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 writing to ask Governor Hochul to veto S8925-A. The bill is a single section that bans the sale of any product containing more than two percent 7-OH by total alkaloids, or more than one milligram per serving. It contains no testing requirement, no labeling requirement and no age limit - a cap is the only thing in it. It takes the tested, labeled product off the shelf in New York and puts nothing in its place, which moves people to sellers who test nothing. If the concern is potency, the answer is a lab test and the 7-OH content printed on the label, so the buyer knows what they are taking, not a ceiling that removes the product. Please veto it and ask the legislature to send back a bill that requires the 7-OH content to be lab tested and printed on the label instead of capped.
What it does
Read from S. 8925--A as amended and reprinted, 16 January 2026, Senate Committee on Consumer Protection.
- PASSED BOTH CHAMBERS, AND THEN STOPPED. The Senate passed it 61-0 on 2 June 2026; the Assembly passed it on 5 June and returned it to the Senate. As of 2 October 2026 the bill's action list still ends on 5 June, and the bill has not been delivered to the Governor.
- Once delivered, the Governor has ten days to sign or veto it (thirty if delivery falls after the session ends). New York does not publish the delivery date in advance, so the clock can start without notice.
- 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.
- We compared it line by line against Assembly bill A. 9156--B: the operative text is word for word the same. Opposing one and not the other achieves nothing.
- Introduced by Sens. C. Ryan, Ashby, Fahy, Harckham, Murray, Palumbo and Rhoads.
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
The restraint here is real and worth naming, both because it is fair and because these are the features to keep if the cap ever comes 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.
