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.
There is nothing left to ask a legislator about on A9156-B. The Assembly substituted the Senate bill S8925-A on 5 June 2026 and passed that instead, and it is the same text word for word. If you want to act on this policy, the ask is a veto from Governor Hochul on S8925-A.
What it does
Read from A. 9156--B as amended and reprinted, 17 October 2025, Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection.
- SUPERSEDED. On 5 June 2026 the Assembly substituted the Senate bill, S8925-A, and passed that. This bill is no longer the vehicle.
- Its text and the Senate bill's are word for word identical, so nothing was lost or gained in the substitution - it is the same policy under a different number.
- Adds a new section 392-l to the General Business Law. That is the whole bill; there is nothing else in it.
- Subsection 1 defines “7-hydroxymitragynine products” as any substance, material, mixture, compound, preparation, extract, or finished goods containing 7-OH above 2% of total alkaloids, OR above one milligram per serving — whichever is reached first.
- Subsection 3 bars any corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, online platform, or other business entity doing business in the state from knowingly selling, offering for sale, or delivering such products.
- Subsection 4 sets a civil penalty of up to $500 for a first violation and $1,000 for each later one, recoverable only in an action by the Attorney General.
- Penalties collected go to the New York state drug treatment and public education fund under section 99-jj of the State Finance Law.
- It takes effect on the ninetieth day after becoming law.
- Introduced by M. of A. Steck with thirteen others. It has been amended twice and recommitted to the same committee each time.
- Its Senate twin, S. 8925--A, carries word-for-word identical operative text.
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.
What it does not do, which matters
This is the most restrained of the bills we track, and the restraint is real. We are setting it out because a reader should be able to tell the difference between this and a criminal prohibition, and because these are the features we would want kept if the cap ever came out.
- It reaches business entities only. No individual is liable, and there is no possession or purchase offense anywhere in it.
- It is civil, not criminal, and it lives in the General Business Law rather than the penal code or the controlled substances schedules.
- Enforcement runs through the Attorney General rather than creating a private right of action or local prosecutions.
- Penalty money is directed to drug treatment and public education rather than to general revenue.
- The “knowingly” standard means a seller who genuinely does not know is not caught by it.
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.
§13
No Alkaloid Caps; Mandatory Disclosure
This bill is a cap and nothing else. It adds no testing requirement, no labeling requirement, and no age limit — there is no other provision in it. So the usual trade is not even on offer here: it removes a product from lawful sale without putting a single protection in its place. Section 13 of our model act does the opposite, requiring the concentration to be measured, disclosed on the label and independently verified, which is the thing that actually tells a buyer what they are holding.
§12
Testing Requirements
The bill bans products above a number and requires nobody to test anything or tell the buyer what is in the product. Section 12 requires independent batch testing with a certificate of analysis, and Section 13 puts the measured 7-OH content on the label, so the buyer knows what they are taking. That is what replaces a cap; measuring a cap does not make it acceptable.
§17
Excise Tax and Dedicated Fund
Directing penalties to drug treatment and public education is the right instinct about where money should go, and we would keep it. Section 17 goes further and funds the testing and enforcement the regime itself requires, so the programme pays for its own administration rather than depending on violations to fund it.
