Kratom ban draws mixed testimony at Suffolk County hearing

At a public hearing on proposed legislation (I.R. 1279) to ban the sale and distribution of kratom, users, small-business owners and public-health advocates gave sharply divergent accounts of risks and benefits. Jack Lambros, a user who said he is "allergic to ibuprofen," described kratom leaf as "an escape for me from back pain" and opposed a full ban while urging a ban on high-potency 7-OH products.

Business owners and other witnesses said a ban would wipe out inventory and jobs overnight. Kanak Sehgal, who described a wholesale/retail business tied to kratom sales, asked whether the County had a plan to compensate or transition employees and owners if the measure passed. Opponents argued for a regulatory alternative: testing, age limits, product labeling and prohibiting concentrated 7-OH shots rather than a total ban.

Public-health and safety presenters stressed documented harms tied to high-potency, adulterated or synthetic products. Supporters of restrictions pointed to cases where unregulated concentrates were associated with adverse events; some cited out-of-state precedents (Rhode Island) and urged County and State coordination.

The Legislature recessed the hearing multiple times and sought additional information and amendments. Lawmakers repeatedly asked whether labeling and consumer-protection rules could better balance consumer choice, small-business impacts and public safety.