Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drug Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and experts clash over kratom regulation during lengthy Riverside public comment period
Summary
Dozens of callers and in-person speakers told the council about personal benefits, harms and deaths they associate with kratom and synthetic extracts; testimony split between calls to ban synthetic concentrates and appeals to regulate the natural leaf so users retain access. Speakers urged testing, labeling and a distinction between natural product and concentrated synthetics.
Dozens of residents and health professionals told the Riverside City Council on April 21 that the city’s proposed ordinance addressing kratom and related synthetic extracts requires careful drafting — while others urged an outright ban.
The public-comment block began in Spanish and continued for more than an hour, with callers and in-person speakers offering deeply personal accounts. Susan Aburd, a phone caller, described the death of a 22-year-old family member and urged the council to prohibit the product to prevent similar tragedies. ‘‘Por favor, les pido que prohíban esta droga,’’ she said, asking the council to act after describing a toxicology report she said found harmful compounds in a product her son used.
Other callers made the opposite case. Matthew McCallin, who identified himself as a Riverside resident, said prohibition would ‘‘increase stigma, criminalize people and worsen suffering’’ and urged the council to pursue labeling, laboratory testing and regulated limits on concentrated extracts rather than ban the natural leaf. ‘‘No es lo mismo y no deben ser tratados de bajo la ley,’’ he said, asking the council to follow California rules that distinguish products and require testing and labeling.
Multiple callers described using the natural leaf for chronic pain, anxiety or recovery from other substance use disorders and warned that a ban would push consumers to unregulated markets. A caller who identified himself as Adam said the product ‘‘literally saved my life’’ and asked council members to consider regulatory options that would preserve safe access for adults who depend on it.
Public-health and law-enforcement voices also spoke. Brian Shirman, who identified himself with a narcotics officers’ association, urged restrictions on synthetic, concentrated extracts consistent with the county ordinance; he said the association supported measures targeting high-potency products while taking no formal position on the natural leaf.
Several callers and speakers urged the council to require independent certificates of analysis (COAs) and clear labeling to distinguish natural leaf products from concentrated or synthetic analogues. Dr. Jaide Socorro, introduced on the phone as a clinician and volunteer with a herbal alliance, recommended that retailers provide COAs from independent accredited labs and said such a requirement would reduce conflict-of-interest concerns and help officers determine whether a product is a synthetic concentrate.
Council members did not take action during the public-comment period. The testimony presented a split in the community between those who say the natural plant provides therapeutic benefits and those who say concentrated or synthetic forms have caused deaths or emergency visits. Several callers recounted family deaths they attributed to the product or its synthetics; those personal accounts were not verified at the hearing and remained unresolved in the record.
What happens next: the public record contains competing demands — some speakers asked for a ban of all kratom products, while others urged narrow prohibitions on synthetic concentrates and measures to preserve safe access to the natural leaf. Council staff and legal advisors will need to reconcile the technical recommendations callers proposed (COAs, labeling, concentration limits) with state and county guidance before the council advances a draft ordinance or places additional hearings on the calendar.
