Redefines any product over 0.5% 7-OH as “synthetic”, then bans synthetics.
We oppose this
Providing for the regulation and sale of kratom products; imposing a tobacco products tax on natural kratom products; imposing duties on the Department of Health; and imposing penalties.
What it does
Read from Printer's No. 3668, as introduced 22 June 2026. Section numbers below are the bill's own.
Section 2 defines a “synthetic kratom product” as one meeting ANY of four tests: 7-hydroxymitragynine exceeding 0.5% of the total alkaloid composition; mitragynine pseudoindoxyl above 10 parts per million; containing a synthetic alkaloid; or containing kratom while not being a “natural kratom product”.
Section 3(a) then prohibits the manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell any product caught by that definition.
Section 3(b) exempts persons registered under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and practitioners licensed to prescribe or dispense.
Section 4(a) requires processors and retailers to register annually with the Department of Health, with registration and renewal fees each capped at $100, and the fees ring-fenced to enforcement.
Section 4(b) bars sale to anyone under 21 and requires a transaction scan device to verify age — while forbidding the retailer from selling or sharing the scan data.
Section 4(c) and (d) require the processor's name and address, an FDA-disclaimer, a statement verifying the product is in its natural form, a keep-away-from-minors warning, and resealable child-resistant packaging.
Section 4(e) bars marketing that appeals to under-21s, makes medical claims, or resembles food, candy or beverages.
Section 5 sets civil penalties up to $10,000 per offense, with each day a separate offense.
Section 6 imposes the existing tobacco products tax on natural kratom, collected from the dealer or manufacturer at first sale to a retailer.
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.
We are not going to pretend this is a bad bill throughout. Strip out the Section 2 definition and much of what remains is close to what we would write ourselves — which is exactly why the definition deserves the scrutiny.
A $100 ceiling on registration and renewal fees, which does not price a small vendor out of a legal market.
Fees ring-fenced to enforcing the act rather than disappearing into general revenue.
A 21-and-over age limit with real verification at the counter.
Section 4(b)(2), which forbids the retailer from selling or sharing the age-scan data. Most age-verification mandates create a new pile of customer data and say nothing about who may buy it. This one closes that door, and we would like to see it copied.
Child-resistant, resealable packaging.
Marketing rules that bar appeals to children and lookalikes of food and candy.
Penalties aimed at the business, measured in fines, not at the person holding the product.
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
This is the whole objection, and it is a definitional trick rather than a policy. Section 2 does not cap 7-OH; it declares that a product above 0.5% IS synthetic, and Section 3 then bans synthetics. A leaf extract at 0.6% has had nothing synthesized in it, and the bill calls it synthetic anyway. Section 3(d) of our model act defines 7-hydroxymitragynine by what the molecule is, in any form — naturally occurring, extracted, concentrated, isolated or synthesized — because a definition that turns on concentration is not describing a substance, it is banning one and naming it something else.
§13
No Alkaloid Caps; Mandatory Disclosure
0.5% is the tightest line any bill we track has drawn: New York and Michigan both wrote 2%, and this is a quarter of that. Section 13 requires the concentration to be measured, printed and independently verified, with no ceiling. That is the version where the number reaches the buyer instead of removing the product.
§20
Penalties
Section 3(a) reaches possession with intent to deliver, which moves this out of consumer protection and toward drug enforcement. Section 20 of our model act puts penalties on a registered business that breaks a rule — a licence to lose, not a possession offense to answer.
§14
Packaging, Labeling, and Marketing
Sections 4(c) through 4(e) are close to Section 14 already: processor identification, an FDA disclaimer, child-resistant packaging, and marketing rules that keep the product away from children. We would add the alkaloid content itself to that label, which is the disclosure the 0.5% line is standing in for.
§17
We are not against taxing this. Section 17 sets an excise tax with a dedicated fund, so the revenue pays for the testing and enforcement the act requires. Section 6 instead borrows the tobacco products tax, which classifies kratom alongside a product it has nothing in common with and sends the money to general revenue rather than to the program.
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.
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 HB 2657 as written. Most of this bill is good — the age limit, the packaging, the marketing rules, the hundred dollar fee cap, and especially the rule against sharing age-scan data. My problem is Section 2. It defines any product with more than half a percent 7-OH as synthetic, and then Section 3 bans synthetics and reaches possession with intent. Nothing has been synthesized in a leaf extract at six tenths of a percent. That is not a labeling rule, it is a prohibition with a different word on it, and it is four times tighter than what New York or Michigan proposed. Fix the definition in Section 2 and require the alkaloid content on the label instead, and I will support the rest of this bill.
