What's moving

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 33, Chapter 2; Title 38; Title 39; Title 50; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to Kratom.

A full prohibition. Matthew Davenport's Law makes possession, sale and manufacture of kratom illegal across Tennessee, effective 1 July 2026. Not a cap, not a scheduling tier — a ban, including on possession, which reaches the person using it rather than the person selling something unsafe. Prohibition is never the right tool for kratom or its alkaloids. It does not remove demand, it removes testing, labeling and any means of knowing what you bought — the exact protections Sections 12 and 14 of our model act are built on. A regulated product can be made safer. A banned one just moves somewhere nobody is checking.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Adding mitragynine to schedule I of the uniform controlled substances act and reconciling multiple amendments to certain statutes in the Kansas criminal code.

Puts mitragynine — the primary alkaloid in the leaf itself — into Schedule I. That is not a restriction on kratom, it is a prohibition of it, and Schedule I is the category reserved for substances with no accepted medical use. Nothing in the bill turns on contamination, labeling or age. It is the exact move Section 13 of our model act is written against: potency and identity are not public-health findings on their own.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Relating to registration and enforcement of kratom products

A ban written as a definition. SB 985 amends what legally counts as a "kratom product" so that it must be natural and cannot be synthetically manipulated or chemically concentrated beyond the leaf's own alkaloid profile. No section says "prohibit" and no number appears anywhere — but any extract, concentrate or isolate, and 7-OH products in particular, stop being a lawful kratom product in West Virginia. That is a concentration cap and an origin ban at once, and it is precisely what Sections 5(c) and 13 of our model act rule out: origin and potency are not public-health findings. Section 27 has a name for the technique — prohibition by indirection. Redefining a product out of existence is the version legislators can vote for without anyone reporting that they voted for a ban. It is not all bad. Age verification for online sales is right, and close to Section 16(e); registration tracking is Section 6. Take those and drop the definition and this would be a decent law.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom product regulation.

The clearest example on this page of why "do you support this bill?" is the wrong question. SF 0056 gets more right than anything else that passed in 2026 — and still contains the one provision we cannot accept. Right: 21-and-up with an affirmative defence for retailers who checked a valid ID (Section 15). Labels carrying manufacturer, ingredients, serving size and a habit-forming warning (Section 14). Nothing packaged to appeal to children (Section 14(f)). And testing with real money behind it — over $134,000 appropriated for equipment and staff, which matters because an unfunded testing rule is not a rule. Wrong: the law limits how much 7-hydroxymitragynine a product may contain. That is an alkaloid cap, and Section 13 of our model act rules it out by name — potency is handled through testing, disclosure, warnings and age limits, not a ceiling. It also treats synthesised alkaloids as adulteration, which is Section 5(c): origin alone is not a public-health finding. Also worth watching: violations are a misdemeanour carrying up to a year in jail, which is steep for what will usually be a labeling failure, and the ban on vaporisable formats restricts a delivery method rather than anything about safety. Strike the cap and the adulteration definition and Wyoming would have close to the law we are asking for.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Prohibits the sale of kratom to individuals under the age of twenty-one; prohibits the sale or dissemination of information recorded during transaction scans; imposes a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars for the sale or provision of kratom to any person under the age of twenty-one; repeals certain provisions relating thereto; repeals certain provisions requiring a study on kratom; relates to the effectiveness of a chapter of the laws of 2025 relating to prohibiting the sale of kratom to persons under the age of 21.

A 21-and-up age limit with a civil penalty for selling to minors — Section 15 of our model act, essentially. It also bars sellers from disseminating the data captured when they scan an ID, which is a privacy protection most age-gate bills forget. We would have kept the kratom study it repeals, but this is close to what we asked for.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Requires certain kratom products to include a warning label with disclosures including, but not limited to, that kratom may be addictive and to keep it out of reach of children.

Requires a warning label covering dependence risk and keeping the product away from children. This is Section 14(b) of our model act almost line for line. Honest disclosure is the thing we have asked for from the start, and it is worth saying plainly when a legislature delivers it.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom products; modifying certain definitions; removing certain packing and labeling requirements. Effective date.

The title reads badly — "removing certain packaging and labeling requirements" — and we first read it as a straightforward weakening. Reading the enrolled bill, it is more mixed than that. It adds a definition of "independent testing laboratory" requiring labs to be unbiased and nationally accredited, and requires vendors to produce results from one, based in the United States, whenever the Department of Health asks. That is Section 12 and Section 3(l) of our model act, and it is the substantive gain here: independent accredited testing with a certificate a regulator can demand. Against that, it drops the calibrated measuring device that powdered products had to include, simplifies some labeling, and swaps the ban on therapeutic claims for a standard FDA-evaluation disclaimer. The measuring device is a real loss for anyone dosing a powder. The limits we object to — on 7-hydroxymitragynine levels and on synthesised alkaloids — are still in Oklahoma law, but they were not written by this bill. They came from the Kratom Consumer Protection Act it amends. Worth knowing when you decide who to call about them. One more gap: Oklahoma's age limit is 18. We think it should be 21, as Section 15 sets out.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

South Carolina Kratom Consumer Protection Act

On its provisions this is the closest any state has come to what we ask for. Twenty-one and up. Labeling that lists ingredients, serving size and safety statements — and that requires mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine content to be DISCLOSED rather than capped, which is Section 13(c) of our model act almost exactly. Solvent residue limits, which is Section 12. Civil penalties of $1,000 and $2,000 rather than the jail time other states reached for. The one thing we would change: it bans synthetic additives, which reaches 7-OH products regardless of how they are made, tested or labeled. That is Section 5(c) — origin alone is not a public-health finding. It is worth noticing that the bill asks for 7-OH content to be disclosed on the label and then bans the products that would carry that disclosure. A labeled, tested product is either safe enough to sell or it is not. Requiring the label and banning the product are answers to two different questions, and this bill gives both.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

A RESOLUTION relative to the regulation of Kratom.

