Saturday
(0)The Banned Wagon is rolling into town again and, this time, a herb called 'Kava-Kava' has been tossed unceremoniously onto the back of the wagon and driven into the wilderness:
"Remedies containing the herb Kava-kava have been banned after it was linked to four deaths."
Well, four deaths is four too many, that's for sure. But how is Kava-Kava 'linked' exactly? What does 'linked' mean? Does it mean that the herb caused symptoms which led to an illnesss, or what?
Questions enough, but the report gets even more obtuse and vague:
"The MCA said investigations had been unable to say what might put people at risk of adverse reactions to Kava-kava.How the remedy damages the liver is also unknown."
But that doesn't matter because:
"Given the expert advice from the CSM and Medicines Commission following the recent public consultation it is clear that this ban is necessary."
This may have something to do with the way the journalist has written the article or it may that there's something we're not being told but, in the absence of those two possibilities, then the case for prohibition is anything but 'clear'. In fact, it is quite opaque. It is the diametric opposite of 'clear'. This is 'Newspeak'; producing no evidence of guilt results in a 'clear' case having been made.
Well, that's about as much ranting as I'm entitled to, I reckon. I have never bought kava-kava and now, I daresay, I never will. Not unless I'm prepared to go to a shady, kava-kava pusher. But, I do detect that we've just witnessed another example of the 'Precautionary Principle'; this is the public policy mandate that all risk must be avoided and which usually manifests itself as an avoidance of all critical inquiry as well.
I have no medical or scientific training but I presume that the people who staff the Medicines Control Agency have oodles of both. Is it too much to expect them to approach matters a bit more...well, scientifically?
You can buy KK at the 99CentsOnlyStores here in L.A. Something like a dozen pills for a buck. Hasn't worked for me, even after taking two or three pills sublingually.
In the South Seas it's a religious-oriented drug that's often abused, so I read on the web. I'd imagine that the freshly masticated stuff (that's how you buy it at KK bars) is much more potent than the pills.
Anyways, it says right in the article that it a) causes liver damage, and b) the damage is idiosyncratic. So, putting a warning label like "don't take if you have type E blood" wouldn't work.
BTW, thousands of people die from acetaminophen overdoses each year, and that's not being banned. At least not here.
(Parenthetically, if anyone wants to have some fun, go here http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00000253.htm#comments and recommend the evil blog of your choice).
Posted by Lonewacko at December 21, 2002 07:26 AM
Some of my Samoan and Tongan friends will occasionally have kava-kava parties. Believe me, if pills containing kava were not available noone would be worried about the stuff. It is usually consumed as a nasty, brown, muddy drink than no right thinking person would put in their body.
Posted by jason johnson at December 21, 2002 05:12 PM
Some pacific islander here in the sF Bay area was arested for driving funny after 25 cups of Kava. Don't recall if the made anything stick.
Posted by Walter E. Wallis at December 21, 2002 08:55 PM
The Polynesians (Pacific Islanders) would be amazed at the ban and the reasons given for it. It has been a traditional tipple there from time immemorial so one would think they would all be dead if it killed your liver.
At any event, it could not be nearly as bad as cigarettes or alcohol: Probably a lot safer as it just zonks you out. People will die from this decision as they turn from KK to booze.
Posted by John Ray at December 21, 2002 11:09 PM
Wait... a drink that makes you goofy and might hurt your liver.
Well, we've certainly never seen anything like that before. Who know how it might harm society?
Posted by Aaron Armitage at December 22, 2002 09:57 AM
I'm allergic to peanuts. Nut allergies have been more than 'linked' to multiple deaths. Jimmy Carter is therefore a merchant of death and should be jailed and peanuts banned.
Posted by Scott Cattanach at December 22, 2002 05:42 PM
Peanut allergies are moderately common. It makes sense for manufacturers to have to put labels like "this product was made with equipment that processes peanuts" on their products. Some people can even have reactions from, say, breathing in a neighbor's peanut fumes on an airplane. Since they can have a disastrous effect on a fairly large segment of the population, it makes sense to at least warn people. It wouldn't make sense to ban peanuts, but taking *reasonable* precautions is something the positive effects outweigh the negative effects.
Posted by Lonewacko at December 23, 2002 06:26 AM
Oh yeah: I'm not allergic to peanuts. And, the 99 cents store has no less than 30 .5g KK pills for a buck. Such a deal!
Posted by Lonewacko at December 23, 2002 06:28 AM
Please don't call it the "Precautionary Principle". Call it what it REALLY is: "Interfering Nanny Regulation".
Posted by Kim du Toit at December 23, 2002 03:23 PM
""Interfering Nanny Regulation"
Yes, Kim, that's exactly what it is.
Posted by David Carr at December 23, 2002 10:05 PM
I have been doing some research on addiction. What I have found out is that it is a genetic disease usually triggered by traumatic experiences. Let me know if you would care to discuss this further. I have lots more info than I discuss in my articles.
===================================
There are no addicts. Only people in pain.
What we call addiction is self medication for undiagnosed pain. PTSD
etc.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/11/10/edms111002.htm Heroin
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/11/11/edms111102.htm Pot
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/11/22/edms112202.htm Police & PTSD
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/12/01/simon.htm Soldiers
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/12/10/health.htm Pain Enforcement
M. Simon
Posted by M. Simon at December 26, 2002 12:34 AM
