Committee hears public pleas to regulate, not ban, kratom; item postponed pending state hearings
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Public commenters told the Los Angeles rules committee that kratom-like products aid recovery and that prohibition would drive a black market; the committee agreed to add the matter to its calendar and postponed agenda items 7 and 13 to await state hearings and additional analysis.
The Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee heard more than a dozen public comments urging regulation rather than an outright ban on kratom and related products and voted to postpone action on the matter until after pending state hearings.
Public commenters — including users, recovery advocates and local business owners — told the committee that the products under discussion have helped them reduce alcohol or opioid use, manage chronic pain and continue working. Justin Wood, introduced in the record as a Los Angeles businessman, urged the committee to align city policy with the state framework in AB 1088 and restrict sales to adults 21 and older. Multiple speakers warned that a local prohibition would push supply to the black market and could increase harms.
The committee’s presiding officer said staff would add the kratom matter to the committee calendar and set a future hearing date once the results of an upcoming state health committee hearing are available. The chair moved to postpone agenda items 7 and 13; the record shows the three members present voted to approve the motion.
Advocates suggested a regulatory framework emphasizing testing, quality-control lab analysis, labeling and limits on high-concentration or synthetic products. One commenter who identified themselves as a business owner showed product samples and recommended regulating natural leaf products while prohibiting synthetic analogs. Several speakers asked the city to follow the stakeholder process used previously for marijuana policy changes.
The committee did not adopt new regulations at the meeting. Instead, members directed staff to await state-level action and to return with further analysis and a schedule for local consideration. The committee also approved the consent agenda and moved other items forward during the same session.
Next procedural steps: the committee postponed items 7 and 13 and will set a follow-up date after state hearings and additional staff analysis are available.