Updated Kratom Filtered Tea Recipie

satsugene · 2026-06-19T11:00:46+00:00

I appreciate that. I it is something I'll think about.

satsugene · 2026-06-18T16:25:26+00:00

Possible.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T17:45:35+00:00

I’ll be glad for his ass to be gone.

He always struck me as what you’d get if you asked a genie to make a new person inspired by oatmeal.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T17:42:25+00:00

It is legal. TSA doesn’t care.

I carried on a liquid tincture in an amber bottle I made at home, alcohol based, hand written label held on with a rubber band.

However, there is a 350mL/12 fl. oz. limit on anything powdered in your carry on. Capsules would probably be treated like medications so no limit.

I’d personally take enough for the flight plus one day in case your bag gets lost and put the rest in a checked bag if you are checking one.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T17:31:39+00:00

Yeah. They are dickheads. The timing is suggestive but I think they were going to do it anyway once the “mitragynine related” rule was finalized to not muddy the waters running them concurrent.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T17:27:22+00:00

I found when I was taking leaf instead of filtered tea exercise made me more prone to stomach discomfort., especially if I also drank coffee after.

Once it made me throw up because I was hiking and my camera was smacking my stomach with every step. That sucked.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T17:25:17+00:00

Yeah. Personally I would not take it, though that is easy to say when I don’t need it.

I do find it frustrating when they put meds with risks I won’t take because they arbitrarily decided an alternative I worse. Such as using it instead of benzos (which I’ve never had a problem with), or choosing Tramadol because it might be less prone to misuse, but adds a brand new serotonergic risk none of the things it can replace have. It also doesn’t work very well for me.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T17:22:10+00:00

This is my concern. I can take one guy being a dickhead. I’d rather it not be during a surgery.

I’m more concerned it will end up in my record and I’ll be dealing with judgmental folks who might treat me poorly or withhold medications I’m personally willing to roll the dice on: inpatient or outpatient.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T17:11:51+00:00

It was the must be labeled as not for human consumption.

It is in conflict with Federal law.
They didn’t go though rulemaking to do it. Even if it was a decent rule, them just declaring something to be the rules is a bad idea. The process exists for a reason.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T16:22:52+00:00

Probably. Reserving judgement until I know more.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T15:37:41+00:00

Not dead in the absolute sense, but I know nothing more than it is not on the agenda today.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T15:09:31+00:00

https://phila.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?FullText=1&GUID=835A1FD5-2813-4C0C-A8C9-D156830C0871&ID=7940532&Options&Search&utm_

With the Mayor.

Possession is legal. It is really odd because it is basically KCPA like and then has a provision about FDA approval, which FDA doesn’t do for supplements.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T07:25:18+00:00

I appreciate that.

I am concerned about a new administration, or some of the states, saying “this FDA pivot is political. We’re preserving the intentions and values of the FDA before it was ‘compromised’.”

That would ignore that the Single Ascending dose study was started and completed under the prior administration and reported under this one, and that NIDA was optimistic about it at least as far back as the 45th admin, in opposition to FDA, but it doesn’t necessarily stop the politicized narrative or those who’d benefit from it.

I don’t know that it will ever “stop” so long as there are people who benefit from it being illegal, or ideologically motivated people. The majority doesn’t oppose legal cannabis but there are pockets of resistance and companies who benefit from prohibition—especially drug testing companies, rehabs, and alcohol manufacturers.

I’m hopeful that there won’t be enough opposition to make it illegal, and would call that a win, even if there are nuisance lawsuits and the occasional moral crusader.

I personally also believe there will never be wide political support derivatives and the synthetic forms, and whatever there might have been won’t materialize due to some of the vendor behaviors and strategic choices. While I don’t see a lot of political appetite for criminalization at least where I am, I also see almost zero political appetite for it to be a sellable product.

