Brockton committee backs moratorium-style ban on kratom and synthetic cannabinoids

The Brockton Ordinance Committee voted June 1 to send to the full City Council a revised ordinance that would ban the manufacture, sale and distribution of kratom and an expanded class of synthetically derived cannabinoids and unregulated novel intoxicating products in the city.

The ordinance, introduced by Councilor Thompson, renames and widens the earlier draft to add definitions for synthetically derived cannabinoids and similar novel intoxicants, create a moratorium prohibiting distribution for human consumption, and explicitly exempt licensed marijuana retailers. It sets enforcement under the Board of Health: a $1,000 penalty for a first violation and, for a second violation within 36 months, a $1,000 fine plus suspension of permits issued by the Board of Health.

Supporters said Brockton lacks the testing capacity to reliably distinguish low-dose natural kratom from high-dose synthetics and that deceptive packaging makes enforcement impractical without broader language. "We don't have the ability to implement regulations to differentiate between what is natural and what is synthetic," Councilor Thompson told the committee, urging a moratorium while the state develops guidance.

Health leaders at the meeting backed the approach. "I agree wholeheartedly with these changes," Commissioner of Health and Human Services Wiza McCulla said, citing recalls and warnings in federal databases and the difficulty of rapid local testing. Jasmine Bradshare, director of social services, said partner agencies were divided: some favor the ban while others noted that "kratom products often are used to treat opioid withdrawal," and listed medical concerns including liver toxicity, dependence and seizures.

Police representation signaled enforcement support: Lieutenant Schleman, speaking for Police Chief Perez, said the department supports banning the product and its sale in Brockton.

Committee members debated the effective date and how to notify retailers. Inspectional staff recommended a 60-day notice period based on prior city practice; the committee amended the ordinance to take effect 60 days from final passage by the City Council and voted to adopt the clerk's circulated amendments. A committee motion to recommend the ordinance as amended to the full City Council passed by voice vote.

Next steps: the ordinance will appear before the full City Council for final passage, after which the city intends to notify retailers through the usual channels and coordinate enforcement with the Board of Health. The committee record did not include a roll-call tally for the committee votes; the committee used voice votes for amendments and final recommendations.