PROPOSED TAX HIKE IN WASHINGTON STALLS OUT AMID BACK-AND-FORTH OVER KRATOM REGULATIONS

As more states look to limit access to kratom products, the variety of regulatory mechanisms has expanded. Rather than creating clarity on the kratom question, the complexity of proposed laws led to a standstill in Washington state. 

A trio of kratom regulations was proposed during Washington’s legislative session, representing a range of regulatory structures and mechanisms to keep consumers safe in the state. Although it is unlikely that any of the proposed structures will become law during the abbreviated session, hearings on the bills opened the conversation, and lawmakers indicated an appetite to revisit the kratom question in the future. 

Two bills were introduced in the state Senate addressing kratom, including a bill that started as a requirement that consumers be 21 years old to purchase kratom products. The other is SB 6196, which was introduced by Sen. Rebecca Saldana as an attempt to impose a 95% tax on all kratom products in the state. 

On the House side, HB 2291 was proposed by Rep. Kristine Reeves and would introduce a Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) in the state. Unlike its counterparts in the Senate, the bill proposed by Reeves would focus on a robust set of regulations on the type of kratom products that can be sold, how they are labeled and a ban on artificially synthesized or enhanced products. 

Reeves’ bill would also set the same age requirement of 21 years old and require kratom products to be sold with child-resistant packaging. 

Dissecting the Different Bills

Although the three kratom bills use different mechanisms, the sponsors of each had similar reasoning to take up regulation of the plant: Protecting young people from an unregulated market. 

“As I looked into it, I thought it was worthy of a conversation, especially right now when I have two high schoolers,” Saldana said. “That is why I brought this bill forward.” 

Reeves’ bill was sent to the House Consumer Protection and Business Committee, and she made the case for regulation during the public hearing on Jan. 30. In her comments, Reeves indicated that her bill would focus on the same risk factors highlighted in updated guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

“I’m not trying to ban all kratom,” Reeves said. “The ban in this bill is really about removing the synthetic or chemically altered portion of kratom that turns it into a similar substance as fentanyl.”

During testimony for Reeves’ bill, medical professionals in the state applauded the clause that called for child-resistant packaging. In addition, Dr. Jimmy Leonard helped clarify for the committee the difference between natural kratom products and those with elevated levels of 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). 

Leonard clarified that 7-OH, which is found in trace amounts in natural kratom leaf, acts more like a traditional opioid. That is why Reeves' bill would set a limit on the amount of 7-OH allowed in a kratom product. 

“We want to make sure we’re getting this product regulated in the market,” Reeves said. “We’ve got to make sure that we’re getting this out of stores in its synthesized format–getting it out of the hands of our kids and community members to make sure that we’re providing for public safety.” 

Advocates Push For Reasonable Regulations

Tony Sermonti represented the American Kratom Association (AKA) during public testimony on the proposed Senate bill that would increase taxes on kratom products. The AKA also testified in support of the proposed KCPA and made it clear that regulation is a step in the right direction; the important part is what those regulations are trying to accomplish. 

“What we seek is banning 7-OH, a synthetic, concentrated substance that is being put into the marketplace that is highly addictive and is functionally an opioid,” Sermonti said. 

All three approaches to regulating kratom used taxation and fees as a major control mechanism. While the bill introduced in the state Senate was primarily about the 95% tax added to kratom sales, the proposed KCPA also included a significant excise tax on kratom products. The revenues from those taxes would be deposited in a public health initiative aimed at preventing young people from using harmful substances. 

The subject of financial burdens was the primary point of contention among those opposing the proposed kratom regulations. 

“While the association does not oppose fair, non-punitive taxation, (this bill) functionally treats kratom as a scheduled, controlled substance, which contradicts FDA science and fails to distinguish between lawful, natural kratom products and the dangerous synthetic opioids,” Sermonti said. “The association has worked for the passage of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act in more than 15 states, and we’re working on that here.” 

Molly Pfaffenroth is the Government Affairs Director for the Washington Food Industry Association and testified at hearings on all three proposed kratom bills. Each of the bills imposed a tax or license fee that far exceeded those for other regulated products, and Pfaffenroth made it clear to lawmakers that such an approach would only hurt businesses trying to operate in a safe, regulated market for kratom products. 

Of the three bills introduced, the only bill to receive any significant action was SB 6287, the bill aiming to add age requirements for kratom purchases. That bill was replaced with a substitute that was similar to the KCPA proposed in the House of Representatives, and was reported favorably to a second committee on the Senate side. 

Although one bill took a significant step forward, all three proposed kratom bills stalled out in the committee phase. Washington’s abbreviated 2026 legislative session comes to a close on Mar. 12. Even though regulations are unlikely to make it out of the 2026 session, the legislators behind the bills indicated an appetite to take up the kratom question in the future. 

“There is growing awareness of kratom as a drug that can be used responsibly for adults, but really should not be in the hands of young people,” Saldana said. “Longer conversations will be going on… I do look forward to working with the growing groups in this space if this bill does make it forward.”