IOWA CITY COUNCIL PULLS U-TURN, DECIDES TO DEFER KRATOM BAN

Momentum for kratom policy has been skewing in favor of regulation at both the state and federal levels in recent years. 

What happened in Iowa City shows that the same momentum may soon arrive locally.

An attempted ban on kratom sales was halted at the last minute, in large part thanks to the urging of the local medical community, as the Iowa City Council voted to defer the measure indefinitely. Instead, local leaders will urge the state legislature to take up the measure and regulate kratom after a series of intense back-and-forth discussions from both sides of the issue.  

Kratom discussions started earlier this year when local news reported that the council was taking up the matter. The first formal ordinance surrounding kratom was introduced at a meeting on Oct. 1, and councilmember Josh Moe moved to introduce the proposed ban. 

“I think just from a public health perspective and from a wanting to not have it be promoted in front of kids, for those reasons, I'm comfortable with supporting this ban, and I think it is in the public health interest of our city,” Moe said at the time. 

Setting the Stage

Two council members were absent at the first meeting, where the measure advanced by a vote of 4-1. Councilmember Andrew Dunn started the kratom discussion among the council and missed that first meeting. On his return, and after consulting with members of the community, Dunn formed a coalition that opposed banning kratom. 

At the time, the mayor provided the decisive vote and skewed the measure in favor of the ban advancing for a second time with a 4-3 vote. Per the Iowa City code, a measure requires three votes before it becomes law. That pushed the decisive vote to the Nov. 4 meeting of the council.

That final meeting began with the public comment period, which changed the tone, and set the council down a path toward discussing regulation. Despite agreeing that more could be done, Moe was the prevailing voice of the three council members who indicated they would vote for a ban the third time. 

“I agree that regulating this like tobacco or alcohol would be great,” Moe said. “But that needs to come from the state. It would be my goal that we could get the state to do that… If you’re searching for a way to do harm reduction I’m not trying to take that away.” 

Councilmember Megan Alter heard the arguments against kratom yet remained steadfast in her belief that banning those products would not solve the issue. In Alter’s eyes, voting to ban kratom would overstep the expertise of the council and would only hurt local kratom consumers.  

“I will push back a little,” she said. “I would wager that the people who use kratom know where to get the kratom that works for them, as opposed to ordering online where they really don’t know...the people who use this product know where there’s good and there’s bad.”  

“At one point or another, we have all stated our own ignorance about kratom, but this ignorance about kratom has been used to push the ban forward.” 

In the first two meetings debating an ordinance, that “ignorance” was fueled by a lack of expertise about kratom. The council collectively learned more about the plant and the challenges faced by the industry through testimony and back-and-forth debate. 

A pair of physicians filled the void and provided perspective and knowledge at the decisive meeting.

The Final Act

First up was Dr. Andrea Weber, an addiction physician and the board chair of the Iowa Harm Reduction Coalition. Weber was clear: The science around kratom, and what we know about the efficacy of the plant, is still in the early stages. That still didn’t stop Weber from speaking out against the heavy hand of restrictive policy. 

“I’m a student of historical drug policy, and unfortunately over about a century of U.S. policy says that when we ban a substance that already has a demand, that that tends to lead to more harm than having access to a legal, regulated drug supply,” Weber said. 

Following in her footsteps was a fellow Iowa Harm Reduction Coalition who took Weber’s message further. Dr. Chantal Rozmus delivered a message on behalf of a patient before moving to a passionate plea about what prohibition and restrictive drug policies could mean for public health in the local community. 

“Tonight I’m asking you to consider regulation in place of a ban on kratom,” Rozmus said. “By regulating kratom use and not banning kratom, Iowa City sets an example for the rest of Iowa… It states that we’ve learned from our past that bans are not effective. It states that we value education about substances over anti-drug rhetoric.” 

“I think what could be gained is a more robust, well-informed public health policy around kratom,” she said. “It’s a relatively unknown substance and requires much more education about its benefits and its risks. I see very few people who come to me because of kratom difficulties.”  

Due to the medical experts' expertise and passion, councilmember Laura Bergus told her peers there would be “no shame” in changing their minds. 

“It’s hard to imagine something as compelling as the speakers we’ve had the last two meetings, as far as the benefits of a substance that we are not equipped to regulate,” Bergus said. 

That sentiment was echoed by Dunn. At one point Dunn questioned the education and kratom-specific qualifications of the expert who had supported the ban and said he’d prefer to listen to the medical professionals who testified before the council. 

“I do trust the people in this room tonight,” Dunn said. “I’m hard-pressed at this point to be supportive of a ban. I would again reiterate a good potential middle ground would be for us to have a streamlined regulatory framework that goes along with our tobacco policies.” 

“Someone’s life is being affected if this ban goes into effect,” Teague said. 

Rather than say which way he would vote on the matter, Teague suggested adding kratom to the list of legislative concerns for the council and deferring the matter. Teague acknowledged the “real concerns” of councilmembers before ultimately asking the council to defer the measure indefinitely. 

Moe was the first council member to agree to defer the matter while continuing discussions, before making the formal motion to bring the action to a vote. The council decided to defer the matter by a vote of 6-1 and kept kratom legal to allow time for the state to hear their concerns.