Committee advances bill to ban kratom in Tennessee after contested testimony from TBI and industry

The Finance Ways and Means Committee on March 31 voted 25–2 to move House Bill 16 49 to the calendar and rules. The bill, carried by Representative Rudder, would ban the sale and distribution of kratom in Tennessee; sponsor remarks and witnesses referred to the measure as the "Matthew Davenport" law.

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation special agent Mark Delaney told the committee that kratom and, critically, adulterated or synthetic kratom products present a growing public-safety risk. "There is no quality control or guarantee of any kind that the product is safe," Delaney said, adding that variations in chemical composition, adulteration and potent alkaloid derivatives complicate enforcement and raise the risk of severe outcomes including seizures, liver injury and, in some reported cases, death.

Delaney also testified that Tennessee lacks an accredited forensic laboratory able to reliably distinguish so-called natural kratom from synthetically enhanced products, and that efforts with federal partners to develop distinguishing tests have not yet produced a dependable method.

That assessment drew pushback from Mac Haddow, a witness who identified himself as a senior fellow with the American Kratom Association. Haddow told the committee he has used kratom for years to manage chronic pain and disputed some public-safety claims. "I do not experience euphoric high," Haddow said of his personal, recent dose, and he argued that federal agencies and peer-reviewed human-dose studies show natural kratom can be tolerated at the levels consumers use. Haddow also disputed the bill's fiscal estimate, presenting higher figures for potential loss of sales-tax revenue and economic impact and urging study or a consumer-protection approach instead of a ban.

Committee members pressed both witnesses on two recurring points: (1) whether accredited labs can reliably test for and separate natural kratom from synthetic, chemically manipulated analogues — Delaney said Tennessee currently does not have that lab capability; and (2) how federal agencies, principally the Food and Drug Administration, characterize kratom — witnesses framed FDA statements differently, with Delaney and the sponsor emphasizing FDA and public-health warnings and Haddow arguing the agency focuses enforcement on synthetic variants and that some kratom products are marketed under dietary-supplement rules.

Testimony before the committee included anecdotes from constituents and law-enforcement reporting of serious adverse events, and industry testimony citing peer-reviewed prevalence studies and alternative fiscal calculations. Haddow told the committee a published prevalence estimate implies hundreds of thousands of Tennessee users could be criminalized if the bill becomes law; he characterized the current fiscal note as incomplete and urged postponing a ban in favor of a consumer-protection statute.

Representative Rudder, the bill sponsor, said the legislation has support from law-enforcement and public-health groups and noted endorsements from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, sheriffs and chiefs of police, fuel-and-convenience-store groups and medical associations seeking to remove dangerous products from retail shelves.

The committee's action was procedural: moving the bill to the calendar and rules for further consideration. The committee did not adopt criminal-code language, sentencing provisions, or implementation details in public debate; those would be resolved in later committee stages and floor action.

The committee has not provided an amended fiscal note in committee; witnesses and members flagged divergent fiscal estimates during testimony. Next procedural steps are placement on the full chamber's calendar and, if scheduled, further committee scrutiny or floor debate.