Read this one next to Tennessee's HB 1649 above, and in that order. HJR 147 is a joint resolution, not a law. It changed nothing on its own. It stated the General Assembly's position that kratom should be strictly regulated or banned outright, citing drug interactions and fatalities, and it was signed on 2 May 2025 after passing both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support. Twelve months later Tennessee banned kratom outright. Possession, sale and manufacture, effective 1 July 2026. That sequence is the lesson. A resolution binds nobody, so it draws no organised opposition — there is no product coming off a shelf and nothing to sue over, and it is easy to conclude it is not worth a phone call. But a chamber that has gone on record supporting a ban has already had the argument, and had it with only one side in the room. The bill that follows is not starting from neutral. If a resolution about kratom appears in your legislature, that is the moment to call. Not the following session, when it is a bill with momentum behind it and a year of on-the-record support.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

AN ACT to provide for a legislative management study relating to the potential uses of kratom and the implementation of regulations of kratom in the state.

The opposite of what Tennessee did, and worth studying for that reason. HB 1566 regulated nothing. It directed Legislative Management to study how kratom is used and how it might be safely controlled — explicitly so that lawmakers would understand the plant before writing permanent law about it. Asking first. That study produced an interim working group, and that working group is drafting a bill for North Dakota's special session on 2 September 2026. At the time of writing it is not finished, which means there is no bill number to read yet and no text to oppose. That is not a gap. That is the window. Tennessee's legislature went on record supporting a ban before it had heard from anyone who uses kratom, and passed one twelve months later. North Dakota is at the point Tennessee skipped — the point where what people say still changes what gets drafted, because the draft does not exist yet. A study is the cheapest moment in the whole process to be heard, and the one almost nobody turns up for.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Prohibit kratom as a controlled substance

Would have designated kratom a controlled substance outright. Died without passage.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom

The House companion to S 0994, dead the same day. Same reading: its definition includes synthetically derived compounds rather than writing them out, and it requires 7-OH content on the label instead of capping it - but it carries the same 100 mg per serving ceiling on kratom alkaloids, which is a potency cap under Section 13(a) and something we would have asked to remove. Florida ended up with neither this nor a framework, and an emergency scheduling rule instead.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Florida Kratom Consumer Protection Act

Read from the filed bill. It is the most mixed thing on this page, and “we support the frame” was too soft a way to leave it. What is right, and unusual. Its definition of a “kratom product” expressly INCLUDES “an extract, synthetic alkaloid, or synthetically derived compound” of the plant. That is the opposite of the redefinition trick West Virginia and Suffolk County used to ban concentrates without voting on a ban - here a synthesised alkaloid stays kratom and stays regulated rather than being written out of the definition. The label must carry milligrams of mitragynine AND 7-hydroxymitragynine per serving, which is disclosure instead of a cap, Section 13(c) of our model act. There is no percentage cap on 7-OH anywhere in it. Add adulteration limits for metals, pesticides and pathogens (Section 12), third-party testing, adverse-event reporting, child-resistant packaging, 21-and-up sale in age-verified establishments (Sections 15 and 16), and a bar on mixing kratom beverages with alcohol. What we would not support. It sets a maximum dosage of 100 milligrams of kratom alkaloids per serving. That is a numerical ceiling imposed on potency, and Section 13(a) of our model act rules out exactly that - a cap on a protected alkaloid on the basis of potency or concentration, whether it is written as a percentage or as milligrams. Potency belongs on the label, which this bill already requires. And its violations are criminal - a second-degree misdemeanour - where our act and the better state laws use civil penalties. So: we would have asked for the 100 mg ceiling to come out and the penalties to go civil, and we would have supported the rest. It died in Senate Commerce and Tourism on 13 March 2026, which leaves Florida with no framework at all - and then an Attorney General's emergency rule scheduling 7-OH instead. That is the trade this page exists to show: the regulatory bill failing did not leave kratom alone in Florida, it left prohibition as the only tool anyone reached for.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom Modifications

"Kratom Modifications" — filed in the House file for bills not passed. The description says nothing about what it would have done, so we make no claim about it.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom Revisions

"Kratom Revisions" — filed in the Senate file for bills not passed. As with HB 0387, the summary is too thin to say what it would have changed.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Beverages containing hemp, THC or kratom; prohibit sale of.

Would have prohibited the sale of beverages containing hemp, THC or kratom — restricting by delivery format rather than by anything about the product's safety. Died in committee.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Outlaw kratom.

Titled, with unusual honesty, "Outlaw kratom." Died in committee.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom; add to Schedule III of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

One of three Mississippi bills that session proposing Schedule III for kratom. Scheduling by any tier restricts on identity rather than on any finding about safety, contamination or age. Died in committee.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom; add to Schedule III of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

A companion to HB 1712, proposing the same Schedule III placement. Died in committee. Companion bills are why killing one is not the same as winning.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom; add to Schedule III of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

Third of the Schedule III attempts in the same Mississippi session. Died in committee.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)

Kratom; add to Schedule I of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

Would have added kratom to Schedule I — the no-accepted-use category. Died in committee, alongside four other Mississippi bills the same session.

Read the bill text (opens in a new tab)