u/Any_Individual_815

I just want to know if it takes longer for MGM to kick in than it does 7?

With the new news going around, it almost looks like a possibility that emge and pseudo will be scheduled but not 7. At least not yet. If it came down to it, would you consider it a win if they leave 7 alone but ban emgee and pseudo

I personally think that's a W

By the time you go to sleep, how much have you usually consumed daily?

I wasn't sure how to answer her.

Some context. She was in hydrocodone for years and her Dr took that away like 3 months ago and my grandmother is miserable. Crying every day and she also took a hard fall last month. She's never heard of kratom and I got her some but she's scared to try it because she used Google and Google made it sound dangerous. Fuck Google lol. She wants to know if anyone else is on weight loss shots and what's your experience.

She tried 1 pill and I told her it won't do anything but she's being stubborn lol. Can we get some encouragement in here so she finally gets to experience this wonderful thing called kratom

I ordered yesterday, and it said shipped today. It said 3 to 4 days and it'll arrive. Just got an email saying it was rescheduled and now won't get here for 8 days. I live 3 states over and it says 8 days now.

I'm wondering if they needed to delay it because they x-ray'd it and flagged it as suspicious so they needed to make a delay so law enforcement can look at it first.

Thoughts?

Does that mean they are usually 12, but possibly as high as 17?

Edit: thanks y'all

Are there any mit tab brands that you think are questionable, but in a good way. A brand that makes you think "there's gotta be something else in here, because these are damn good"?

It's probably best to DM me than to post it publicly.

Thanks y'all :)

good watch. I love Hamilton!

Just got both my parents (kratom users) to make a comment about how kratom helps their daily lives. But we tweaked kratom by changing it to 7oh for the comment. It took them like 10 minutes. It's definitely worth it. Please ask friends and family to get involved!

Hey guys look at how much I got. I know there's a ton of you suffering out there, but that's too bad, look at all the 7 I have though!

Nobody cares that you just got your 1000 tabs. There shouldn't even be these "brag" look at my stockpile posts. There is no purpose

Say someone who uses a little kratom daily. Let's say 5G a day. Never tried 7oh before. Decides to try mit tabs. Is there a noticable difference to regular kratom? Would they feel different or would it just be like kratom?

I'm not sure if this tells us anything but the first zoom meeting had about 600-700 people in it. Tonight's meeting I think had like 40-50 people. Are people getting burnt out? Let's hope not, my friends.

Edit: the person who commented is right. I remember now seeing like 1600 as the number. So it was well over the 600 I had originally said.

Make sure to add your daily MG intake.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/HHS-OASH-2026-0232-0001/comment?sortBy=postedDate&sortDirection=desc

The comment period (docket here, deadline July 31) is NOT a vote on whether 7-OH is good or bad. I know this sucks, but they're only asking two things:

1. What concentration or amount of 7-OH is an "imminent hazard to public safety"?
2. Is there a better way to measure or express that threshold?

They flat-out say they are not taking comment on the general safety or usefulness of kratom products, or on the scheduling decision itself. So "this changed my life" comments, however true, get sorted into the non-responsive pile. If you want your comment to count, answer their two questions.

One hard thing first

I've read the comments already up there, the people describing how this saved them from opioids, from pain, from worse. Those are real and they matter, and it's genuinely hard to be told the people reading this docket won't officially weigh them. But that's the truth: this is a narrow threshold question, and a heartfelt story filed against it gets set aside as off-topic. I'm not saying don't share it. If you need to say it, say it in a sentence or two at the end, then spend the rest of your comment on the two questions they're actually required to consider. That's how you get counted AND heard, instead of sorted into the ignore pile.

How to actually respond

The strongest on-topic answer to #1 is a version of: the record doesn't identify any hazardous concentration, so no threshold can be justified. Point out that:

• There's no oral dose-response study showing the dose where normal use causes dangerous respiratory depression.
• The one published lethality study couldn't even establish a lethal ORAL dose in mice.
• The overdose-death reports they cite can't establish causation (the FDA admits this about its own FAERS data), and when you actually read them, most are consumer reports with no toxicology and some aren't even overdoses.

For #2: their threshold has a ">1.00 mg in the article" cutoff, which catches basically every real product regardless of strength. That's a product ban wearing a "concentration limit" costume, not a hazard-based measurement.

About that mouse study, because this trips people up

The one published lethality study (Smith et al. 2018) could not establish a lethal ORAL dose in mice. The oral doses didn't kill them. That's a real, useful fact and you should use it.

