Our response to kratom advocacy groups

“Natural kratom leaf and 7-OH products are completely different things — don’t ban the leaf.”

What they’re really saying: Advocacy groups argue that traditional kratom leaf and concentrated 7-OH products (gummies, drinks/shots, tablets) are different enough that leaf should stay legal even if concentrated 7-OH is restricted.

Our response: There’s a real chemistry difference — natural leaf contains 7-OH only in trace amounts, while store products can be engineered to concentrations as high as 96%. But that distinction can’t be verified at the point of sale. No field test lets a store clerk, inspector, or police officer confirm whether a product on the shelf is trace-level or highly concentrated just by looking at the label. Texas already tried a percentage cap, and it didn’t close the gap — enforcement required a full lawsuit and a court order, and products tested by the Attorney General’s office came in around 96% concentration despite the legal limit. A concentration line only works if someone can verify it at the counter, and right now nobody can. That’s why Jonas’s Law covers the leaf along with the concentrates: a line no one can check at the counter isn’t a line anyone can enforce.

“This is just a plant. It’s natural, so it’s safe.”

What they’re really saying: Kratom is a botanical product, not a synthetic drug, so it shouldn’t be treated like an opioid.

Our response: “Natural” and “safe” aren’t the same thing. Independent lab research (not funded by the kratom industry) shows that 7-OH binds to the same opioid receptor in the brain as morphine and fentanyl, and it activates that receptor — mitragynine, the main compound in raw leaf, mostly doesn’t do this in the same lab tests. That means concentrated 7-OH products function as opioids in the body, regardless of what plant they started as. The chemistry, not the marketing, determines the risk.

“Kratom helps people manage pain, anxiety, and opioid withdrawal — banning it takes away something that helps people.”

What they’re really saying: Many users report kratom helps them avoid stronger opioids, manage chronic pain, or get through withdrawal, and a ban removes that option.

Our response: We take these stories seriously, and this is exactly why enforcement should target the people manufacturing and selling dangerous, high-concentration products — not individuals trying to manage their health. There is no FDA-approved kratom medication, and no reliable dosing standard exists for over-the-counter products, which means people using kratom for withdrawal or pain have no way to know what they’re actually taking. People deserve access to real, tested treatment options for pain, mental health conditions, and opioid use disorder — not products whose potency and contents they cannot reliably determine.

Until recently, Americans had not been able to walk into a gas station and purchase an opioid-strength substance without a prescription. That has changed with the emergence of concentrated 7-OH products.

“A death that involved kratom and something else isn’t a kratom death — you can’t blame kratom.”

What they’re really saying: Because many kratom-related deaths involve multiple substances, advocacy groups argue the deaths shouldn’t be attributed to kratom at all.

Our response: This is a common argument, but it misunderstands how overdose deaths actually work. National data on opioid overdose deaths shows that when two opioids are present in the body together, medical examiners typically rule both as contributing causes — not one as the “real” cause and the other as incidental. That’s because the effects on breathing are more than additive: two opioids together compound each other. In fact, national data shows opioid-involved deaths increasingly involve more than one opioid at once — this is one of the most common patterns in the overdose crisis today, not a rare exception. A concentrated 7-OH product combined with another opioid isn’t an innocent bystander situation; it’s the same compounding-risk pattern seen across the opioid crisis.

We also use precise language here on purpose: a death can be kratom-positive (kratom was detected), kratom-involved (kratom contributed along with other factors), or kratom-caused (kratom alone was sufficient). Most reported deaths are caused by multi-substance exposure, and being accurate about that distinction matters — it’s also exactly why we don’t overstate individual cases.

“The industry-funded science backing kratom bans is biased. The ‘experts’ pushing this have conflicts of interest.”

What they’re really saying: Some advocates argue that the experts raising concerns about kratom have conflicts of interest, so the science can’t be trusted.

Our response: This argument actually cuts the other way. Much of the science most often cited in kratom’s defense was funded by the kratom industry itself, and those ties are not always disclosed. The core finding that 7-OH activates the opioid receptor has been independently confirmed by a completely separate research team with no kratom industry ties, at Columbia University, using different methods. The science doesn’t depend on any one lab’s credibility.

“Regulation works better than a ban — just enforce the rules we already have.”

What they’re really saying: Texas already has a kratom law (age limits, a concentration cap, labeling rules). Advocates argue the fix is better enforcement of that law, not a ban.

Our response: Texas already tried a concentration-based rule. The current law caps 7-OH at 2% of alkaloid content, requires labeling, and restricts sales to adults. Enforcing it took a full lawsuit and a court order: the Attorney General had to sue a Midlothian retailer and secure a temporary injunction after finding products sold at up to 96% concentration, nearly 50 times the legal cap, sold openly at gas stations and smoke shops. That’s not a failure of will. It’s the actual cost of enforcing a percentage cap: no one can verify it at the counter, so the only tool available is case-by-case litigation after the product is already on shelves and already being sold to Texans. A full ban removes the loophole instead of trying to sue it out of existence one retailer at a time.

“A ban criminalizes ordinary users and hurts small businesses, not the real problem.”

What they’re really saying: Prohibition sweeps up regular people and small retailers, not the manufacturers profiting from dangerous products.

Our response: We agree that enforcement should target the source of the harm, and that’s what we’re pushing for: the strongest enforcement tools — shelf removal, seizure, injunctions, and criminal liability — aimed at manufacturers, distributors, and retailers selling these products, not at people who happen to possess them. The final penalty structure, including how possession is treated, is still being negotiated with the Legislature.