Messages people are sending
These are real letters, emails, and call scripts that supporters wrote and then chose to share with us. Every one is published with its author's permission and only after a person reviewed it. Nothing written with the tools on this site reaches us unless its author ticks a box and presses send.
Email Anonymous — NY
Subject: Please preserve research access to SR-17018 — a constituent in recovery
I am writing about the Drug Enforcement Administration's temporary scheduling notice involving SR-17018 (also referred to as 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine). I am asking you to help ensure this compound is studied before it is placed into Schedule I. I am a constituent writing from [city withheld], New York. This issue is personal to me: my own health and recovery are affected by whether compounds like this can be studied and, if warranted, developed through lawful medical channels. I am writing as an individual who has personally used SR-17018 and has firsthand experience with both conventional opioid products and concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). I strongly oppose placing SR-17018 into Schedule I through an emergency scheduling proces My experience with SR-17018 has been fundamentally different from my experience with 7-OH. I ultimately developed a problematic relationship with 7-OH because of its potency and reinforcing effects. SR-17018, by contrast, allowed me to taper off of opioids all together and have been clean for 6 months now with no desire to go back. I understand that SR-17018 is an opioid and that it carries legitimate risks. I am not arguing that it should be completely unregulated or that it is harmless. My concern is that the federal government is treating SR-17018 as though the evidence surrounding it is interchangeable with that of substantially different synthetic opioids. That approach is especially concerning because SR-17018 has attracted scientific interest precisely because its pharmacological profile appears to differ from traditional opioids. Preclinical research has reported unusual tolerance characteristics, including substantially less tolerance development than morphine under some experimental conditions. Rather than eliminating access to the compound before its potential benefits and risks can be properly studied, the government should facilitate rigorous research. My experience is not scientific evidence, and I do not believe personal anecdotes should substitute for clinical research. But neither should the absence of extensive human clinical research be used as a reason to prevent that research from happening. If SR-17018 poses risks that justify regulation, those risks should be evaluated through a transparent scientific and regulatory process. Emergency Schedule I placement risks making meaningful research substantially more difficult while simultaneously eliminating access for people who may be using the compound as an alternative to more dangerous or more reinforcing opioids. I understand that people are being guinea pigs. That's their choice. In a free country, people should have the choice if they want to engage with an unstudied substance. The government doesn't have to be their parents. Furthermore, they shouldn't become a criminal because they want to access to a chemical that could potentially bring harm reduction to them if others have failed— buprenorphine and methadone don't work with everybody for a different reasons. I have heard many success stories of people who failed with those above two drugs, but finally found success with SR. I respectfully ask the DEA to remove SR-17018 from the emergency scheduling action in DEA-1665 and subject it to a thorough, evidence-based evaluation rather than treating it as interchangeable with the other compounds included in this proposal. Public policy should be determined by rational thinking and the scientific method, not political motives and subjective social perceptions: especially with the drug that has been associated with so few negative consequences, and instead has been associated with people getting control of their substance abuse disorder Sometimes the healthcare system is behind the curve and people are better able to handle these situations on their own, especially when you consider the fact that there is such a negative stigma associated with opioid use disorder and many people prefer to remain private because oftentimes, judgment and a lack of compassion are too common from people with addiction issues. Please STUDY LPudy SR-17018 before you schedule it. Many people report that SR-17018 may have helped them reduce opioid use with dramatically reduced withdrawal symptoms. These reports are not a substitute for clinical trials, but they are strong enough to justify urgent research and compound-specific review rather than emergency prohibition. Specifically, I urge you to: • Delay or narrow the emergency scheduling of SR-17018 specifically. • Separate SR-17018 from other listed compounds and review it on its own merits. • Publish the compound-specific evidence being relied upon. • Preserve lawful research and medical-development access to SR-17018. • Involve HHS/FDA scientific and medical review before any placement. • Avoid blocking potential opioid-withdrawal research before it can be studied. This request is not for unregulated sales and does not involve any sourcing, dosing, or vendor information. It is a request to preserve a lawful research and medical-development pathway during an opioid crisis in which more withdrawal-treatment options are badly needed. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I would appreciate a written response describing what your office can do.
