Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Kratom topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mariposa supervisors direct staff to pursue kratom ban and education after public‑health briefing
Summary
Following an HHSA presentation on kratom’s health risks and patchwork local rules, the Board of Supervisors asked staff to return with options — including a ban modeled on Fresno’s ordinance, a regulatory alternative, and a public‑education campaign — and to bring recommendations in January.
Health officials told the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 16 that kratom and its synthetically altered derivatives pose growing public‑health risks and are increasingly marketed to young people in forms that resemble candy and energy shots.
“It's marketed...and you can see it's 13 more times more potent than morphine,” Christina Kehilly, director of the county Health and Human Services Agency, said while summarizing the scientific and regulatory uncertainty around kratom and 7‑OH derivatives. Kehilly described the range of products on the market, from capsules to gummies, and said the Food and Drug Administration has not approved any kratom products.
The presentation reviewed responses taken by other California jurisdictions — including Fresno and Riverside counties — that have moved either to ban kratom sales in their unincorporated areas or to adopt strict packaging, age and potency limits. Kehilly laid out four staff options: (1) a public‑education campaign; (2) a local ordinance banning sales; (3) a regulatory ordinance mirroring proposals such as Assembly Bill 1088 (age limits, child‑resistant packaging and potency caps); and (4) folding enforcement into a proposed tobacco retail licensing program.
Public comment was strongly in favor of quick action. “To get this substance out of the hands of kids…please take action quickly,” Jean Ann Pine told the board.
Supervisors pressed staff on enforcement feasibility, potency testing and neighboring jurisdictions. Several members said they had seen local smoke‑shop sales and were worried about youth access (some noted online availability as a complicating factor). Supervisor Menachery said the prevalence data cited by staff were older and asked for updated local information; Kehilly said local reports suggest a resurgence over the summer and staff will seek further data.
Board direction and next steps
By the end of the discussion the board gave staff clear direction to return with concrete options. County staff said they would:
- prepare an educational campaign immediately (social media, local press and school outreach); - draft an ordinance banning kratom modeled on Fresno’s approach and also prepare a separate regulatory ordinance (e.g., age limits, packaging, potency caps) for comparison; and - advise against combining kratom regulation into the tobacco retail license at this stage (public‑health staff’s recommendation), while still pursuing a tobacco retail license separately for enforcement capacity.
Christina Kehilly told the board staff would bring ordinance language and education materials back to the supervisors, likely in January.
What changes and when
No ordinance was adopted at the Dec. 16 meeting; instead the board instructed staff to return with draft ordinances and education materials for public review. The board emphasized that any local rule would need a practical enforcement plan and coordination with neighboring counties to limit cross‑border sales.
The clerk of the board recorded the formal direction: staff is to return with proposed ordinance language for a ban and for a regulation, plus an educational campaign. Kehilly said staff would begin the education work immediately and expects to present ordinance options at the January meeting.
