Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kratom Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scranton council advances two kratom ordinances amid split public testimony
Summary
Council read two kratom ordinances April 14 — one targeting sales to minors and a broader measure addressing possession and manufacture — after extended public comment from users and opponents; members asked administration for enforceability details and scheduled follow‑up meetings.
Scranton City Council on April 14 moved forward with two related ordinances aimed at regulating kratom and certain alkaloid derivatives, after several hours of public comment and an extended council discussion about enforcement and local authority.
The first ordinance (filed as Council item 12, 2026) would prohibit the sale or distribution of kratom and related alkaloids to minors and provide enforcement penalties. The second (filed as Council item 13, 2026) addresses possession and the manufacture of concentrated or chemically modified derivatives. Both items were read by title at the meeting and were advanced for further consideration; motions to table each item failed for lack of a second.
Public commenters supplied sharply different perspectives. Stan Dombroski, an Olive Street resident and former retail tea shop owner, testified against a blanket ban and urged the council to approve only an "age gate" restricting sales to people under 21. "I respectfully oppose the proposed blanket ban and urge you to pass only the age gate ordinance," Dombroski said, adding that he used kratom to stop prescription opioids and that banning leaf kratom risks pushing users toward dangerous synthetics such as 7‑OH.
Other speakers urged stronger restrictions. Council members and staff repeatedly raised a practical question: what capacity does a city government have to regulate supply chains, manufacturing standards or international vendors? Several members said a local regulatory framework lacks the mechanisms to test or certify products that can be shipped from outside the jurisdiction. One council member summarized the operational concern: the city "does not have the infrastructure to monitor supply chains or to enforce manufacturing standards across an international market." (Statement recorded in council debate; council members will meet with administration later in the week to review enforcement questions the administration submitted.)
Council members said they favor preventing access to synthetics and protecting minors, but several asked for clearer implementation plans before final passage. The administration provided a list of technical questions to council that members said they would address in a follow‑up meeting set for later in the week.
Next steps: Council advanced both ordinances for further review; no final adoption occurred on April 14. Councilmembers and administration staff agreed to meet to clarify enforcement responsibilities and operational costs before a final vote.
