Section 15
21 and up
Photo ID at the counter. No self-service where a minor can reach it. No sale, purchase or possession under 21.
Our platform
Where we stand
We are not asking for kratom or its alkaloids to go unregulated. We wrote the regulations we want: 21-and-up, independent lab testing on every batch, honest labels, a dependence warning on the package, and real penalties for selling to a minor.
What we will not accept is a potency cap, or a ban dressed up as a rule. "Ban it" and "leave it alone" are both bad answers. Ours is written down.
The idea in one paragraph
Regulate the product, not the molecule
Most kratom bills work by naming a compound and restricting it. The model act works the other way round: it regulates how a product is made, tested, labeled, packaged and sold, and it does not care whether the alkaloid inside was grown, extracted, concentrated, or made in a lab.
That single move is what separates a safety law from a ban. A contaminated product is dangerous whatever its origin. A clean, tested, honestly labeled product sold to an adult is not made dangerous by having been synthesised.
Why we always say "and its alkaloids"
It is not throat-clearing. "Protect kratom" is a sentence a legislature can agree with while banning everything people actually buy — because the fight is not over the plant, it is over what counts as coming from it. West Virginia did not ban kratom. It amended the definition of a "kratom product" so that concentrates and synthesised alkaloids were no longer one.
So we name the target: kratom and all of its alkaloids — natural, extracted, concentrated, isolated, semi-synthetic or synthesised. If you only defend the leaf, you have already conceded the ground the bill is actually fought on.
What we support
Rules a regulator can actually check
Every one of these is in the model act, and every one can be verified by an inspector without taking these products away from the adults using them.
Section 12
Test every batch
Independent lab, before sale: alkaloid content, residual solvents, heavy metals, microbes, mould. A failed batch cannot be sold.
Sections 13 & 14
Say what's in it
Total and active alkaloid content, per package and per serving. Ingredients. Batch number. Who made it. On the outside, before you buy.
Section 14
Warn about dependence
An addiction and dependence warning on every label, alongside the adult-use and keep-away-from-children warnings. Not buried.
Section 16
Not at the gas station
Sales only through 21-and-up dedicated retailers, or online with real age verification. Not convenience stores or shops a minor can walk into.
Section 14
Don't name it after a drug
No product named after a controlled substance, a street name for one, or a prescription drug. Nothing dressed up to look like candy or like medicine it isn't.
Section 17
Tax it, fund treatment
A 6% excise tax that can only pay for addiction treatment, public education, and compliance testing. Reviewed at 24 months.
Also in the act: child-resistant packaging, business registration, chain-of-custody records, product liability insurance scaled to revenue, and random compliance testing.
What we oppose
Prohibition is never the tool
Not for kratom, not for any of its alkaloids. A ban does not remove demand. It removes testing, labeling, age limits and any way of knowing what you bought — and moves the product somewhere nobody is checking.
Tennessee did it anyway. Matthew Davenport's Law made possession, sale and manufacture illegal statewide from 1 July 2026 — reaching the person using kratom, not just the person selling something unsafe. What else has already passed.
Most bills do not say "ban" anywhere. These are the three provisions that get there without saying it.
Section 13
Alkaloid caps
A numeric, percentage, concentration or ratio cap on a protected alkaloid, imposed on potency alone. Potency is handled by testing, disclosure, warnings and age limits — not by an arbitrary ceiling.
A product can still be pulled, but only on written findings of a specific, unreasonable risk that labeling and packaging can't address.
Sections 3 & 5
"It's synthetic" as a reason
Natural kratom alkaloids and 7-hydroxymitragynine are protected alkaloids — including 7-OH that was synthesised, semi-synthesised, converted, refined or imported.
Origin alone is not a public-health finding. Nothing may be capped or banned purely for having been made rather than grown.
Section 27
Bans by indirection
Impossible insurance minimums. Unpublished standards. Endless implementation delay. Rules aimed only at imports. Informal "guidance" that suppresses a legal product without anyone voting on it.
And the most effective one: redefinition. West Virginia's SB 985 did not ban anything. It amended what legally counts as a "kratom product" so that concentrates and synthesised alkaloids no longer qualify. Same outcome, no vote on a ban.
If a state wants to ban something, it should have to say so out loud.
The part that gets misread
This is not "anything goes"
Opposing a ban on synthetics is not the same as saying every new compound should go straight to a shelf. The model act draws a line most bills don't.
Protected alkaloids — lawful by default
Natural kratom alkaloids, and 7-OH in any form. Subject to all the testing, labeling, age and packaging rules above — but lawful, and not cappable on potency.
Novel alkaloids — approval first
Anything else marketed for kratom-like effects needs premarket review before it can be sold: chemical identity, production method, safety data, proposed warnings, test methods. The agency answers within 120 days and must put a denial in writing.
And no gaming it
Renaming a compound, changing the packaging, or making a trivial chemical tweak to pass a novel product off as a protected one is a prohibited act under Section 19.
How to use this page
Read the bill against the list
Most bills are a mix, and that is why "do you support this bill" is usually the wrong question. Wyoming's SF 0056 is the clearest case: it passed in 2026 with a 21-and-up age limit, honest labeling, a habit-forming warning, marketing rules that keep the product away from children, and real money appropriated for testing — every one of those something we asked for. It also caps how much 7-hydroxymitragynine a product may contain, which is the one thing we cannot accept.
Support it or oppose it? Neither answer is much use. The useful question is which provisions are in it — and that is something you can check yourself in a few minutes. What has already passed has our reading of each one, and how to look up a bill shows you how to do it without us.
This is our position, not your script
You do not have to agree with all of it to be worth hearing. A staffer writes down what you said. Borrowed words are obvious and count for less.