Skip to content
Status last checked 9 October 2026 · always confirm against the official bill text before you act
Haven Access
Latest
Rensselaer County, NY total kratom ban signed into law NY 7-OH cap passed both houses — still not delivered to Hochul 14 OctSaratoga County, NY hearing on a total kratom ban 14 OctDEA notice: 7-OH and MP into Schedule I above a new threshold — order as early as 13 Nov 6 OctQuincy, WA hears a kratom ban — no vote, most comments ask for regulation 5 OctPennsylvania House passes HB 2657 202-0 — its extract ban goes to the Senate 2 OctMoses Lake, WA 21+ kratom rule in force — an age limit, not a ban 1 OctNaperville, IL ban on all kratom sales now in force 28 SepBellingham, WA bans all kratom sales 6-0 — jail time from 13 Oct 25 SepNew Jersey adds the 3 DEA-scheduled synthetics to Schedule I

← All bills

PA HB 2657

Passed the House 202-0 on 5 October: anything over 0.05% 7-OH, and every kratom extract, would be “synthetic” and banned.

We oppose this

Providing for the regulation and sale of kratom products; imposing a tax on natural kratom products; establishing the Kratom Regulatory Fund; imposing duties on the Department of Health and the Department of Revenue; and imposing penalties.

What to say Find who to call Is my rep a sponsor?

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 HB 2657 as amended. Parts of it are good — the age limit, the hundred dollar registration cap, the rule against sharing age-scan data, the dependence warning, and a tax that pays for the program. But the September amendments made the core of it much worse. Any product with more than five hundredths of a percent 7-OH, and every kratom extract, is now defined as synthetic and banned, with up to five years in prison for selling one. Nothing has been synthesized in a leaf extract, and how a product was made is not a reason to ban it. If the worry is potency, the answer is a lab test and the 7-OH content printed on the label, not a line that bans everything above it. Take the 0.05 percent line and the extract ban out of Section 2, require lab testing with the alkaloid content on the label, and I will support the rest of this bill.
Find who to call How a call goes

What it does

Read from Printer's No. 3980, as amended on second consideration in the House on 30 September 2026 and passed by the House on 5 October. Section numbers below are the bill's own.

  • AMENDED ON 30 SEPTEMBER, AND TIGHTER. Printer's No. 3980 replaces the version this page first described. The line between lawful and banned moved from 0.5% of total alkaloids to 0.05% of dry weight — the threshold the DEA proposed federally in July, before replacing it in October — and every kratom extract is now on the banned side of it.
  • Section 2 defines a “natural kratom product” as dried leaf or raw leaf powder that contains no kratom extract, has no more than 0.05% 7-OH on a dry weight basis, and is mixed with nothing except an inert capsule.
  • Section 2 then defines a “synthetic or semi-synthetic kratom product” as anything containing more than 0.05% 7-OH on a dry weight basis, any mitragynine pseudoindoxyl at all, or any synthetic 7-OH or mitragynine pseudoindoxyl — and, separately, any kratom product that is not a natural kratom product. An extract made from nothing but leaf is caught by that last clause.
  • Section 3(a) prohibits the manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell any synthetic or semi-synthetic kratom product. Section 3(b) exempts persons registered under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act and products licensed by the FDA.
  • Section 5(a) makes a knowing or intentional violation of Section 3(a) a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $15,000, up to five years in prison, or both.
  • Section 4(a) requires processors and retailers to register annually with the Department of Health, with registration and renewal fees each capped at $100. The Department may suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a registration.
  • 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 with a lot or batch code, production date and net weight; an FDA disclaimer; a statement that the product is in its natural form; warnings to keep it from children and against use by minors or anyone pregnant or breastfeeding; the notice “WARNING: KRATOM MAY CAUSE DEPENDENCE AND OPIOID-LIKE WITHDRAWAL. USE MAY IMPAIR JUDGMENT.”; and resealable child-resistant packaging. The label does not have to state any alkaloid content.
  • Section 4(e) bars packaging that mimics a food or beverage brand, suggests government approval, appeals to children with cartoons or colour schemes, or makes medical claims.
  • Section 5(b) sets civil penalties of up to $10,000 per offense for Section 4, with each day a separate offense. Section 5(c) lets the Attorney General and local police enforce the act, lets a municipality pull a business licence after a third violation, treats a violation as an unfair trade practice, and gives an injured consumer the right to sue.
  • Section 6 replaces the tobacco products tax with a 12% tax on the retail price of natural kratom products, and Section 7 puts that tax and the registration fees in a Kratom Regulatory Fund: 75% to the Department of Health to run the act, 25% to the Attorney General to enforce it.
  • Sections 3 to 6 take effect 180 days after enactment. Nothing in the bill requires anyone to test a product for 7-OH.

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 gets right, and some of it got better

Strip out the Section 2 definitions and much of what remains is close to what we would write ourselves — and the September amendments improved parts that were already good. That is exactly why the definitions deserve the scrutiny.

  • A $100 ceiling on registration and renewal fees, which does not price a small vendor out of a legal market.
  • A dedicated Kratom Regulatory Fund: the tax and the fees pay for administering and enforcing the act instead of 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.
  • A plain dependence warning on every package, and lot or batch tracing so a bad batch can be found and pulled.
  • Child-resistant, resealable packaging, and marketing rules that keep the product away from children and from lookalikes of food and candy.

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 regulate 7-OH; it declares that a product above 0.05% IS synthetic, and that any extract IS synthetic, and Section 3 then bans synthetics. A leaf extract 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.

§5

Scope of Protection and Regulation

Section 3(a) now reaches semi-synthetic products as well as synthetic ones, and bans synthetic 7-OH at any level. Section 5(c) of our model act rules out capping or banning a product solely because it was made rather than grown: origin alone is not a public-health finding.

§13

No Alkaloid Caps; Mandatory Disclosure

0.05% of dry weight is the line the DEA proposed in July, and North Dakota wrote into law in September; the New York and Michigan bills drew theirs at 2% of total alkaloids. 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.

§12

Testing Requirements

The bill draws its line at 0.05% and puts no testing requirement anywhere in it. 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 is in the product. That replaces the line; it does not police it. A potent product is a labeling question, not a reason to ban it.

§20

Penalties

Section 5(a) makes a violation of Section 3(a) a misdemeanor carrying up to five years in prison, and Section 3(a) reaches possession with intent to sell. That moves an extract from consumer protection into drug enforcement. Section 20 of our model act puts penalties on a registered business that breaks a rule — scaled to its revenue, with a licence to lose rather than a prison term.

§14

Packaging, Labeling, and Marketing

Sections 4(c) and 4(d) are close to Section 14 already, and the dependence warning added in September is the one Section 14(b) asks for. We would add the alkaloid content itself to the label — the disclosure the 0.05% line is standing in for.

§17

Excise Tax and Dedicated Fund

The September amendments answered our objection to the tax. Section 6 no longer borrows the tobacco products tax; it sets a 12% retail tax, and Section 7 sends it, with the fees, to a dedicated fund for administration and enforcement. That is the structure Section 17 of our model act sets out.

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.