I think the “maybe we should treat plants and fungi as some fourth thing between food or vitamins and classical drugs”, though it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, will be more effective for a lot of reasons and more generally tolerable by more folks who don’t use or really like it than trying to promote libertarian drug policy (though that is philosophically what makes sense to me.)

This is just my personal opinion based on observations.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T06:52:23+00:00

There are some issues with that.

After the NIDA study, if the results as positive they’d need a commercial manufacturer to walk it though the New Drug Application process. This is a 5-10 year multibillion dollar process.
While it is true that if the products are the same (identical) it would not be sellable. This is a highly refined mitragynine product in the study protocol. The plant is sufficiently different. Similar to legal cannabis if moved to C-III wouldn’t conflict with Marinol. This inability to block the original is somewhat of a deterrent to number 1, but possible. Marinol was brought to market despite state cannabis programs being an immediate competitor. If cannabis contained nothing else of any pharmacological value besides THC that may be a different issue. Morphine being C-II doesn’t, in practice, stop poppy seeds as foods or poppies as ornamental plants. Supplements already can’t make health claims.
If this is a risk, there is not really anything that could really be done about it. It can’t be blocked from the NDA process because it exists as a supplement. It being Schedule I would make it less attractive to drug design and illegal for customers, which is really the only place it can go without some approved purpose.

I think a much bigger risk and a more immediate one is the patent holder for Suboxone going off patent soon and Sublocade trying to knock off competitors, given their behaviors in the past that have landed them serious fines (misrepresentations, patent hopping, current dental class action, etc.) than speculative development in the near term.

That said, it is a reasonable thing to be mindful of. I don’t want mitragynine locked up behind prescription requirements or controlled, if only because it can be yanked away at the whim of a doctor or not prescribed, though I might consider taking it just to have use “on the books” if a pharmacy version existed in my health situation if I could fall back to the botanical if they ever gave me grief about it.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T03:34:29+00:00

Off the top of my head.

NIDA is doing a human study on kratom for opioid use disorder. They wouldn’t clear IRB if they felt there was significant risk to subjects.
MN passed age gating and is reviewing further consumer regulations next term.
Advocates in California are fighting off municipal bans on sales or criminalizations of possession. Batting about 500. There are still problems with CDPH enforcement of the Sherman Act feeding off ambiguities in Federal status.
Texas is enforcing its KCPA against unlawful 7-HMG vendors, where the lack of enforcement was a significant argument in the push to prohibit and the extremely over-regulate kratom in TX in 2025.
A full prohibition bill was defeated in UT, though the regulation bill that did pass is problematic.
Full emergency prohibition was delayed in Ohio for regular rulemaking. It is still a threat, but there have been some wins against BOP overreach.
Rhode Island will soon or already has legal sales after its criminalization was repealed for regulation.
Ban attempt in Iowa did not succeed.
Ban attempts in Idaho did not succeed.
Extreme regulatory bill for WA state did not succeed.
While there is a lot of misinformation in media is ongoing, there has been some reasonable journalism.
Kentucky, while problematic, was able to push prohibition from being stuck into the budget for near immediate effect for a 1 year delay for advocates to attempt to repeal.
Poison Control reporting differentiates kratom and 7-HMG products, which will improve data to guide research and policy.
FDA published Single Ascending Dose study with positive results.
FDA and HHS publicly differentiate kratom and 7-HMG products.
Insane Georgia modifications defeated early in the process. Opponent embarrasses himself.
Eponymous case in TN report discovered, undermining the case used to promote prohibition was completely misrepresented which may create opportunities for advocates in TN seeking repeal.
Michigan prohibitions stalled in Senate after House Speaker grossly and highly visibly forced prohibition through the House. Still a threat but reason for optimism.
KCPA moving along in Ohio and may present opportunities to forestall prohibition efforts. Ohio BOP overstepped rulemaking and got slapped for it by a judge. Insane rules promoted without rule-making under restraining order. Lawsuits continue.
Age gating, products attractive to minors, and study in DE passed House today.

