Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kratom Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Angelenos urge council not to back AB 1088 ban on 7‑hydroxymitragynine, cite harm‑reduction concerns
Summary
Dozens of public commenters told the Los Angeles City Council that banning 7‑hydroxymitragynine (a kratom derivative) would push people toward illicit fentanyl, worsen overdoses and harm chronic‑pain patients. Speakers asked the council to pull related items from consent and favor regulation and testing over prohibition.
Dozens of people who spoke during public comment urged the Los Angeles City Council on Oct. 28 to oppose support for AB 1088 or a local ban of 7‑hydroxymitragynine (sometimes called 7‑OH), a compound in kratom that several speakers said they use to manage pain and avoid more dangerous opioids.
"If you ban 7‑OH and kratom, you will have Los Angeles residents dying," said Dr. Michelle Ross, an addiction neuroscientist and chief scientific advisor to the nonprofit 7 Hope Alliance. Ross told the council she led a national survey that found about "236,000 people in California use 7‑OH," that "75 percent use it for pain relief," and that about "25 percent" of respondents said they would go to illicit markets if the product were banned.
Advocates, consumers and nonprofit representatives asked the council to pull the related Sacramento measure from the consent calendar and to prioritize regulation, testing and education instead of prohibition. "Please pull this item from consent and give us the opportunity to educate you," said Jackie Subek, founder of the 7 Hope Alliance Foundation.
Several speakers described personal or clinical experience they say supports the compound's role in harm reduction. "Since 7‑OH products entered the market roughly two years ago, national overdose deaths have declined by nearly 24 percent," one commenter told the council, arguing the reduction shows the compound can be an alternative to far deadlier street drugs such as fentanyl.
Others with chronic conditions said 7‑OH helped them remain employed and avoid opioids. "I found something that was better than opiates," a speaker with Crohn's disease told the council, asking what alternative she would have if 7‑OH were banned. A number of speakers warned that prohibition would benefit organized crime and the illicit market.
Not all speakers addressed the same factual claims; the council did not debate or vote on AB 1088 during the public comment period. Council members heard repeated requests to remove the item from consent and to seek regulatory approaches emphasizing product testing, transparency and access for patients and veterans who say the substance reduced their dependence on other, more dangerous drugs.
The public-comment speakers who raised these points included medical researchers, consumers who described chronic‑pain management, and nonprofit organizers. None of the speakers claimed the council had already passed a ban; their appeals were to the council's decision-making and to Sacramento lawmakers.
The council proceeded from public comment to votes on several agenda items later in the meeting; the record of those votes in the transcript does not include a council decision on AB 1088 or an explicit action to adopt a ban during this session.
