The federal drug police want to turn consumers of certain concentrated kratom-derived products into criminals while leaving traditional kratom leaf products outside the ban. Before exposing adults to arrest and prosecution, the feds owe them a scientific explanation for that distinction.

On October 14, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced its intent to temporarily place 7-hydroxymitragynine (commonly called 7-OH) and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl—above specified thresholds—in Schedule I. Schedule I is the category for drugs that the agency thinks have "no currently accepted medical use" and "a high potential for abuse." A scheduling order could be issued on or after November 13.

The DEA already classifies mitragynine pseudoindoxyl as a Schedule I substance regardless of concentration. The proposal would ease that restriction by introducing thresholds—while imposing new Schedule I restrictions on 7-OH under the same criteria.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have supported the DEA's move, and HHS supplied the proposed thresholds. Under the temporary scheduling provision of the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA must consider HHS's comments but need not follow its recommendations. Congress gave a law-enforcement agency the authority to decide which drugs individuals may consume.

The ordinary scheduling process gives health officials more authority: HHS's scientific and medical findings bind the DEA, and its recommendation against control prevents the agency from proceeding. But temporary scheduling lets the DEA bypass those requirements when it determines a substance poses an imminent hazard to public safety.

Congress should never have given federal drug police that power. Having done so, it should at least demand compelling evidence before they exercise it.

Kratom comes from a Southeast Asian plant whose principal alkaloid is mitragynine. Its leaves contain trace amounts of 7-OH. Manufacturers also sell concentrated 7-OH products and products containing the related compound, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl.

Millions of Americans use kratom or kratom-derived products. A 2022 review cited an estimate of 2.1 million U.S. users in 2020. In a survey of 2,798 users, 91 percent reported using it for pain and 41 percent said they use it to reduce or stop opioid use. In a letter to HHS, nine military veterans described using 7-OH to manage pain and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and to move away from other opioids and from alcohol. They warned that banning it could drive them back to more dangerous drugs.

These reports describe benefits that warrant further study and needs that will persist after a ban.

Concentrated 7-OH products deliver a potent alkaloid without requiring consumers to ingest large amounts of kratom leaf. 7-OH is significantly more potent than mitragynine in activating the opioid receptors involved in pain relief. Researchers still need to determine how its benefits and risks compare across different human doses.

The DEA's proposed criminal controls hinge on concentration and composition. The concentration threshold is 1 milligram per gram of solid material or 1 milligram per milliliter of liquid, calculated for the two covered substances combined. Products would also trigger controls if the mitragynine-to-covered-substances ratio fell below 100 to 1.

Consider a tablet containing 15 milligrams of 7-OH, a strength advertised by some sellers. If the tablet weighs one gram, its concentration exceeds the limit fifteenfold. Diluting the same 15 milligrams into a product weighing 15 grams brings it to the concentration limit. Consuming the entire product still delivers the same dose. It would also need at least 1,500 milligrams of mitragynine to avoid the separate ratio restriction.

Adding bulk changes the concentration but does not change the amount of 7-OH consumed. These calculations tell us nothing about whether that dose is effective or safe.

The DEA acknowledges that controlled trials have not established safe consumption limits or standardized dosing for concentrated 7-OH products. Neither DEA nor HHS has determined that below-threshold products are safe.

In a public comment submitted to HHS in July, I urged officials to obtain the human evidence needed to justify a threshold before setting one. Animal studies can reveal hazards, including dependence and respiratory depression, but they cannot, by themselves, identify a scientifically defensible cutoff for human consumption.

Officials may intend these thresholds to distinguish traditional kratom from concentrated products. What evidence shows that crossing that boundary justifies criminal penalties? 

The DEA also owes consumers an accounting of what prohibition could do to them. People seeking relief from pain or withdrawal will still need it after a ban. Some may abandon these products, while others may turn to illicit sellers or switch to other opioids. Criminalizing those choices could make them more dangerous.

Misleading labels, contamination, dependence, and drug interactions warrant attention. Accurate labeling, independent testing, age restrictions, and enforcement against fraud can address several of these concerns. Before resorting to criminal penalties, the DEA should explain why those measures would be inadequate.

We already know how difficult it is to verify a drug's identity, strength, and purity in an illicit market. Creating another prohibited product will give that market another opportunity.

Autonomous adults should be free to decide which substances they consume and which risks they accept. The DEA proposes taking that choice away even as it acknowledges major gaps in the medical evidence. Before the drug police turn more consumers into criminals, they should at least demonstrate how doing so will make those consumers safer.

