KRATOM BAN IN LOWELL BRINGS THE LOCAL-LEVEL DEBATE TO MASSACHUSETTS

For years, opponents of kratom have pointed to a lack of regulations, research and information on the plant as a reason to proceed with caution. 

Now, as more states take up regulation and more information comes out about kratom’s safety profile, logic would suggest the conversation would evolve beyond the ‘all-or-nothing’ approach of banning kratom. 

It appears that logic has not reached the city of Lowell, Massachusetts. 

The Board of Health for the city voted unanimously to ban kratom sales at the local level, despite objections from kratom consumers. The board took action against kratom due to the lack of regulation and the risk of dangerous products–two issues that kratom advocates agreed needed to be addressed.

This matter began earlier this year when the board heard testimony of a woman who said her son died after drinking a kratom-based seltzer drink. That kicked off a back-and-forth between the board and the Lowell City Council to draft an ordinance and schedule a public hearing for the Dec. 4 meeting of the Board of Health. 

Guidance of the Council

City Councilor Eric Gitschier showed up at that hearing to represent the council and came out swinging in favor of a ban on kratom. Before supporters of kratom had a chance to testify, Gitschier questioned the motive and background of those testifying against the ban. 

“In their community, they can have whatever they want. This is the city of Lowell, and we’ve looked at it. The City Council asked me to come here to speak and asked you to support the ban on kratom,” Gitschier said. 

On further inspection, the information gathered by the board, and the guidance presented to the council, raises some serious questions. 

In a letter written by Lisa Golden, the city’s Director of Health and Human Services, the council was given four sentences that briefly made a case against kratom without any research or information to support those claims. While Golden was correct that six states have banned kratom, the four states mentioned in the letter (Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada) HAVE NOT banned kratom. 

All four states listed by Golden are states that have passed kratom regulations protecting access to the plant. Utah was the first state in the nation to pass legislation that is known as a Kratom Consumer Protection Act. 

Other letters that supported the kratom ban pointed to a web page posted by the Mayo Clinic that contains no links to studies, data or direct information about kratom’s safety profile. One letter said that recreational users seek a “legal high” from kratom. 

The most recent information in those letters came from a kratom fact page generated in 2021. That doesn’t mean more recent information, including a groundbreaking study done under the supervision of the FDA, is unavailable. 

Setting the Record Straight

Dr. Kirsten Smith is a researcher at Johns Hopkins University and has contributed to NIDA, and testified earlier this year at a Congressional hearing about how and why kratom consumers use the plant. Smith’s research paints the picture of a product that is used as part of a regular dietary cycle. 

As part of her presentation, Smith tracked 13 different reasons that users gave for their choice to turn to kratom–seeking a high was not on the graph. 

“I should say, we did ask about (wanting to get high) and that didn’t even make it into this graph because it was not endorsed at a high enough rate,” Smith said. 

Back in Lowell, advocates for kratom did their best to communicate the latest research and a compassionate framing of access to the plant. 

Despite Gitschier questioning the motives and residency of those who spoke in favor of kratom, a lifelong Massachusetts native named Joseph spoke in opposition to the ban and the reasoning presented by the Board of Health. Joseph said that he and family members had dealt with a variety of drugs and substance abuse issues, but that didn’t mean that responsible consumers and manufacturers should be banned from the city. 

Joseph testified about products high in one specific alkaloid of kratom and said that anyone who understands the kratom situation would agree that certain kratom products carry a far greater risk than pure leaf kratom. During her testimony before Congress, Smith and her colleagues also talked about those products and how they should not be considered kratom products due to their unique chemical profile. 

For Joseph, that left a simple solution. 

“Leaf kratom is on the market, and I’ve tried it,” he said. “I’ve tried it for years… you asked ‘How would you regulate this?’ A good start would be giving everyone access to whole-leaf kratom.” 

Joseph was also hesitant to support highly concentrated drinks in favor of products derived from pure kratom leaf. In his example, a consumer would have to spend substantially more to replicate the potency claimed by the type of products that are banned in states that regulate kratom. That position was backed by the gathered scientists who briefed Congress on kratom. 

According to research and examples presented, kratom products enhanced with synthetic alkaloids still show the same primary alkaloids on lab testing. What isn’t shown is the level of synthetic alkaloids, and the example shown before Congress also highlighted unknown elements as part of the chemical profile of ‘enhanced’ kratom products. 

Joseph agreed with the assertion of the Congressional panel: It’s unfair to even consider enhanced products in the same way as pure kratom leaf. 

“They shouldn’t be in the same building, ever,” Joseph said.

Even with a handful of opponents to the ban, the ordinance was unanimously passed and will take effect on Jan. 2, 2025. 

Although it’s a blow to kratom consumers in the area for the time being, there is the potential for hope in the Massachusetts legislature. A bill was introduced in the previous legislative session that would legalize and regulate kratom, including strict limits on concentration and a ban on adulterants and synthetic alkaloids. It stalled out in committee in August but was reintroduced as Bill H.4985 for the current legislative session. Per Massachusetts state law, the legislature meets in January of every odd-numbered year, leaving just months until the matter could be taken up at the state level.