Kratom debate divides panel: medical advocates, veterans and small businesses oppose a ban; affected families and clinicians urge prohibition or regulation

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary received extensive and divided testimony on several bills concerning kratom, including proposals to ban sales statewide and proposals to regulate the product through a Kratom Consumer Protection Act.

Opponents of a ban — including the American Kratom Association, clinicians, veterans’ groups and small business owners who operate kava/kratom cafes — argued that unadulterated kratom helps people with pain and supports recovery from opioids. Matt Caddo of the American Kratom Association told the committee federal attempts to schedule kratom were rejected because the evidence did not meet federal criteria and urged the panel to pursue a regulatory model requiring certificates of analysis, labeling and safeguards against synthetic adulterants. Veteran advocates and participants in peer‑recovery programs said kratom had supported safe detox in some cases.

Supporters of bans and local prohibitions described cases of addiction, seizures and deaths they attributed to concentrated or adulterated kratom products sold at convenience stores and online. Angela Trollson, who described her husband’s hospitalizations and neurologic injuries she attributes to kratom concentrates, urged the committee to classify kratom as a controlled substance and ban its sale. Multiple municipalities have enacted local bans, she said, and she urged statewide action to avoid a patchwork approach.

Academic and clinical witnesses asked the committee to distinguish between whole‑leaf products and synthetic or highly concentrated alkaloid formulations. Pharmacists and researchers suggested regulatory paths used in other states — restricting sales to adults, requiring independent laboratory testing and banning synthetics — as a way to reduce harms while preserving access for people who report therapeutic benefit.

Small‑business owners said prohibitions could push consumers to the black market; advocates for 7‑hydroxy mitragynine products argued that some semi‑synthetic formulations are effective opioid substitutes and have coincided with declines in opioid deaths in available data cited by proponents.

Committee members took no vote. Chairs invited written testimony and experts to submit comparative regulatory language, and staff said they would continue discussions to identify evidence‑based consumer‑protection options that reduce adulteration and youth access.