The post The DEA Wants To Turn 7-OH Consumers Into Criminals appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Recent political developments have rekindled longstanding debates over "fusionism," the combination of libertarianism and conservative traditionalism that dominated the American right from roughly the late 1970s through the early years of this century. That dominance has been severely undermined and likely overthrown by the rise of nationalism and "postliberalism." But some would like to revive it. Reason editor Stephanie Slade's important new book Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right outlines one notable case for such a revival.

I agree with Slade, Jonathan Adler, and others that fusionism is far preferable to nationalism and postliberalism. But I am skeptical about its political viability. In addition, fusionism has significant conceptual flaws. Finally, at least in the short to medium term future, an alliance with "abundance liberals" is probably a more promising political strategy for libertarians than a revival of fusionism.

Despite my relative skepticism about a revival, I readily acknowledge fusionism's significant past achievements, and ongoing superiority over various other tendencies on the conservative right. Between the 1970s and the early 2000s, fusionist conservatives and libertarians (sometimes with the help of moderate/"neoliberal" Democrats) made huge contributions to such achievements as deregulation of many sectors of the economy, reducing tax rates, reinvigorating constitutional protection for property rights and limits on federal government power, and the West's triumph in the Cold War. While early fusionists sometimes undervalued the Civil Rights movement and were soft on racism, over time most of them came to promote color-blindness and and abjuring racial and ethnic discrimination in government policy. They even, for a long time, succeeded in making racial and ethnic color-blindness the dominant approach to such issues in the conservative movement. William F. Buckley and other fusionists also worked to purge the political right of its longstanding tendencies towards anti-Semitism. In combination, these are no small achievements.

The Rise of Right-Wing Nationalism and Postliberalism

But, especially over the last decade, fusionism has been displaced by nationalism as the dominant ideology of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Where fusionism sought to reconcile traditionalism and liberty, nationalism is a grave menace to liberty across a wide range of issues. Consider Donald Trump's massive tariffs, federal takeovers of numerous private corporations, attempts to use the FCC and other government agencies to undermine free speech, and policy of mass deportations (which threatens the civil liberties and economic future of native-born citizens as well as immigrants).

Instead of color-blindness and nondiscrimination, we now have a conservative movement increasingly permeated with racial and ethnic bigotry and anti-Semitism of the kind fusionists sought to purge. Prominent right-wing "influencers" go so far as to claim we need to bar Indian immigrants because they work too hard and undermine the objectives of "homogeneity" and "maintain[ing] a white majority in the country." Many congressional Republicans also promote religious discrimination in immigration and other policies. In foreign policy, Trump has undermined relations with liberal democratic allies like Canada, Australia, and the nations of the European Union, and kowtowed towards illiberal nationalist authoritarians like Vladimir Putin.

Trump's idiosyncratic personal predilections contribute to some of these developments. But most arise from inherent tendencies of nationalism, which gravitates towards a zero-sum view of the world that leads to expanded government control of the economy, repression of racial and ethnic minorities, undermining civil liberties, and authoritarianism.

The "postliberalism" advocated by many leading right-wing intellectuals and activists is just as bad. Postliberals like Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen are very clear about their desire to massively expand government control over the economy and civil society, and destroy both economic and personal liberties. Unlike nationalism, postliberalism has little mass public support. But it does have considerable influence among the intellectuals and activists who may staff future Republican administrations and congressional offices.

Illiberal big-government nationalism holds a strong sway over the Republican base. The 2024 election dramatically illustrates that. In the 2024 GOP presidential primary, Trump was challenged by Nikki Haley (a prominent advocate of traditional fusionism) and Ron DeSantis (popular governor of a major red state who tried to, in effect, split the difference between MAGA nationalism and pre-2016 conservatism). And, yet, despite the events of January 6, 2021 and numerous scandals, Trump not only beat these opponents, but did so very easily.  While that was partly due to his particular type of charisma, it also highlights the influence of illiberal nationalism over the GOP. Even now, with Trump increasingly unpopular, most congressional Republicans shy away from challenging his worst policies, for fear of losing to MAGA types in GOP primaries. Many of those who are willing to challenge him on major issues have either been ousted in GOP primaries (like Rep. Thomas Massie), or chose not to run for reelection because of the likelihood of suffering that fate (e.g. - Rep. Don Bacon).

Facing a difficult political environment in the 2026 midterm elections, some congressional Republicans have become more willing to criticize a few of Trump's policies, such as the badly mismanaged Iran War. But very few have repudiated his big-government nationalism across the board or called for a return to fusionism.

