Kratom is a scheduled substance in Australia, this country was one of the first to schedule Mitragyna Speciosa and Mitragynine, besides the South east asian countries. In february 2003 the Australian National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee came together to discuss scheduling of a number of subtances, including kratom.
Hereunder you'll find a quote from the report of this commission, which contain some very disturbing arguments.
First kratom was not an substance of abuse, nor was there any reason to foresee or fear the abuse potential. Besides this the decision is largely based on the unknown reports of a mysterious company XXXXXXX, which supose to have done clinical trials with Mitragynine, according to one committee member , this clinical trials showed "unaccetpable acute effects" , this all now seems very unlikely. Especially since various tests have shown that kratom is relatively safe to use. Besides this another report is quoted, the 1975 Thai kratom user report, which in itself already constitiutes that long term usage had no serious adverse effects. Has this commission been deliberately misinformed? It seems like this, it is remarkable that the "unacceptable acute effects" are not even specified.
Moreover, the scheduling decision was taken "pro active" see the following quote "While it was agreed that there may be a case not to schedule mitragynine at this time, Members were reminded that when a substance is brought to the Committee under these circumstances, that the Committee should act pro-actively, especially when the substance clearly fits the requirements of Schedule 9 and where there is a clear potential for abuse"
Now both conclusions are completely incorrect, there is and was certainly no clear "potential for abuse" and secondly it doesn't fit the requirements for scheduling. It is currently in Schedule 9;e substances and preparations which, by law, may only be used for research purposes. The sale, distribution, use and manufacture of such substances are strictly prohibited.
The questions remain, who and what is the mysterious company XXXXX iwith its so called "unacceptable effects" and what was the reason to make such a hasty decision, since it is obvious that there was no urgency? Some argue that a pharmaceutical lobby might have been at the base of this decision, we now see in other countries that kratom is succesfully used as a herbal pain reliever and for those suffering from anxiety and depressions. Could this have been the reason for the current scheduling in Australia?
Record of the Reasons 37th Meeting 25-26 February 2003
14.1.7 MITRAGYNINE
PURPOSE
The Committee considered the scheduling of mitragynine.
BACKGROUND
Mitragynine (also known as Kratom) is one of the alkaloids found in the leaves of the South-East Asian tree Mitragyna speciosa, which is used extensively in Thailand to increase work output and tolerance of direct sunlight. M itragynine has psychoactive properties and has also been used as an opium substitute. Kratom leaves are usually chewed, smoked or drunk as tea to achieve the desired affect. Mitragyna speciosa is regulated in the same way as cocaine and heroin in Thailand and carries the same restrictions and penalties as cocaine. There have also been reports of use of mitragynine in Malaysia. Poisindex indicates that in adults, a dose of 50 mg of pure mitragynine has produced motor excitement, rombergism, giddiness and tremors of the face, extremities and tongue. In 1975, a study of 30 Thai Kratom users considered chronic (more than 5 years) noted that the leaves were chewed three times to 10 times a day, with stimulant effects occurring after five minutes to 10 minutes.
Animal experiments with mitragynine have shown that it possesses pain thresholdelevating and antitussive properties. Unlike narcotic analgesics, mitragynine has little effect on gastric mobility, is not antagonised by naloxone, has no opiate-like dependenceand has only weak respiratory depressant action. Preclinical trials in humans with mitragynine were conducted by XXXXXXXXX in the early 1970s, but apparently revealed some unacceptable acute effects. It has been speculated that a possible reason for this is the different pharmacological profiles of pure mitragynine and the unprocessed leaf, the latter containing several other alkaloids that may modify the effects of the pure drug.
DISCUSSION
The Committee noted that the DSEB had received an inquiry from an Australian resident wishing to import mitragynine. M itragynine is not currently listed in the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, therefore its importation does not require an import permit.
The Committee noted that a search of Australian web sites revealed no sites or chat rooms actively promoting or discussing the use of mitragynine. However, a worldwide search revealed some studies on the analgesic properties of mitragynine and possible use in treating heroin addicts. There were no reports of widespread therapeutic use.
However, there were at least two Australian web sites marketing the plant Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom). A Member noted that there were many plants that contained hallucinogenic or psychotrophic alkaloids that were not currently scheduled and that mitragynine is not currently listed in any WHO schedule.
Also, there was no evidence of abuse in Australia and the need for the Committee to include mitragynine in the SUSDP at this time was questioned.
While it was agreed that there may be a case not to schedule mitragynine at this time, Members were reminded that when a substance is brought to the Committee under these circumstances, that the Committee should act pro-actively, especially when the substance clearly fits the requirements of Schedule 9 and where there is a clear potential for abuse. It was suggested that the Secretariat contact XXXXXXXXX to see if the company can provide any documentation associated with the XXXXXXXXX ** mitragynine trial, in particular the unacceptable acute effects.
The Members noted that if the Committee voted to include mitragynine in Schedule 9 at this meeting, there would be no opportunity for any post-meeting comments to be considered as no pre-meeting submissions were received. The Members agreed to foreshadow the inclusion of mitragynine in Schedule 9 to allow further opportunity for the public to comment on the scheduling action proposed by the Committee.
OUTCOME
The Committee agreed to foreshadow the inclusion of mitragynine in Schedule 9 of the SUSDP due to its pharmacological profile and potential for abuse.
FORESHADOW Schedule 9
New entries
MITRAGYNINE.
MITRAGYNA SPECIOSA.
So this was the outcome of the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee Record of the Reasons 37th Meeting 25-26 February 2003.
In a meeting lateron, In 2004, A Member noted that based on the available data there was little evidence to show that M. speciosa was widely used for therapeutic purposes other than as a substitute for other addictive opiates and one other traditional use as an antidiarrhoeal. Although the pharmacology of M. speciosa suggested that analgesic effects were likely given the findings of studies quoted in several papers [e.g. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (Vol 20[4], Oct-Dec 1988], there was little data to suggest that Kratom was used traditionally as a pain reliever.
On this basis, the Committee noted that despite post-meeting comments about the usefulness of M. speciosa for treating migraines, there was little evidence available to support a legitimate therapeutic need for the plant and members also noted that a number of other alternatives including complementary medicines were already available.
A Member observed that information on Internet websites referred mainly to the use of Kratom for producing psychoactive effects and in contrast, there was paucity of information about its therapeutic use." The NDPSC then confirmed the decision to schedule kratom, and the amended SUSDP law went into effect 1 January 2005. Furthermore, a New Zealander on the Committee suggested that Australia should officially recommend to New Zealand that it also schedule kratom.
*** the XXXXX is refering to Smith, Kline and French Laboratories, the "revealed unacceptable side-effects" is mentioned in a letter from Raffauf, R. (1986) but allegedly point to vomiting and naussea. Details of this research or report are unknown.
A good example of what ignorance and lack of knowlegde can do to your freedom to choose your medicine, can be found in recent developments in Iowa.