Email Amber Grasser, Coos Bay, OR
Subject: Please preserve research access to SR-17018 — a constituent in recovery
I am writing about the Drug Enforcement Administration's temporary scheduling notice involving SR-17018 (also referred to as 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine). I am asking you to help ensure this compound is studied before it is placed into Schedule I. I am a constituent writing from Coos Bay, Oregon. This issue is personal to me: my own health and recovery are affected by whether compounds like this can be studied and, if warranted, developed through lawful medical channels. In 2010 I had a car accident. The seatbelt punctured a hole from my lung to my rib cage. They gave me morphine in the hospital. Just one dose and I felt terrible. My pain was down but my anxiety went up. A half hour after the dose was given my anxiety got so bad I started raging. Doctors were about to put me on a 51/50. Luckily I got out of there and my boyfriend picked me up. I refused another dose and never went back for my lung. To this day it hurts. What if I was in a coma and given morphine continually? I would have really hurt myself and others. I can only imagine how hard it is for opioid and fentanyl addicts. Please let companies research SR-17 so that there are less stories like mine and worse. If the hospital had that drug and the knowledge of what it can do, I could have calmed down and gotten the proper treatment. Because of morphine, I will never be able to have surgery and I will never trust the medical system. I will die of cancer from my left lung. Thanks to morphine. Please let them research a drug that can save lives. For the love of God please. Many people report that SR-17018 may have helped them reduce opioid use with dramatically reduced withdrawal symptoms. These reports are not a substitute for clinical trials, but they are strong enough to justify urgent research and compound-specific review rather than emergency prohibition. Specifically, I urge you to: • Delay or narrow the emergency scheduling of SR-17018 specifically. • Separate SR-17018 from other listed compounds and review it on its own merits. • Publish the compound-specific evidence being relied upon. • Preserve lawful research and medical-development access to SR-17018. • Involve HHS/FDA scientific and medical review before any placement. • Avoid blocking potential opioid-withdrawal research before it can be studied. This request is not for unregulated sales and does not involve any sourcing, dosing, or vendor information. It is a request to preserve a lawful research and medical-development pathway during an opioid crisis in which more withdrawal-treatment options are badly needed. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I would appreciate a written response describing what your office can do.
Email Alex Scheffler, Omaha, NE
Subject: Please preserve research access to SR-17018 — a constituent in recovery
I am writing about the Drug Enforcement Administration's temporary scheduling notice involving SR-17018 (also referred to as 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine). I am asking you to help ensure this compound is studied before it is placed into Schedule I. I am a constituent writing from Omaha, Nebraska. This issue is personal to me: my own health and recovery are affected by whether compounds like this can be studied and, if warranted, developed through lawful medical channels. I am writing about the Drug Enforcement Administration's temporary scheduling notice involving SR-17018 (also referred to as 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine). I am asking you to help ensure this compound is studied before it is placed into Schedule I. I am a constituent writing from Omaha, Nebraska. This issue is personal to me: my own health and recovery are affected by whether compounds like this can be studied and, if warranted, developed through lawful medical channels. Please Delay or narrow the emergency scheduling of SR-17018 specifically. Separate SR-17018 from other listed compounds and review it on its own merits. Publish the compound-specific evidence being relied upon. Preserve lawful research and medical-development access to SR-17018. Involve HHS/FDA scientific and medical review before any placement. Avoid blocking potential opioid-withdrawal research before it can be studied. Many people report that SR-17018 may have helped them reduce opioid use with dramatically reduced withdrawal symptoms. These reports are not a substitute for clinical trials, but they are strong enough to justify urgent research and compound-specific review rather than emergency prohibition. Specifically, I urge you to. This request is not for unregulated sales and does not involve any sourcing, dosing, or vendor information. It is a request to preserve a lawful research and medical-development pathway during an opioid crisis in which more withdrawal-treatment options are badly needed. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I would appreciate a written response describing what your office can do. Sincerely, Alex Scheffler 2339 BENSON GARDENS BLVD Omaha, Nebraska 68134 alexschefflerincarnate@gmail.com 14026868015 Many people report that SR-17018 may have helped them reduce opioid use with dramatically reduced withdrawal symptoms. These reports are not a substitute for clinical trials, but they are strong enough to justify urgent research and compound-specific review rather than emergency prohibition. Specifically, I urge you to: • Delay or narrow the emergency scheduling of SR-17018 specifically. • Separate SR-17018 from other listed compounds and review it on its own merits. • Publish the compound-specific evidence being relied upon. • Preserve lawful research and medical-development access to SR-17018. • Involve HHS/FDA scientific and medical review before any placement. • Avoid blocking potential opioid-withdrawal research before it can be studied. This request is not for unregulated sales and does not involve any sourcing, dosing, or vendor information. It is a request to preserve a lawful research and medical-development pathway during an opioid crisis in which more withdrawal-treatment options are badly needed. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I would appreciate a written response describing what your office can do.