But be careful how you say it. "Couldn't find an overdose level" is NOT the same as "proved there is no overdose level," and that difference is where people get dismissed. I know that sounds odd, but that's the actual science: not finding a lethal dose means the lethal dose is higher than what they tested, not that one doesn't exist. Same study also found the drug WAS lethal intravenously, in heroin's range, and that high oral doses caused seizures and depressed breathing. So the honest, unbeatable claim is "no lethal oral dose has ever been established." The overreach claim, "you can't overdose, period," takes that same fact and stretches it into something the paper doesn't say, and hands them an easy rebuttal.

Use the fact as a shield: they never proved a hazard at real-world oral doses. Don't file it down into a claim you'd have to defend.

Facts to USE (all sourceable)

• 7-OH is a partial, G-protein-biased mu-opioid agonist, not a full agonist like fentanyl.
• Smith et al. 2018 (Chemical Research in Toxicology): no lethal oral dose established in mice; IV lethality comparable to heroin.
• FDA's own guidance: FAERS data cannot be used for causality assessments.
• Most 7-OH products are semisynthetic with wildly inconsistent labeled content (which argues for testing and labeling, not prohibition).

"Facts" to AVOID (they'll get you dismissed)

• The overdose fight. I know, you're going to want to say you can't overdose on the tablets, and honestly you have a point, it doesn't behave like heroin and the mouse study couldn't find a lethal oral dose. But that same study didn't prove overdose is impossible, and the reviewers reading this don't care about the argument anyway. It's off-topic here and you can't fully win it, so don't spend your comment on it. Say what you CAN back instead: no hazardous oral dose has ever been established, which is their problem to fix, not yours.
• The "43x morphine" number. Don't bring it up at all, in either direction. Arguing about it drags you into a cell-assay-versus-real-life fight that goes nowhere here.
• "It's basically harmless / just like coffee / like alcohol." Overreach. Dependence and withdrawal are real.
• "Alcohol and cigarettes kill thousands and they're legal." It feels good to type, but it's an argument against prohibition in general, and that's not what they asked. It's non-responsive, so it gets ignored right alongside the emotional comments. Skip it.
• Anything about it curing your condition. That's "utility," which they explicitly excluded.
• "Big Kratom / the AKA is funding this." Even if you're sure of it, you can't prove it, it makes you sound like a nut, and it lets them ignore you. Argue the facts instead.

Where to get real data (don't take my word, pull it yourself)

• The death reports: FDA openFDA API (api.fda.gov/drug/event.json). You can pull every 7-OH death report and see for yourself what's actually in them. Full narratives require a FOIA request, which won't come back before the deadline, so use the structured data.
• The mouse lethality numbers: search "Smith 2018 kratom Chemical Research in Toxicology" (Scripps).
• The scheduling notice itself: Federal Register, July 6 2026, Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0232.

Bottom line: concede the real risks, then show they haven't proven a hazard at any real-world dose. A short, on-topic, sourced comment beats an emotional one every time.

Update, Sample Comment:

People were asking for a letter template, so here is one. You should feel free to use your own words, etc. I'm not a lawyer or lobbyist or anything, I just spent a lot of time researching the issue. This final version was assisted by AI writing, but is not "Write a comment for me.", it is the result of data, including scripting the FAERS database to validate what it says.

I am submitting this comment as a private citizen. I have no financial interest in kratom or 7-OH products. I am responding to the two questions this docket asks: what concentration or quantity of 7-OH constitutes an imminent hazard, and how any threshold should be measured.

On the threshold question: the record does not identify any concentration of 7-OH that is an imminent hazard at real-world oral doses. The one published lethality study (Smith et al. 2018) could not establish a lethal oral dose in mice, and no oral dose-response study has been offered showing where normal use causes dangerous respiratory depression. The overdose-death reports cited cannot establish causation, which the FDA states about its own FAERS data, and on review most are consumer reports with no toxicology and some are not overdoses at all. A threshold cannot be calibrated to a hazard level that has not been identified.

On the measurement question: the "more than 1.00 mg in the article" cutoff captures essentially every real product regardless of concentration, so it functions as a product ban, not a hazard-based threshold. A concentration percentage is also the wrong unit for a finished product: what matters to a consumer is the milligrams per dose, not what fraction of the tablet is active, just as painkillers are labeled by milligrams and not by percentage. If any threshold is set, it should be tied to verified content per dose, confirmed through mandatory third-party testing, which also addresses the real problem of inconsistent and mislabeled products.

For these reasons, I urge the agency to conclude that the present record does not identify a concentration of 7-OH that constitutes an imminent hazard, and that it therefore does not support a concentration-based threshold as necessary to avoid one.

[Your name]

[Your city, state]