VIRGINIA’S UNIQUE ATTEMPT TO BAN KRATOM SHUT DOWN BY ADVOCATES

Kratom consumers in Virginia thought that the issue was settled with the passage of a 2023 law protecting the plant’s legality. 

That didn’t stop a unique attempt at a ban from making its way to the state’s pharmaceutical board, which was tasked with weighing the will of a small number of people against the law passed through the state legislature and the voices of thousands of kratom consumers opposed to strict regulations. 

In the end, the petition to try and schedule kratom in Virginia was denied, in large part thanks to the support of advocates in the state, and kept the momentum in favor of regulation over prohibition. While advocates recognize this is just the latest tactic of kratom opponents, those closest to these legal discussions believe that the misinformation behind these attempts becomes more exposed with each new effort to ban kratom. 

The process kicked off when Jennifer Brandt requested a review of kratom’s status in the state by the Virginia Board of Pharmacy. Over the first 25 days, the petition was live and 20 comments were submitted in support of scheduling kratom due to the nature of the process. Rather than happening in a public forum such as the legislature or a city council, this measure was a petition quietly added to the state’s website. 

Then the kratom advocates were made aware of what was happening.

Protecting Previous Policy

In total, 2,920 comments were submitted, with the majority of those speaking in favor of keeping kratom legal in the state. The 20th comment on the petition was the first comment posted on June 3. The remaining 2,900 comments came by the time the public comment period ended two days later. 

Beyond the overwhelming public support for kratom, advocates were quick to point out the anti-democratic nature of the petition process. 

Kratom protections were signed into state law last spring with the passage of a Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) that was signed into law on March 26, 2023. That law set simple requirements for manufacturers and retailers selling kratom products, limited the type of kratom products that could be sold, and was in line with similar legislation passed in other states. 

In total the bill went through four committees in the Virginia legislature where it was tweaked at each step of the process and eventually passed both the House of Representatives (96-0) and Senate (40-0) without a single vote against the measure. With this petition, a group of around 20 individuals tried to rewrite state law using a different branch of government. 

The board went on to vote against taking action and said it “did not feel it possessed sufficient evidence at the meeting to determine that kratom has no medicinal value.” They did retain the right to research and review the matter at a future meeting. 

Understanding the Attempt

For advocates like Mac Haddow of the American Kratom Association (AKA), this is just the latest evolution of anti-kratom rhetoric fueled by some in the regulatory apparatus, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

The six states that have banned kratom did so at the encouragement of the FDA as part of an attempt to schedule kratom at the federal level. That attempt failed, and a follow-up attempt by the FDA to push for scheduling was shut down by the leadership in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) at the time. Those attempts to take action against kratom even spilled onto the international stage, with the United Nations eventually joining the group of governing bodies that refused to take action against kratom.

At each step of this process, the AKA and a group of scientists studying kratom have presented the available data and information to beat back attempts to ban kratom. 

With this most recent attempt in Virginia, Haddow said during a recent webinar that this is just the newest way that the FDA and other kratom opponents are trying to influence local officials to act against the plant. Despite their best efforts, Haddow was quick to point out that not only have there been no new bans on kratom, but the science and data have evolved enough to force the FDA’s hand to begin a human-use study of the plant. 

In the wake of the Virginia petition being beaten back by public pressure, Haddow was quick to compare the situation to the FDA’s original attempt to schedule kratom and the public outcry it created. 

“I had a general understanding that there were people in the kratom community who were incensed by this recommendation,” Haddow said, “but I can tell you frankly I had no idea of the power that the kratom advocacy community would be able to exhibit.” 

Those advocates reached out to their members of Congress and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) directly at a rate Haddow said had never been seen by the public affairs liaison he spoke with at the time. The avalanche of letters and pressure on public agencies forced the federal agencies to take a closer look at kratom and eventually refuse to act on scheduling kratom. 

So while Haddow was quick to acknowledge that the “battlefield has changed” in terms of how certain agencies are attempting to ban kratom, he’s confident in the prevailing science around attempts by bad faith actors to take action against kratom. 

“It’s still the same lie that it was in 2016 that it is today in 2024,” Haddow said.