Lawmakers hear testimony on Kratom Consumer Protection Act; debate centers on synthetics, youth access and local control
Loading...
Summary
A public hearing on House Bill 2,291 drew testimony from public‑health experts, city officials, industry groups and users over whether Washington should regulate natural kratom leaf like cannabis while banning synthetic, opioid‑like adulterants and preserving local authority.
A state House committee opened a public hearing on House Bill 2,291 on Jan. 30, hearing two hours of testimony about kratom’s risks and how the state should regulate the botanical and its synthetic derivatives.
The bill, as explained by committee staff, would place kratom regulatory authority with the Liquor and Cannabis Board, require retailers and processors to be licensed, set a minimum purchase age of 21, ban certain high‑potency or synthesized kratom products, mandate child‑resistant packaging and independent laboratory certification, and impose an 11% excise tax. Staff said the proposal includes a $1,000 license and renewal fee and directs tax and fee revenue into a youth regulated substance prevention account, with 25% for administration and 75% for public‑health education and interventions.
Representative Christine Reeves, the bill’s prime sponsor, said synthetic versions of kratom have created the urgency for regulation. “The worst part of kratom, though, is when it is synthesized, has similar effects in terms of addiction and impact to fentanyl,” Reeves said, describing the bill’s aim to regulate plant and processing activity while banning chemically altered products.
Public‑health experts urged caution and specific protections for children. Dr. Jimmy Leonard, chief clinical officer at the Washington Poison Center, said certain kratom alkaloids are pharmacologically potent and that child‑resistant packaging and testing standards are critical. "7‑hydroxymitragynine ... actually functions exactly like morphine except 13 times as potent," Leonard said, and reported two near‑death exposures in toddlers that were reversed with naloxone.
Local elected officials and municipal associations expressed concerns about state preemption of local rules. Derek Nunley of the Association of Washington Cities asked the committee to "please listen to the local jurisdictions" and preserve some municipal authority, and Mike Kelly, a Spokane Valley council member, urged an amendment to Section 31 to allow cities to prohibit sales to adults if the city determines it endangers public health.
Business and industry witnesses voiced two recurring points: support for consumer protections and objection to provisions they say would unduly burden small retailers. Molly Poffenrove of the Washington Food Industry Association said her members back age gating and safety requirements but oppose the $1,000 license fee as disproportionate for small grocers and convenience stores compared with the $175 tobacco license fee.
Representatives of kratom‑advocacy groups and users urged the committee to distinguish between long‑used natural kratom leaf and newly emerging synthetic adulterants. Matthew Lowe of the Global Kratom Coalition said the natural botanical has a long history of use and that regulatory focus should be on the ‘‘bad actors’’ making adulterated synthetics that pose the greatest risk.
Several witnesses recounted personal or local experiences: a high‑school prevention leader described a recent youth overdose reversed with Narcan; a Spokane Valley resident and long‑term user said natural kratom relieved chronic pain and helped someone stop prescription opioids; and a mayor from the Spokane region urged stronger local controls including applying DUI rules to impaired CDL drivers.
Committee staff closed the hearing and indicated the LCB would need a delayed effective date for rulemaking if the Legislature moves forward. The committee did not take action on HB 2,291 at the hearing and moved into executive session for briefings on other bills.
What happens next: Committee members flagged several issues they want to address if the bill advances, including the license fee amount, the preemption language in Section 31, the mechanics of testing and certification, and whether impairment or DUI‑style provisions are needed. The sponsor said she is open to amendments and further work to refine enforcement and licensing details.
