My SITSA Act letter to Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson (1 reply) - 6/30/2017

I sent letters to both Senators on June 30, 2017. As of July 22, only Senator Nelson sent a reply letter.

My letter:
Dear Senator Nelson,
Dear Senator Rubio,
I am writing you with great concern regarding the SITSA Act (S.1327), proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley. The DEA successfully exercises emergency scheduling powers and I am unable to understand why the SITSA Act is more necessary than the DEA's current authority. The SITSA Act disregards our constitutional rights of due process by not allowing us to voice our comments and concerns over substances that would be placed into a newly-formed "Schedule A" controlled substance category. Scientific and judicial review are also not considered prior to scheduling under the SITSA Act.
I understand the gravity of the opioid epidemic and as a US citizen, I am gravely concerned with the drug crisis sweeping our nation. It is imperative that our government assists with this matter, namely the DEA exercising emergency scheduling authority. The agency has been successful 80 times with their emergency scheduling power and there is no reason to believe the DEA will fail in future efforts to ban dangerous synthetic substances.
The SITSA Act is a direct threat to natural botanicals people use to treat their individual ailments. Kratom is the botanical where I express my primary concern. Dr. Jack Henningfield has conducted an 8-factor analysis on Kratom, using parameters and techniques mirroring the 8-factor analysis performed by the FDA. Dr. Henningfield concluded that Kratom is not a threat to public safety nor does Kratom pose a high abuse potential. Kratom has not been directly linked to a single death worldwide. In fact, Dr. Henningfield stated that banning Kratom would create a threat to public safety. Reputable surveys conducted show that under 2% of consumers use Kratom recreationally and less than 12% use Kratom to treat opioid and alcohol addiction. Despite that relatively low percentage, Kratom has successfully turned thousands away from opioids. However, the Kratom community does not primarily use Kratom as an escape from addiction. The overwhelming majority of Kratom consumers use this botanical to successfully treat individual conditions including chronic pain, anxiety, PTSD, insomnia, and other conditions. Nevertheless, Kratom does not exacerbate the opioid crisis, rather it is a solution. Kratom is not a synthetic drug, it is not chemically altered in any way, it is not a member of the opium family, and it is completely natural.
Like so many others, Kratom has exceedingly changed my life. I was once prescribed an opioid regiment by my doctor until I realized the inevitable path of addiction with these drugs. I quit my regiment and subsequently went through a horrible period of withdrawal. One year later, I discovered Kratom and decided to give it a try. 5 years later I am living a happy, productive, successful and pain-free life thanks to this wonderful natural remedy. My story is just a drop in a large bucket filled with others whose lives were remarkably changed by Kratom.
In conclusion, I understand the growing concern with the opioid epidemic and I empathize with any attempts to curb the crisis by presenting more legislation. However, I believe the SITSA Act is too broadly defined and should include the public's right to due process; the ability for the public and scientific communities to engage in commenting as well as allowing judicial review. It appears the primary intentions of SITSA is focused on synthetic drugs. Therefore, the SITSA Act should include language excluding all natural botanicals from scheduling under the SITSA Act. Those truly concerned with the opioid epidemic should protect the most successful botanical remedy that significantly reduces the number of people who fall victim to opioids. Thank you very much for your time and I deeply hope you take my concerns into consideration regarding this proposed legislation.
Yours respectfully,
[Spaethon]

Senator Nelson's (unimpressive) Reply on July 17:


Dear Mr. [Spaethon]:
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 1327, the SITSA Act. I understand your concerns and appreciate your taking the time to be involved and informed about matters important to Florida and our nation.
Introduced by Senator Grassley, this legislation is pending before the Judiciary Committee. Please know that I will keep your views in mind if this issue is considered before the full Senate. If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Nelson