Perhaps this will all change once Trump leaves the scene. But we shouldn't count on it. At this point, the major likely contenders for the 2028 GOP presidential nomination - Vice-President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio - seem like they are vying for the mantle of inheritors of Trump's worst tendencies, not opponents of them.

Inherent Limitations of Fusionism

Even if fusionists do manage to regain control of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, the ideology's inherent limitations might undermine its value. The extent to which fusionism is compatible with strong protections for economic and personal liberty is actually ambiguous. Frank Meyer, a key founder of fusionism in the 1950s and 60s, famously argued that liberty and virtue are mutually reinforcing because liberty is what enables people to be truly virtuous. A person who only does the right thing because he is forced to by the state isn't truly virtuous at all. Think, for example, of a man who only refrains from violence and theft for fear of going to prison. A paragon of virtue he is not.

This position has considerable merit. But most social conservatives, including many otherwise sympathetic to fusionism, don't fully buy it, or even come close. They argue that, at least in many instances, we want to achieve virtuous behavior, regardless of the motivation for it. Or, at least, that doing the right thing for a bad reason is far preferable to not doing it at all. Thus, if you believe that using pornography, prostitution,  gambling, taking various drugs, and so on are inherently immoral, then you may well advocate using government power to suppress these activities, even if people who only refrain out of fear of punishment are not as virtuous as those who abjure them voluntarily.

Many conservative fusionists do, in fact, believe that a wide range of consensual activities like the above are inherently evil. Alternatively, many believe that we have to suppress at least some of them out of paternalism. For example, they argue we must suppress drugs, prostitution, and gambling, because people who do these things don't understand what's good for them.

For these reasons, most conservative fusionists have in fact been willing to endorse many policies that severely curtail liberty. Even Ronald Reagan - the president whose administration most exemplified fusionism - promoted a major expansion of the War on Drugs, a federal policy that massively curtails liberty by killing or imprisoning hundreds of thousands people merely because they have used, possessed, or distributed substances the government considers too risky. Reagan's drug policies were not as bad as Trump's policy of outright murdering supposed drug dealers in the Caribbean and Pacific. But they were very bad, even so - and a striking example of the limitations of fusionism.

Elsewhere, I have argued that, at this moment in political history, the best available potential allies for libertarians are "abundance liberals." They are by no means perfect. But they agree with us - to a large extent - on numerous major issues, including trade, immigration, nuclear power, "YIMBY" housing deregulation, and more. And, like us, they tend to oppose both left and right-wing ethnic identity politics (on which latter point see recent articles by Matt Yglesias and Kelsey Piper). On the whole, they are less paternalistic and less prone to advocate suppression of consensual activities than most fusionist conservatives. They also have considerably greater influence over the Democratic Party and the political left, generally, than fusionists currently have in the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

The left, of course, has its own dangerous illiberal menace in the form of "democratic socialists," whose statism has much in common with that of MAGA nationalists. But this faction is nowhere near dominating the Democratic Party and the political left to the degree that nationalists have come to dominate the right.

None of this proves that libertarians cannot continue work with fusionist conservatives at all. There are many issues on which there is still room for cooperation. I myself have worked with such conservatives in the Society for the Rule of Law, and in the effort to combat Trump's tariffs (where they played crucial roles in the litigation that led to the invalidation of Trump's IEEPA tariff power grab by the Supreme Court and in currently ongoing efforts to challenge his attempts to use other laws to reimpose sweeping tariffs).  Some conservative fusionists are more pro-liberty than others. And, for most, there is considerable variation across issues.

And, perhaps, things will be different in a decade or two. The Trumpist moment in right-wing politics may dissipate over time, though it seems unlikely to do so quickly.

Productive cooperation between libertarians and (some) conservatives is still very much possible. But we should recognize that fusionists are unlikely to regain control over the conservative movement anytime soon, and that fusionism has notable inherent limitations. Thus, we should look for other allies, and carefully limit the percentage of our eggs that we put in the fusionist basket. At this point, it cannot safely hold very many of them.

The post Fusionism and its Limits appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Costa Rica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Manuel Tovar, was dismissed from his post last week by the country’s president Laura Fernández. Tovar was considered one of the “heavyweights” of the country’s dominant political faction, having previously served as Minister of Commerce under President Rodrigo Chávez.

The decision was made by Fernández on September 24, because, according to a statement, her foreign minister failed to inform her of an invitation to a meeting held in New York City aimed at strengthening the so-called Shield of the Americas.

