Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mariposa staff presents draft kratom ban; board signals support for countywide prohibition
Summary
Health staff presented a draft county ordinance to ban kratom sales; public comment split between addiction-prevention advocates urging a ban and industry representatives urging regulation that preserves access to natural kratom while targeting synthetics. Supervisors largely signaled support for a full ban and asked county counsel to align penalty amounts with local code.
Health and Human Services Director Christina Kehili returned to the board Feb. 10 with a draft ordinance that would ban the sale and distribution of kratom in Mariposa County and a matrix of approaches other counties have taken.
Kehili said the draft mirrors language used elsewhere and noted that an assembly bill that would set a 21‑year minimum age and limit synthetic concentrations (Assembly Bill 1088) has seen limited movement. She also said the California Department of Public Health and the state Alcohol Beverage Control have circulated guidance and education materials concerning kratom.
At the public comment period industry advocates urged a narrower, regulatory approach. Allison Smith, director of government affairs at the Global Kratom Coalition, said Fresno’s action did not ban all kratom products and instead prohibited concentrated synthetics and required a 2% limit on 7‑OH. "They did not pass a blanket ban on all kratom products," Smith said, and offered to work with county staff on regulated solutions. In contrast, several local speakers and supervisors who cited clinical concerns urged a full ban to protect young people and public health. Jean Ann Pine said, "I would like to see it banned totally," while a board member referenced the County Health Officer's letter supporting robust local action.
County Counsel flagged Mariposa County Code §1.20.03 as requiring infraction fines of $100/$200/$500 and noted that the board may need to adjust penalty language to achieve the enforcement intent supervisors expressed. Supervisors directed staff to work with County Counsel to refine the ordinance’s penalty provisions and to return with an ordinance for formal reading; several supervisors said they favor a full countywide ban as drafted for further review.
Next steps: staff to refine penalty language to comply with county code and return the ordinance for first reading; public health education efforts will proceed regardless of ordinance timing.
