Yours will be better than ours because it is yours. Change a word, say where you live, and stop — ninety seconds is a long call.
I am a constituent and I am asking you to oppose H.R. 8000. I understand what paragraph (B) is trying to do — it protects the leaf, and I give the sponsor credit for that. But it does not work. Paragraph (A) reaches synthetic equivalents of 7-OH, and a synthetic equivalent is the same molecule, so the bill would schedule a compound for how it was made rather than for what it is. Paragraph (B) only protects 7-OH still contained in the plant, so every extract made from that plant is Schedule I even though the plant made the compound. And the bill files 7-OH into subsection (b) of Schedule I, which is the opium derivatives list — heroin and desomorphine are on it. 7-OH is a kratom alkaloid, not an opium derivative. 7-OH should be tested, labeled and sold to adults, not scheduled. Please oppose this bill.
Read from the official XML of H.R. 8000 as introduced, 19 March 2026 (119th Congress, 2d session). The whole bill is two sections.
Section 2 amends Schedule I as set out in section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 812(c), by adding a new paragraph (23) at the end of subsection (b) of that schedule.
Paragraph (23)(A) covers 7-hydroxymitragynine “including its synthetic equivalents”.
Paragraph (23)(B) then excludes “7-hydroxymitragynine naturally contained in the plant of the genus and species name: Mitragyna speciosa Korth, also known as kratom”.
Subsection (b) of Schedule I is the opium derivatives list. The compounds already there are heroin, acetorphine, desomorphine, dihydromorphine, morphine methylbromide and their salts, isomers and salts of isomers.
That is the entire operative text. It does not reach mitragynine, does not schedule the plant, and adds no offense of its own beyond what Schedule I placement carries.
Introduced by Rep. Bilirakis and referred to Energy and Commerce, and additionally to the Judiciary Committee.
Read the text
Every version, newest first, linked to the legislature's own copy rather than a third-party mirror. The newest one is the text that matters; the older ones show what changed and when, which is often where the real story is.
The carve-out is a real attempt, and we should say so
Paragraph (B) exists to protect the leaf. Whoever drafted it understood that scheduling 7-OH outright would reach a compound the plant makes on its own, and tried to avoid that result. We would rather engage with the attempt than pretend it was not made.
The bill is narrow. It reaches one compound — not the plant, and not mitragynine.
Paragraph (B) tries to keep naturally occurring 7-OH out of Schedule I, which is the right instinct.
What our model act does instead
We are not asking anyone to do nothing. Every objection below comes with the clause we would put in its place — the full text is here.
§3
Definitions
The carve-out cannot work, and the reason is chemistry rather than politics. Paragraph (A) reaches 7-OH “including its synthetic equivalents” — but a synthetic equivalent of a molecule is that molecule. No assay distinguishes 7-OH a plant made from 7-OH a chemist made, because there is nothing to distinguish. The legal line therefore falls on provenance, and provenance is exactly what a laboratory cannot testify to. Section 3(d) of our model act defines the compound by identity in any form, for precisely this reason: a rule an analyst cannot apply is not a rule, it is a discretion.
§13
No Alkaloid Caps; Mandatory Disclosure
Read (B) closely: what survives is 7-OH “naturally contained in the plant”. A leaf qualifies. An extract of that leaf does not — the compound is no longer in the plant, it is in a bottle, though the plant is still what produced it. So the carve-out saves raw leaf and schedules every concentrate made from it, without anyone having to argue for that outcome on the record. Section 13 handles potency where it belongs: measure the concentration, print it on the label, verify it independently, and let the buyer decide.
§5
Scope of Protection and Regulation
Placement matters as much as wording here. Subsection (b) of Schedule I is the opium derivatives list, and 7-hydroxymitragynine is not an opium derivative. It is an indole alkaloid of Mitragyna speciosa, a plant in the coffee family, with no derivation from Papaver somniferum at all. Acting on the same receptor is not the same as being derived from the same plant — by that standard the list would need to swallow half the pharmacopoeia. Filing a kratom alkaloid among the opium derivatives is a categorisation the chemistry does not support, and it is the kind of error that hardens into precedent once enacted.
Who is behind it
Sponsors are not the enemy and treating them as one wastes the call. They put their name to this because somebody convinced them it would help; the job is to be the person who tells them what it will actually do. If one of them represents you, your call on this bill carries more weight than anyone else's — check whether they do.
