Council hears public-health warnings on kratom, tables proposed ordinance for revisions

St. Clair Shores councilors heard a detailed presentation on kratom products and synthetic derivatives and voted to table a proposed ordinance that would restrict sales and criminalize minor possession while staff revises language on penalties, enforcement and code placement.

The presentation was made by Lauren Ludman and Sarah Hadar of a county prevention coalition (CARE), who described the drug as a plant-based product used in capsule, powder and concentrated forms and warned that synthetic derivatives (referred to during the presentation as “7‑OH‑MG” or “7HMG”) can be far more potent than natural kratom alkaloids. They said local environmental scans found kratom sold in many smoke shops and specialty retailers and described inconsistent labeling, frequent self‑serve displays and occasional free samples. The presenters also noted two pending state measures—one that would regulate sales and potency (House Bill 4969) and one that would seek a full ban (House Bill 5537)—and delivered a model ordinance to the clerk for council review.

Council members praised the public‑health framing but raised several policy and legal questions. Councilwoman Candace Russie, who drafted the city ordinance, said she modeled the proposal on the city’s 2019 vaping ordinance and intended this draft both to restrict sales to people 21 and older and to prohibit use and possession by minors. Members asked administration to confirm where the ordinance best belongs in the city code, to tighten and streamline penalty language so it aligns with recent ordinance practices, and to clarify enforcement responsibilities (police versus code enforcement) and retailer notification procedures. Several council members also urged coordination with pending state bills so local rules do not conflict.

Council members discussed specific provisions: whether definitions should explicitly include synthetic derivatives, whether mandatory signage or retailer registration should be required, and whether affirmative‑defense language for retailers should remain. Police enforcement checks were described as currently feasible via undercover compliance operations, but council asked staff to present clearer enforcement pathways and to rework civil versus criminal penalty language where the draft was inconsistent.

After debate, Council voted to table the ordinance and asked administration to return a revised draft that: 1) places the ordinance in the appropriate code chapter, 2) clarifies that synthetic derivatives are included in the definition, 3) streamlines and clarifies the penalty and enforcement sections, and 4) outlines a retailer notification and education plan. The motion to table was supported unanimously. The council indicated a preference to present an ordinance that protects youth and older adults while aligning with enforcement capacity and state law developments.

What happens next: Staff will work with the city attorney and police department to revise the draft and present cleaned‑up language and implementation details at a future council meeting.