Skip to content
Status last checked 7 October 2026 · always confirm against the official bill text before you act
Haven Access
Latest

← All bills

MI HB 5537

Makes growing, giving or selling kratom a crime, and defines 7-OH as “synthetic”.

We oppose this

Crimes: controlled substances; production and sale of kratom; prohibit. Amends 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.1 - 750.568) by adding sec. 473a.

If you call, say this

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 the substitute for House Bill 5537, which is now in Senate Government Operations. It makes growing or even giving kratom a misdemeanor with jail time. And its definitions do not work: section 473a(3)(b) calls 7-OH a synthetic form of kratom, when 7-OH occurs naturally in the leaf and is what the body makes from mitragynine. Because the bill also defines kratom to include the leaf and every preparation of it, natural leaf would contain a so-called synthetic variant, and the FDA exception excludes synthetic variants — so the exception reaches nothing. Please do not pass a criminal statute whose definitions contradict each other. Regulate these products instead: age limits, lab testing and honest labels.

What it does

Read from the House substitute as engrossed 18 March 2026, adding section 473a to the Michigan penal code.

  • Section 473a(1) provides that a person shall not grow, synthesize, sell, offer to sell, give, import, or distribute kratom or a synthetic variant of kratom. Growing the plant and giving it to someone are both offenses; simple possession is not covered.
  • A first offense is a misdemeanor of up to 90 days and a $5,000 fine. A second is up to 180 days and $10,000. Selling or giving to anyone under 18 is up to a year and $10,000, rising to $20,000 on a repeat.
  • Section 473a(3)(a) defines kratom as any part of the plant “whether growing or not”, the leaves, any extract or resin, and every compound, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant, its leaves, seeds or extracts. There is no potency threshold anywhere in the bill.
  • Section 473a(3)(b) defines a “synthetic variant of kratom” as any synthetic form of kratom, “including, but not limited to, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH)”.
  • Section 473a(2) exempts kratom approved by the FDA as a drug product, dietary supplement, or food additive — but states that this exception does not apply to a synthetic variant.
  • It sits in the penal code (1931 PA 328), not in food or consumer protection law, and takes effect 90 days after enactment.
  • The engrossed text spells the plant “Mitragyna speciose”. The species is Mitragyna speciosa.

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 one restraint in it

There is very little here to agree with, but one thing is worth saying plainly, because it is the difference between this bill and Tennessee's.

  • It does not criminalize simple possession. The offenses reach growing, selling, importing and distributing — not the person holding the product. That is a real distinction and we would rather it stayed in.

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

Section 473a(3)(b) defines 7-OH as a synthetic form of kratom. It is not. 7-hydroxymitragynine occurs naturally in the leaf and is the compound the human body makes from mitragynine — calling it synthetic in a statute does not make it so, it just means the statute describes something that does not exist. And the error compounds: because subsection (3)(a) sweeps in the leaf and every preparation of it, and the leaf naturally contains 7-OH, the two definitions overlap. Read literally, natural leaf contains a “synthetic variant”, which means the FDA exception in (2) — which expressly does not cover synthetic variants — cannot reach any kratom product at all. Whatever one thinks of prohibition, that drafting needs fixing before anyone votes on it. Section 3(d) of our model act defines the molecule by what it is in any form, which is the only definition a laboratory can actually test against.

§5

Scope of Protection and Regulation

This is a criminal statute, not a consumer protection one. Section 5 keeps kratom alkaloid products inside a regulatory scheme, where a product can be tested, labeled, age-gated and recalled. Once there is no lawful seller, none of those things can be required of anyone.

§15

Youth Access Restrictions

Subsections (c) and (d) punish sale to under-18s more heavily than sale to adults, which reads like a youth-protection measure. It cannot function as one: the bill bans sale to everybody, so no lawful retailer remains to check an ID. Section 15 sets a 21-and-over limit and puts the duty on a licensed seller — which requires there to be one.

§12

Testing Requirements

Prohibition does not remove the product, it removes the paperwork. Section 12 requires independent batch testing and a certificate of analysis; that is the first protection to disappear when a market moves to people who are not registered with anyone.

§20

Penalties

Section 20 puts penalties on a registered business that breaks a rule — fines and the loss of a licence. This bill reaches conduct with jail time attached, including giving kratom to another adult.

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.