CHESTERFIELD REGULATION COMPLICATES KRATOM SITUATION IN MISSOURI

It isn’t often that kratom is compared to other supplements or substances in a favorable fashion. 

A recent decision by one city in Missouri is changing that narrative. 

The city of Chesterfield, Missouri, recently voted on passing laws restricting kratom sales to adults 21 years and older–a relatively straightforward decision that other states and cities have made. What is unique is how the city came to that decision and the products that were considered alongside kratom when the council voted on the matter. 

During a meeting in July, the city council passed a regulation that customers must be 21 years old to purchase kratom or hemp-derived products. The measure also ensures that those products are only available behind the counter. Specific language on the regulations was not available from the city. 

At the meeting, city attorney Chris Graville said the driving force behind the measure was keeping products away from minors. 

“That’s really driven law enforcement and the chiefs in the metro area to really try to figure out a way to get some regulations to protect kids from it,” Graville said.

Statewide Stalemate on Kratom

Kratom regulations are not new to Missouri. A 2019 action by St. Charles County created a registration system and requirements for kratom sales. Ordinance #19-070 required kratom sellers to submit a registration application to be allowed to sell the supplement; it also created thorough label requirements, prohibited adulterants/synthetic alkaloids and limited the potency of kratom products. The age requirement in that ordinance was set at 18 years old for purchase. 

City and county officials have been thrust into this decision-making process due to inaction at the state level. 

The last attempt at a statewide kratom law in Missouri came in 2023 when a bill was introduced for a limited version of a Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA). That bill was House Bill 912 and initially sought to include strict label requirements as part of a plan to bar kratom retailers from selling adulterated kratom products. Changes were made in the committee to take out a lot of the specific wording from label requirements, leaving a more typical version of a KCPA up for consideration. 

That bill would have banned adulterants, limited potency of alkaloids and banned synthetic alkaloids in kratom products for sale. Simple label requirements were included in the bill–age requirements for purchase were not. There is a chance that the subject could have been raised if the bill had continued. Instead, it died in committee. 

No bill addressing kratom was introduced during the 2024 legislative session. 

Meanwhile, Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey launched an investigation earlier this year that could explain why local authorities have lumped kratom with hemp products. As part of a sweeping investigation into four companies producing hemp-based products, Bailey included a demand letter to CBD Kratom Connect LLC. 

The only issue is that the company listed in the investigation is unknown to the hemp industry in the state. There is a company called CBD Kratom that operates 60 retail locations, including stores in St. Louis, but it is unclear if that is the company Bailey intended to target. Bailey also sent a letter to an individual who no longer owns the kratom store in question; the Missouri Independent reported that the individual no longer lives in the state.

These actions show that Bailey can hardly keep company names and organizations straight, and calls into question his ability to make decisions and differentiates between the different supplements that are under the microscope in Missouri.  

Bailey’s investigation was launched alongside a push to ban “intoxicating hemp products” during the legislative session, steering the conversation away from kratom regulations. A large portion of the debates surrounding those hemp products centered around keeping the products out of the hands of minors–a sentiment at the heart of the age restrictions that passed in Chesterfield. 

As more legislative efforts move forward, kratom advocates are hoping that local lawmakers can keep the two products separate when it comes to accessing the risk associated with each. 

Kratom vs. Hemp-Based THC

From a scientific standpoint, kratom and any form of THC products have little in common. Kratom is often compared to other therapeutic substances based on the receptors affected by kratom’s alkaloids, however, research funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that kratom has a unique profile from most of its supposed ‘counterparts.’ 

The part that advocates DO believe that kratom should have in common with hemp-derived THC products is the level of access in the United States. 

Currently, CBD products and other forms of non-regulated cannabinoids (Delta 8, etc.) are legal in a wide majority of states. When it comes to CBD, it is legal in 47 states. For Delta 8 products, only three states have regulations on the books, including two that treat Delta 8 as part of the adult-use cannabis industry. 

Those numbers are often referenced by kratom advocates in public testimony when they point out that kratom is unrestricted at the federal level while most cannabis products are still Schedule I.

Six states are currently banning/limiting kratom sales, while 13 others have codified protections for a regulated kratom market. That means that more states have banned a substance that does not meet the requirements for scheduling than have taken action against a different form of a Schedule I substance. 

The difference in these numbers highlights the one area where kratom advocates ARE hoping that kratom can be similar to hemp-derived products: Widespread access and the ability for consumers to make their own choices.