House committee report narrows kratom bill, bans synthetics but leaves natural leaf contested

The South Carolina House took up HB 46‑41 on Wednesday, a measure addressing kratom and its synthetic derivatives. The judiciary committee’s report — presented on the floor by Representative Britton — recommends a bifurcated approach: ban synthetic kratom products while distinguishing natural leaf kratom, pending further study and enforcement guidance.

"This amendment bans the synthetics," Representative Britton said while explaining the committee report. He described lengthy testimony in committee — including toxicologists and users — and said the synthetic versions contain additional chemicals that create greater dependency and health risk than the traditional leaf.

Members split on the appropriate path. Supporters of a fuller ban cited toxicology testimony and what they characterized as overdose and addiction incidents tied to synthetic kratom products. Representative McCravy, who supported stringent controls, said toxicologists described withdrawal symptoms similar to heroin. "We've had people die from overdosing on this drug," McCravy said on the floor, urging caution.

Opponents and some members who heard emotional testimony from patients argued the natural leaf gives relief to people with rare, debilitating pain syndromes and that an outright ban could harm patients. Representative Rutherford and others described constituents for whom the natural leaf provided relief where conventional medicine did not. "There are pains that people have...this natural leaf was the only thing that gave him relief," Representative Landing said.

Practical enforcement was also raised. Members asked whether SLED or local law enforcement could reliably distinguish synthetic from natural products without lab tests; presenters said lab testing would be necessary and roadside screening would be limited. That enforceability concern underpinned some votes: the House adopted amendment 1 (committee amendment banning synthetics) by voice vote, then later tabled a second amendment that would have placed kratom on Schedule I. The vote to table amendment 2 was close (division vote recorded 54–45) after a lengthy exchange of personal testimony and technical claims.

With amendment 1 adopted and amendment 2 tabled, HB 46‑41 moves to the contested calendar for further debate and possible future action. Supporters of the committee approach said it addresses the immediate overdose risk from synthetics while preserving flexibility to study the natural leaf; critics said the distinction may be hard to enforce and questioned whether the natural product should remain widely available without stronger regulatory controls.