COLORADO’S PROPOSED LAW DRAWS MIXED REACTION FROM KRATOM COMMUNITY

Colorado was one of the first to adopt robust kratom regulations, putting them at the forefront of states with progressive policies on the plant. 

Now they’re coming back for a revision of that policy, and it’s drawing questions from industry advocates and local kratom businesses due to concerns about overregulation. 

A new bill that is working its way through the Colorado State Senate is presented as a proposal to strengthen consumer protections and target “supercharged” kratom products. At the same time, it contains a new set of fees and a registration system that drew opposition from local kratom producers. Even with a handful of amendments already, the bill finds itself in a tug-of-war between protecting consumers and creating a barrier of entry for small businesses operating in the kratom space. 

With a few weeks left for the proposed law to progress, the situation has created a showdown between listening to local voices and the need to protect customers from emerging dangerous trends. 

“In 2022, the Colorado Assembly established some guard rails for the manufacture and sale of kratom in Colorado,” said Sen. Kyle Mullica, a prime sponsor of the bill. “The Colorado General Assembly has not passed any additional regulations on kratom since that report was released–now is the time to modernize Colorado’s kratom regulations in line with the kratom feasibility report.” 

The main feature of SB25-072 is a new restrictive structure on synthesized kratom products and products with dangerous concentrations of alkaloids beyond natural levels. There are a variety of specific wording changes and a handful of new clauses that would be introduced to existing kratom regulations to target the type of products and practices that Mullica said are causing harm in the market. 

“Kratom deaths are occurring not only because of supercharged kratom but because it’s mixed with other illicit drugs and over-the-counter drugs,” Mullica said, continuing: 

“Many consumers mistakenly believe that the state has done its due diligence to effectively regulate kratom, which is commonly marketed as healthy and natural–even when it is chemically altered and potentially dangerous,” he said. “To that end, it is too easy for consumers to take supercharged kratom products with devastating consequences.” 

Alongside those changes to the type of products that can be offered, the proposed bill also adds changes to manufacturing standards, most noticeably a fee that would be imposed for each manufacturer to register individual kratom products. In theory, those fees would go to a general fund that would finance kratom enforcement. 

“This is the balanced approach the legislature has been calling for since 2022,” Mullica said.  

The bill was introduced in the Senate and assigned to the Finance Committee as its first stop on the legislative carousel. During the hearing on the bill, the committee passed two amendments that cleaned up the language and intent of the bill before it was unanimously advanced to the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

That vote took place at a hearing for the bill on Feb. 4. The proposed law is still waiting to be taken up by Appropriations. 

During the hearing, however, the two sides made their cases clear. 

Of the more than 20 individuals who testified on the bill, an overwhelming majority either outright testified against the bill or had serious reservations about the amount of regulation included. Most were local business owners who voiced their opinion that this type of regulation would force smaller producers out of the market and raise costs across the board. 

There was also an issue of two different advocacy groups clashing over the level of regulation required. The American Kratom Association was the only group that showed up for the meeting, and Mac Haddow spoke on behalf of his organization about why they opposed the proposed law. 

In addition to concerns over fees and the burden on producers, Haddow pointed out that some of the wording on the robust regulation was similar to a law that stalled in California. Like that failed piece of legislation, Haddow said some of the regulations included in the proposed Colorado law would be unenforceable. 

“You would have to be in Indonesia watching them pluck the leaves and then go through the drying process and the processing in order to verify that it’s the case,” Haddow said. 

While there was back-and-forth over the burden of regulation, there was one aspect of the legislation that all parties supported: The targeting of synthetic kratom products or those with amplified concentrations. The bill's sponsors continually referenced these products throughout the testimony, as did the majority of the voices who opposed the proposed bill. 

“People that are spending $100 to $500 a day; people that are in their car late at night because they need another 7-hydroxy fix in order to be able to help themselves,” said Dr. Michael White, who spoke in favor of the bill. “Those new alkaloids are really different. Some of these new products are saying they have these alkaloids that no one has ever heard of before.” 

Not all of the local voices agreed on the effect of more robust regulation, either.  

According to a woman who owned a kratom store in Denver, requiring a registration fee is a burden, but it’s a burden that allows regulators to enforce the laws and make sure everyone is playing on a level playing field. Without this type of regulation, she said the bad actors will benefit without bearing the same burdens as responsible kratom sellers. 

“These businesses, however, continue to sell their products in the state without consequence,” she said, “and meanwhile the small fraction of businesses like mine, who are committed to following the laws to protect consumers, are bearing the financial burden for everybody else.” 

“If this continues, companies like mine will go out of business and we’ll be left with vendors who are willing to cut corners for a profit.”