Panel reviews state kratom policy options as advocates urge a uniform Montana approach

Legislative staff and outside witnesses told the Law and Justice Interim Committee that states use widely varying approaches to kratom and concentrated 7‑OH products, and several witnesses urged the Legislature to act to avoid a patchwork of local rules.

Jessica Guarino, a policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures, reviewed state models for regulating kratom and 7‑OH. She said some states ban mitragynine and 7‑OH outright while many others regulate labeling, concentration, age limits and licensing. "Kratom is derived from a leafy Southeast Asian tree," Guarino said, and noted an increase in U.S. use; she cited the 2024 national survey for high estimated usage. Guarino described approaches that limit the allowable concentration of 7‑OH and require labeling, registration or licensing for processors and retailers.

Public commenters included manufacturers, retail representatives and consumer‑advocacy speakers who urged either targeted bans on adulterated synthetic 7‑OH products or a consumer‑protection style regulatory bill to allow legitimate businesses to operate while restricting dangerous concentrates. Mac Haddow, a senior fellow with a trade association, urged clarity around adulterated products and said his group supports labeling and limits on concentrated synthetic products.

Committee discussion covered options for labeling requirements, concentration caps and whether criminal penalties or civil enforcement would be preferable. Several members said they wanted to review effective state language and enforcement mechanisms and asked staff to gather model statutes and to invite testimony from states that have implemented different approaches.

Ending: Committee asked staff to compile comparative statutes and reach out to states with experience on both enforcement challenges and legal tests for constitutionality. No bill was proposed at this hearing.