LAWMAKERS IN TEXAS CONSIDER REVISIONS, RESTRICTIONS TO EXISTING KCPA

Legislators in Texas took a step forward when the state ratified protections for kratom. 

One state senator is trying to drag them back to the starting line. 

A proposed law in the Texas state Senate aimed to take a step backward on kratom policy and schedule all forms of the plant. Then it hit its first committee stop, where a collection of advocates, experts and kratom consumers made the case to uphold the existing regulatory structure. That testimony led to a drastically different bill emerging as a substitute.

Although the committee received the message from the coalition backing kratom in favor of tighter regulation, the potential for another change to the bill has advocates' eyes on the Lone Star State with a little more than a month remaining in the legislative session. 

Texas’ situation is one of the most unique in the country after a flurry of action in recent years. In 2023, the state legislature passed a law that codified a Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) in the state criminal code. That law established a regulatory framework to protect legitimate kratom products and give consumers a layer of protection from bad actors. 

It wasn’t good enough for state Sen. Charles Perry. 

Original Intent of the Bill

That’s why Perry introduced SB 1868, a law that was intended to ignore the KCPA and place kratom in “Penalty Group 1,” essentially scheduling any form of the active alkaloids found in the plant. By lumping kratom in with a variety of synthetic and hallucinogenic compounds that are different from kratom, Perry painted a picture of a public health crisis based on the point of sale.  

“People don’t buy medicine from gas stations,” Perry said. 

The attempted smear of kratom didn’t stop there. Perry testified in front of the State Affairs Committee that kratom companies “blatantly violate federal law every time they sell these products” after alleging that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made it illegal to sell kratom as a dietary supplement. 

In reality, the FDA has twice attempted to schedule kratom and has fallen short due to a lack of data and scientific evidence. The way Perry presented the science on kratom also began to unravel before he finished his introduction of the bill. After sharply criticizing the plant, Perry acknowledged that natural forms of kratom “cause no significant issues” before turning his target to synthesized kratom products and other additives created by “smart chemists.” 

“Law enforcement has struggled to identify and test synthetic kratom and these products still have availability… being sold as safe and legal, but neither is true,” Perry said.  

Perry concluded that the only way to stop these products from being available is to ban all kratom products. Unfortunately for Perry, it didn’t take long for the gathered experts to prove that “neither is true” was a phrase better associated with the senator pointing fingers at the kratom industry. 

The picture Perry was trying to paint on kratom did not withstand the first person to testify during the public hearing. Tyler West is an analytical chemist and owns a Texas-based research laboratory that performs quality assurance testing on organic products. West criticized the wide-reaching language of the bill before directly turning his focus to the kratom regulations in the bill. 

West was clear: Perry’s claim about synthetic kratom products evading law enforcement and regulators was the opposite of the truth. 

“In my experience testing botanical consumer products, I’ve observed our kratom clients voluntarily adhering to rigorous safety standards, often exceeding FDA or USP guidelines for dietary supplements,” West said. “SB1868 unjustifiably groups beneficial plants and herbal products with substances of abuse despite their safety records and limited, if any, documented misuse.” 

Testifying alongside West was a former Utah legislator who helped pass the first KCPA in the nation, a former FDA regulator who once seized kratom products (and called prohibition the “exact opposite approach”) and Dr. Kirsten Smith, a researcher at Johns Hopkins who has worked for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). 

Those experts debated with Perry about kratom, who at one point attempted to cite a study that Smith helped author during her time at NIDA. Despite Perry's pushback, the gathered experts were resolute in their opposition to the bill and the concept of banning kratom. 

“There is no, at this time, clinical or scientific data to support the prohibition of kratom as being in the interest of public health,” Smith said. “Gas station heroin is a term that cannot be applied to kratom and may be used for some of the synthetic derivatives. Those again are a separate issue from kratom.” 

Also testifying against the bill were a variety of kratom consumers and advocates for individuals who use kratom as part of a daily routine. 

“The Kratom Consumer Protection Act is already in effect here in Texas, and it is not being enforced properly,” said Jeremy Steding, a kratom consumer who shared his personal story with the committee. “Banning kratom is not the solution.” 

The State Affairs Committee, which includes the legislator who sponsored the KCPA in 2023, eventually reported the bill favorably, but with significant tweaks based on the public testimony. Instead of banning kratom, the bill that emerged tightened regulations on testing and what type of kratom products are legal in the state. After experts warned about 7-hydroxymitragynine, and the products that artificially enhance levels of that particular alkaloid, the bill that emerged targeted those products and cut down the allowed amount of 7-OH in kratom products. 

Even if the bill stalls out, the existing KCPA targets synthetic products and has a limit on 7-OH that is in line with similar legislation in other states. That means that even if a new bill is not passed before the legislative session ends on June 2, kratom consumers in the state are still protected from the same type of products that Perry is attempting to target with this new proposed legislation.