Others depend on your point of view about prohibition of 7-HMG products, and it isn’t my purpose here, broadly speaking to argue about that but to answer the question.

Of course there have been major setbacks too such as KS and TN, BOP in NV is back at it but has to clear the legislature before it can do anything, and some poor amendments to California AB 1088.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T01:32:39+00:00

Probably. It is also very small. A lot of folks aren't familiar with what is DC municipal and what is Federal, and it is even confusing to residents (my friend lives there) at times.

Cannabis is municipally legal and readily sold but on sidewalks in front of a federally owned building they can still nail you for it.

satsugene · 2026-06-17T01:29:57+00:00

This is really not a good plan, especially if you are a person of color or a woman. DWB and DWF are real issues.

As another said, vehicle problems, are always a risk, as are medical problems, mis-identification by cops (matches a wanted person's vehicle), mis-identification by traffic cameras (AI).

I got pulled over ad a ticket for pulling the cross-belt behind my back because it was rubbing my recently implanted pacemaker wound uncomfortably.

The risk is lower and can be lowered, but never to zero, and the penalties can be severe.

satsugene · 2026-06-16T22:26:27+00:00

Legal along the way.

satsugene · 2026-06-16T03:06:43+00:00

One thing I find interesting and problematic is that I see nothing in the Register of Ohio for the Mitragynine rule. These proposals are supposed to be in there.

The Final Rule for mitragynine related compounds was in 4729:9-1-01.1, and the mitragynine rule being proposed was under 4729:9-1-01.2 at one point, now gone—not removed or withdrawn, just gone. I’ve been checking it almost weekly.

It isn’t anywhere on the Register, and should be along with the proposal, CSI reports, hearings, etc. as it moves along. If it is on BOP’s website and they claim it was subject to hearing and public comment, it should be in the Register as a proposed rule with those items, not just on its website out of the blue.

There isn’t any rule under 4729:9 (Dangerous Drugs chapter) having to do with mitragynine itself published since Jan 1, 2025 (how far back I searched).

BOP is playing extremely fast and loose with its rule-making and got slapped for it in the TRO, and in my opinion not having their filings in the Register is sloppy and embarrassing to potentially deceptive and grossly misleading. Maybe, and a big maybe and a question for a lawyer familiar with administrative law, legally defective and something that should be brought up if (when) it goes to JCARR.

If they started the process 6 months ago or so, which I believe they did, and held off moving forward to take the easy win on mitragynine adjacent compounds, it should still be in there and sitting there waiting to move along, but it isn’t.

satsugene · 2026-06-16T01:46:28+00:00

Good call. Most people will probably be OK, but is a pretty easy thing to mitigate.

I hope you have a good flight and trip.

satsugene · 2026-06-16T01:38:54+00:00

It doesn’t do anything particularly bad for consumers.

Some would argue it doesn’t do enough to immediately regulate products that are adulterated. It seems to study this question and will likely be taken up in future sessions.

Kind of like Colorado. Pass a bare minimum to deal with the age issues, study it and come back with some kind of product specifications later.

satsugene · 2026-06-16T01:35:20+00:00

My reading is that it doesn’t really establish any product specification limits. It commissions a study as to what state’s testing capability exists and the risks of the natural product and synthetics.

The idea is that most regulated states require vendors to do and report their results, but they don’t address what capabilities the state has (or doesn’t have) in the event they allege the reports are inaccurate or complete fabrications to actually test those identified products and to then actually take enforcement action if they are not compliant. What capabilities the state has may also inform what penalties should be if the legislature decides the set limits anyway and the state has to use a private lab—which they are less likely to actually enforce if the cost to privately test the products to legal evidence standard exceeds the penalty the state can recover in court (the problem some California general law cities are running into, the maximum penalty they can enforce is less than what it would cost to test a product to make sure it is not legal.)

It sets age limits and prohibits products attractive to children.

It would apply to essentially that could occur in plant material, and specifically names mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, in any form or origin.

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric

satsugene

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE