RHODE ISLAND'S VETO: A SETBACK FOR KRATOM LEGALIZATION EFFORTS

Rhode Island was poised to become the first state to flip a kratom ban into regulations for a legal market with a bill that made it through the state house on the final day of the legislative session.

With a single swish of his signature on June 26, Governor Daniel McKee undid all of that groundwork from this session and sent kratom advocates back to the start.

A flurry of actions late in the legislative session set the stage to flip its kratom policy: Both houses of the legislature passed bills, then remedied the differences, and got a compromise bill to the governor’s desk on the final day of the session. On his final day to act, McKee instead opted to listen to the same health department and state regulatory agencies that helped ban kratom in the first place and vetoed the bill passed by the officials elected to set policy.

The two bills that eventually formed “Substitute A” (the proposed law that was vetoed) were titled H7231 in the House and S2704 in the Senate, and were set to replace the scheduling of kratom as a controlled substance with a “Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA).” The two bills were introduced by Democratic legislators and included an extensive back-and-forth in their collective chambers before the substitute bill was passed.

What emerged was a bill that laid out a version of a KCPA that was similar to laws passed in 13 other states in recent years. It defined kratom as a food product, set standards to prevent adulterated kratom products from being sold and included label and age requirements. With the increased scrutiny of trying to overturn a kratom ban by passing regulations, this version of a KCPA also included unique elements to address specific concerns.

Ramping Up Kratom Regulation in Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s proposed law included a ban on kratom products that “mimics a candy product or is manufactured, packaged, or advertised in a way that appeals to underage individuals.” The bill also included verbiage that would require recommendations to consult a healthcare professional, a statement that kratom may be habit-forming and a recommended number of servings that could be “safely consumed” in 24 hours.

Lawmakers carefully considered the science, listened to concerns and pieced together a bill to try and address the concerns around legalizing kratom sales in the state. In the House, the bill was passed by a 39-20 margin (with 16 no votes) and in the Senate it made it through 19-14 (4 no votes).

None of that mattered in the face of pushback from state agencies.

Almost two weeks after the session ended, McKee acted on the bill on June 27 and vetoed the measure with a statement of disapproval. McKee pointed to recommendations from seven different state agencies to reject the bill.

“Due to the overwhelming opposition to this Act by multiple state agencies, the medical community, and the Office of the Attorney General, I cannot support this Act,” he wrote in his message.

‘Validating’ the Governor McKee’s Veto

Under further scrutiny, kratom advocates questioned many aspects of McKee’s reasoning, with Edwards telling the local press that he does not expect an override of the veto. Instead, Edwards said he looks forward to “working with the governor and his team next year to enlighten them.”

Edwards is working against vague pushback from medical professionals, supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with a few unique twists from other state agencies who urged the governor to veto this measure.

McKee started his explanation by referencing the various health agencies that objected kratom legalization, but rather than citing specific scientific evidence, he referenced a lack of data and leaned on “reports” and “potential’ negatives of kratom while citing the FDA’s similar concerns. That portion of the message also included concerns about the accessibility of kratom to “youth” despite the bill including an age limit and specific wording to keep kratom away from minors.

With the inclusion of the FDA in McKee’s reasoning, Mac Haddow of the American Kratom Association said it is clear: The same momentum that got kratom banned in the state is still clouding the decision-making process of leadership in the state.

“It is clear we have more work to do with Governor McKee to show him that the Rhode Island Department of Health made a significant mistake in scheduling kratom in 2017 based on the FDA’s promise that kratom would be scheduled quickly at the federal level,” Haddow said in a statement.

Beyond the health concerns, a pair of state agencies did their best to create confusion and potential headaches for the governor.

The Division of Taxation requested a veto because it said “it cannot confidently determine for tax purposes whether kratom is a controlled substance (sic), food and food ingredients, and dietary supplements.” Similar to the age limit, the bill’s authors tried to address this concern by including language that solved the issue. It still didn’t matter as multiple state agencies used the same excuse to object to the proposed law.

Likewise, the Attorney General’s office opposed the bill because it “quite simply lacks the knowledge and expertise to undertake the significant role of regulation of a new controlled substance,” despite language identifying kratom as a food ingredient, rather than a controlled substance.

Other issues, such as the lack of specific funding for regulation, were cited by McKee, who also left the door open to “review and discuss these issues and examine the manner in which other states have regulated kratom.”