Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kratom Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brockton committee debates ban on synthetic kratom, postpones vote for further drafting
Summary
Councilors debated an ordinance to ban synthetic kratom and to tightly regulate natural kratom (age limits, behind‑the‑counter sales, permitting). Members and staff raised enforcement and preemption concerns; the committee voted to postpone the item to the next ordinance meeting.
The Brockton City Council ordinance committee debated a proposed ordinance May 5 that would ban synthetic kratom and restrict retail sales of natural kratom, then voted to postpone action until its next meeting.
Councilor Thompson, who sponsored the proposal, told the committee synthetic formulations are widely available in Brockton and contain "opioid‑like substances," calling the product "basically a gateway drug, to opioid abuse." He described an amended draft that would ban synthetic kratom, define problematic ingredients and dosages, and treat low‑dose natural kratom differently — proposing a 21‑and‑older sales age, behind‑the‑counter placement, non‑child‑attractive packaging and a possible permit system for sellers.
Inspectional Services Chief James Doucette told the committee kratom products are "very ubiquitous" in convenience and liquor stores and suggested the ordinance include language treating mere possession or storage of a banned product on a premise as a violation, even without a witnessed sale. The director of health and human services warned staff lack the capacity to reliably distinguish synthetic from natural formulations and said she "fear[s] that we're still going to have this problem," urging caution and noting pending state legislation and limits on local fines.
Councilors expressed competing concerns. Several backed a ban on synthetic products as an urgent public‑safety step; others, including Councilor Griffin, said they were persuaded by constituent testimony about therapeutic uses of natural kratom and asked for more medical evidence. Committee members also discussed enforcement mechanics, a state‑law cap on certain fines (noted in the meeting as a $1,000 maximum under applicable state permitting statutes), and a compliance checklist Thompson provided for inspectional services and police.
Rather than voting on the ordinance, the committee voted to postpone the item to the next ordinance committee meeting so staff can refine the draft, share the Northampton example cited by staff, and gather more guidance from state legislators. The ordinance sponsor asked counselors to consult with invited guests and stakeholders and return prepared to advance the item or further amend the proposal at the next session.
