FREEDOM IS CALLING

Without question, our government is charged with the protection of its citizens, but exactly what that means and at what cost is debatable. It should be remembered that the constitution is equally targeted towards the threat government poses to our rights, hence, it has been stated that individual rights are inversely proportional to government power.

In this case, the Kratom ban targets the choice made by millions of our citizens who have found relief from conditions including chronic pain, addiction, and refractory anxiety/depression. There seems to be little to support the case for significant recreational use or excessive risk.

Those people who have found relief with Kratom are well informed and accepting of the risks, especially when compared to conventional alternatives.

Expense unquestionably enters into the discussion when one considers the alternative of prescription medications (although arguably presenting increased risks), as many providers operate on a cash basis only and refuse insurance.

The conditions of depression, substance abuse, addiction, and chronic pain are inexorably linked. It would seem that if Kratom can benefit those suffering from these afflictions, we should not only maintain its legal status, but find a way to increase its availability and expand research efforts.

Neuropharmacology is extremely complex, but it seems that opioid balance is of equal importance to that of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Exercise, caffeine, and nicotine may exact their effects through a similar pathway. What defines the concept of “high” versus normal or mildly energized. That’s not entirely clear, but as a society, we’ve given people the choice to most often make these decisions for themselves barring undue risk to themselves or others.

Lastly, we should not rest until the inequity in mental health funding and availability/access has been addressed. It is nothing but confounding given the prevalence in our society.

Murray A. Holcomb, MD FACS Georgetown, TX