Shield of the Americas is a political-military alliance led by Donald Trump that seeks to secure Washington’s geopolitical leadership in the region, and which right-wing and far-right Latin American governments have joined enthusiastically.

Right-wing President Fernández said that failing to report such an important meeting constituted an act of negligence on Tovar’s part. The Costa Rican president also said that Shield of the Americas is a “fundamental platform in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime.”

The president did not travel to the United States to deliver her speech at the UN General Assembly because she was on an official visit to Colombia with her counterpart, the far-right Abelardo de la Espriella.

The Costa Rican presidency reported that the invitation – which was not extended to her – came from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself. Several heads of state from Shield of the Americas member states participated, including Javier Milei of Argentina, José Antonio Kast of Chile, Rodrigo Paz of Bolivia, Daniel Noboa of Ecuador, Irfaan Ali of Guyana, Nasry Asfura of Honduras, Santiago Peña of Paraguay, Luis Abinader of the Dominican Republic, and Keiko Fujimori of Peru, among others.

In this regard, Fernández publicly apologized to the US ambassador to the Central American country, Melinda Hildebrand: “I reiterate to your country my firm and resolute commitment to continue supporting the Shield of the Americas alliance… I regret my absence… The failure to forward that invitation from your government to me did not go unnoticed, and today the foreign minister of the Republic was dismissed,” which clearly demonstrates the enormous importance San José attaches to an invitation from Washington.

Tovar’s dismissal comes on the heels of a series of dismissals of key ministers in Fernández’s government, a development the opposition has used to highlight a certain instability in the very young administration.

“We are concerned about serious foreign policy mistakes that need to be corrected… Second, we are concerned about the stability of the cabinet: in less than five months, five senior officials – including ministers and deputy ministers – have already been dismissed. That instability is not in her best interest, nor in that of her government or Costa Rica,” said the leader of the National Liberation Party caucus.

For his part, the former foreign minister did not explain the reasons behind his decision not to inform Fernández about the invitation. In a post on X, he said briefly: “I thank Laura Fernández for the opportunity to serve the Costa Rican people from the Casa Amarilla, and I wish her every success as President of the Republic for the good of the country. Finally, I would like to commend the team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the passion and dedication with which they undertake every mission on behalf of the country. To them, I offer my eternal gratitude. I accept this moment with great peace of mind. I will always stand by the just causes of the Costa Rican people and the international community.”

The reasons behind Tovar’s decision remain unknown, although several sectors of the opposition have raised suspicions about an alleged ulterior motive on Fernández’s part for not attending the Shield of the Americas meeting – which, if true, could reveal political and diplomatic contradictions deeper than they might appear at first glance.

The US military has resumed its campaign of bombing alleged drug-trafficking vessels after a two-month pause in a campaign that many legal experts and human rights groups believe constitutes a murder spree.

In a Monday social media post, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said it carried out a “lethal kinetic strike on a low-profile vessel operating along established narco-trafficking routes” in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday. Two people were killed as a result of the attack, SOUTHCOM claimed.

In announcing the strike, SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis Donovan said the attack was part of a campaign of “imposing total systemic friction on narco-terrorists—disrupting their operations, dismantling their leadership, and eliminating cartel terror across the region.”

Donovan’s boasts about the effectiveness of the boat strikes in combating the drug trade come less than a month after a leaked a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) analysis revealed that the boat-bombing campaign has not “reduced the amount of cocaine entering” the country, as drug cartels have found alternate methods for shipping their product into the US.

With the latest two casualties, the boat bombing campaign launched nearly a year ago by President Donald Trump’s administration has now claimed the lives of at least 223 people.

Adam Isaacson, director of the Defense Oversight program at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), criticized the administration for resuming its boat bombings despite “overwhelming evidence that they are murder; that many, likely most, of the dead are either super-low-level or uninvolved with drugs; and that cocaine supply is unaffected.”

Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, delivered a similarly scathing assessment, commenting that “the Trump administration’s lawless killing spree at sea resumes.”

Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, described the boat strike campaign as “murderous” and “illegal,” adding that its victims are “not terrorists” and “may not even be drug traffickers.”

Investigative journalist Camila Lourdes Galarza observed that “there’s still no proof any of the victims” of the boat strikes were involved in the drug trade.

Lourdes Galarza sarcastically added that if the victims had been drug traffickers, “the US would probably give them a deal” like the one given to Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who was pardoned by Trump last year despite being previously convicted on narcotics trafficking charges.