Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
South Carolina subcommittee advances H.4641 after heated kratom hearing; amendment to narrow bill tabled
Loading...
Summary
The House General Law Subcommittee heard several hours of testimony for and against H.4641 — a proposal to schedule (effectively ban) kratom — then tabled an amendment to narrow the measure and gave the bill a favorable report (3–1) to the full committee. Supporters urged regulation; treatment providers and law enforcement cited rising harms.
The South Carolina House General Law Subcommittee voted to give H.4641 a favorable report to the full committee after a day of public testimony that sharply divided treatment providers, law enforcement and kratom consumers and businesses.
The hearing focused on whether kratom — a botanical product used by some residents for pain, anxiety and opioid‑withdrawal support — should be placed in Schedule I under state law. Supporters of keeping kratom legal urged the panel to preserve last year’s Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) and target highly concentrated or synthetically altered products. Opponents, including local treatment providers and police, said adulterated extracts and easy retail access have increased youth exposure, treatment admissions and deaths in parts of the state.
"We recognize the pain and the desperation that so often accompanies addiction," the chair said in opening remarks, framing the committee’s duty to protect public health while listening to personal stories. Multiple witnesses recounted personal recovery tied to natural leaf kratom. Gabriel Coggins of Greenville said he had used botanical kratom safely for 15 years and warned that a ban would push consumers toward a more dangerous black market.
Researchers and industry witnesses urged caution about a sweeping Schedule I classification. Luca Marville, a student researcher who reviewed the literature, told the subcommittee that kratom alkaloids differ pharmacologically from classic opioids and that scheduling could impede research and public‑health surveillance. Industry representative John Cleveland, testifying for manufacturers organized under HEART, said the state’s short‑term economic gains from regulation last year included new jobs and urged lawmakers to let federal scientific review proceed before enacting a ban.
Treatment providers and coroners described different local experience. Wamey Hutto, executive director of the Ernest E. Kennedy Center (Berkeley County), said the agency has seen increased kratom detections in treatment settings and observed withdrawal‑like syndromes that complicate clinical care. Lisonbee Billton, who works with the Berkeley County coroner’s office, reported two local fatal overdoses where mitragynine was detected and described a 2‑year‑old who required prolonged naloxone support after ingesting a kratom capsule.
Law enforcement testimony was emphatic. JJ Jones, executive director of the South Carolina Police Chiefs Association, said patrol officers encounter people visibly desperate to obtain kratom and called the product "dangerous" in its current, largely unregulated retail form.
During debate, Representative Rosalind Henderson Myers offered an amendment (H.4648) to replace the bill with narrower language: age‑based sales restrictions (under‑21), explicit prohibitions on adulterated or synthetically derived kratom alkaloids, solvent limits tied to United States Pharmacopeia standards, and labeling requirements tied to section 44‑53‑20(30). Members discussed the amendment but agreed more work was needed; a motion to table the amendment carried.
On final consideration the subcommittee recorded its votes by roll call and issued a favorable report on H.4641 to the full committee by a 3–1 margin (one member recorded as not voting). The bill now awaits scheduling before the full committee.
What remains contested is the evidence base. Witnesses presented competing data — for example, industry witnesses cited FDA adverse‑event counts they said were small, while other presenters cited state toxicology and local coroner data showing an increase in kratom detections in recent years. Committee members said they will review the empirical evidence and written submissions before the full committee acts.
The subcommittee did not adopt a final ban amendment at the meeting; members emphasized that protecting children and limiting synthetic, adulterated products were priorities that might be addressed by amendments drafted with additional time. The chairman closed the session by urging anyone struggling with addiction to seek treatment and offering to help identify services.
The bill will be scheduled for the full committee at a later date; the subcommittee record and the packet of written testimony will be available through legislative services and archived video from SCETV.