Email Brian Keith Lauterbach, Plano, TX
Subject: Please preserve research access to SR-17018 — a constituent in recovery
I am writing about the Drug Enforcement Administration's temporary scheduling notice involving SR-17018 (also referred to as 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine). I am asking you to help ensure this compound is studied before it is placed into Schedule I. I am a constituent writing from Plano, Texas. This issue is personal to me: my own health and recovery are affected by whether compounds like this can be studied and, if warranted, developed through lawful medical channels. Scaremongering does not work, placing this substance in Schedule 1 prior to giving it a chance to be studied and used to help those of us in chronic pain where applicable. This proposed ban looks to do much more harm than good and I am quite sure that the lawmakers have no idea what is about to happen when this takes effect and the outcome has more risks than benefit to the general public. Please overlook the greedy lobby and consider your constituents that need your help right now. Many people report that SR-17018 may have helped them reduce opioid use with dramatically reduced withdrawal symptoms. These reports are not a substitute for clinical trials, but they are strong enough to justify urgent research and compound-specific review rather than emergency prohibition. Specifically, I urge you to: • Delay or narrow the emergency scheduling of SR-17018 specifically. • Separate SR-17018 from other listed compounds and review it on its own merits. • Publish the compound-specific evidence being relied upon. • Preserve lawful research and medical-development access to SR-17018. • Involve HHS/FDA scientific and medical review before any placement. • Avoid blocking potential opioid-withdrawal research before it can be studied. This request is not for unregulated sales and does not involve any sourcing, dosing, or vendor information. It is a request to preserve a lawful research and medical-development pathway during an opioid crisis in which more withdrawal-treatment options are badly needed. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I would appreciate a written response describing what your office can do.
Email Anonymous — CA
Subject: Concerns about overbroad emergency scheduling of SR-17018
I am writing about the Drug Enforcement Administration's temporary scheduling notice involving SR-17018 (also referred to as 5,6-dichloro desmethylchlorphine). I am asking you to help ensure this compound is studied before it is placed into Schedule I. I am a constituent writing from [city withheld], California. I am concerned that bundling SR-17018 into a broad emergency scheduling action, without compound-specific evidence and without HHS/FDA scientific review, is an overbroad use of emergency authority that can foreclose promising research before the public-health value is understood. Many people report that SR-17018 may have helped them reduce opioid use with dramatically reduced withdrawal symptoms. These reports are not a substitute for clinical trials, but they are strong enough to justify urgent research and compound-specific review rather than emergency prohibition. Specifically, I urge you to: • Delay or narrow the emergency scheduling of SR-17018 specifically. • Separate SR-17018 from other listed compounds and review it on its own merits. • Publish the compound-specific evidence being relied upon. • Preserve lawful research and medical-development access to SR-17018. • Involve HHS/FDA scientific and medical review before any placement. • Avoid blocking potential opioid-withdrawal research before it can be studied. This request is not for unregulated sales and does not involve any sourcing, dosing, or vendor information. It is a request to preserve a lawful research and medical-development pathway during an opioid crisis in which more withdrawal-treatment options are badly needed. Thank you for your attention to this issue. I would appreciate a written response describing what your office can do.
Shared with permission and reviewed before publication. Authors who shared anonymously are shown only by state — their name and city were removed in their own browser and never sent to us. If you shared a message and want it taken down, ask us to delete it; our privacy policy explains what we keep.