the failure that is prohibition (whether it's alcohol or drugs) and are trying to slowly reverse drug laws that don't work, the DEA is trying to justify their existence by granting themselves unlimited power to ban more and more things. This latest plot to create a fake association is really chilling. Especially because the DEA was never supposed to have the power to ban anything - laws should only be created by the Congress, who are elected officials answerable to their constituents. The DEA is responsible to no one and should never have the power to create laws.
 
Last edited:

Paralee

Senior Member
Messages
571
Location
USA
I had to look up synthetic analogues because it sounded like a contradiction in terms but I had no clue it could mean what it does......I'm mainly looking at kratom for pain but when I was looking up this definition I found this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1701033

Did this not work out or have they just patented it and shoved it in a file? (It inhibits angiogenesis and suppresses tumor growth and it's a synthetic analogue, right?)
 
Last edited:

Paralee

Senior Member
Messages
571
Location
USA
FWIW, this opiate "crisis" has been ongoing and getting worse as the doctor's hands are tied and they have to abide by gov. and local laws, not to mention their employers' rules, think profit driven, but I know/think I'm preaching to the choir.

If I'm understanding this right and this bill goes through, it will bring to a halt so many possibilities for cure or at least pain relief, am I correct? If not, please excuse my horror and stupidity!

Has anybody considered this pain relief crisis (yeah, you read that right, lol) comes right about the time the medical establishment has been working on the baby boomers for many years and way more of them need pain relief than they should. If I am correct, it would probably have been in the works awhile. But then, maybe I'm paranoid and schizophrenic and need to be locked up; which could be one of the next steps, come to think of it.
 
Last edited: