Public hearing on proposed kratom ordinance draws retailers, health officials and task‑force members

County staff and public‑health representatives presented a revised draft ordinance intended to prohibit adulterated kratom products and to create a definition of “compliant kratom product” that would be subject to labeling and batch‑level lab‑result requirements.

Sheila (public health staff) said the changes were intended to make enforcement practicable for law enforcement by requiring labeling and batch information so deputies can determine compliance without testing every product in a lab. She described the concern as concentrated 7‑hydroxy alkaloid products that can be much more addictive and harmful than traditional kratom leaves.

Wally Overman, chair of the Saving Lives Task Force, told the board the group has studied kratom for months and favors local regulation because of rising concerns about synthetic or adulterated products found near schools.

Retailer Katie, who said she operates the Island Eyes store on the Outer Banks, testified that many customers use traditional kratom to manage pain or addiction and urged targeted regulation rather than an outright ban. She supported age restrictions, packaging standards and requirements for lab results and said some vendors already provide batch lab reports.

Board discussion focused on three enforcement questions: (1) whether labeling and batch‑number lab results should be required to make enforcement workable for law enforcement, (2) whether violations should be civil infractions or criminal misdemeanors, and (3) whether the criminal penalty language could be adopted at the same meeting it was introduced. County counsel and law‑enforcement staff advised that criminal penalties cannot be adopted at the same meeting they are first presented; that step would require a second meeting and additional public notice. The board therefore conducted the public hearing and took no final action; staff will return the ordinance for adoption at a future meeting with any criminal‑penalty language if the board so directs.

What was said about risk and testing: Retail testimony emphasized the role of adulteration and extracts (particularly 7‑hydroxy extracts) rather than traditional kratom leaf; vendors asked that lab results be cross‑referenced to batch numbers and made available to consumers. Several commissioners and law‑enforcement speakers said requiring batch lab results and labeling would give deputies a practicable enforcement tool.

Ending: The public hearing closed with no immediate policy adoption. Staff will draft final language (including possible batch‑report and QR/batch number requirements) and return with the option to add criminal sanctions at a later meeting.

Representative quote: "If you're not selling a compliant kratom product, that's going to be a violation...we added a term called 'compliant kratom product' so the ordinance is simpler for a retailer to understand," Sheila said.