Two University of Mississippi students died this month with kratom products found on the scene. Authorities have not claimed kratom contributed to either death. That is the grim backdrop to a debate over whether kratom and a closely related chemical should be treated as controlled substances — and if so, how.
Kratom leaf products have been sold in the U.S. for decades largely without regulatory restrictions. The plant carries a known risk for physical dependence. Now a synthetic cousin is pushing the conversation forward. The substance at the center of the dispute is 7-hydroxymitragynine, also known as 7-OH, a semi-synthetic kratom derivative that is increasingly available as a more potent product than natural kratom.
The DEA’s July Proposal
In July, the Drug Enforcement Administration proposed temporarily designating 7-OH above a certain potency threshold as Schedule I. The proposal allows milder, natural kratom products to remain unregulated. The temporary designation could last up to two years, with possible extension for a permanent scheduling.
The public comment period on the 7-OH proposal ended Sept. 10 with nearly 36,000 submissions. That number reflects deep interest on both sides of the question.
Why Clinicians Are Concerned
Clinicians and recovery advocates warn 7-OH could be more addictive than kratom. Research is scarce. There is no settled science on how the two compare. But the warning flags are up, and the stakes are high for anyone using the products.
The deaths at the University of Mississippi have focused attention on the scene of the incident. Authorities have not claimed kratom played a role.
The Three Less Common Synthetics
The DEA has already moved three less common kratom-related synthetics into Schedule I without a threshold caveat. That pattern shows the agency has acted on specific compounds.
The July proposal treats 7-OH differently. The threshold approach means mild kratom products could stay legal while more potent versions face strict controls. That distinction matters for users, manufacturers and the states that now have to decide how to handle both.
State and Local Bans Are Already Happening
States and local municipalities have begun issuing emergency bans on 7-OH and in some cases kratom overall. The patchwork approach means different rules apply in different places, which creates friction for businesses operating across borders.
The American Kratom Association, known as AKA, says kratom is regulated under a looser dietary supplement law. The association has pushed back against tighter controls, arguing that existing oversight is sufficient.
AKA’s Public Policy Fellow Speaks Out
Mac Haddow, senior fellow on public policy at AKA, spoke at a recent Georgia committee meeting. His message was measured: “Can kratom products be regulated better? Yes.”
That is a notable shift from the organization’s earlier position. The association has spent years fighting tighter controls, but Haddow’s statement opens the door to improved oversight without embracing prohibition.
Shatterproof has helped about half a dozen states craft kratom policies based on marijuana legalization provisions. Around two dozen states have enacted some version of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act.
Critics say these laws usually don’t go far enough and can favor manufacturers over consumers. The criticism comes from people who want stronger protections, not from the industry itself.
The Case for Better Regulation
Utah and West Virginia are cited as well-regulated kratom markets. Both states take a more hands-on approach than the federal government has so far proposed.
Utah requires specialty tobacco retailers with a specific license to sell kratom. Products must be tested by accredited third-party labs before registration. The state recently prohibited sale of anything other than “pure leaf kratom,” including 7-OH products.
West Virginia funds enforcement through taxes on the products. The revenue stream supports the regulatory apparatus.
The two states offer a model for what a regulated market might look like. They combine licensing, testing and enforcement with a ban on the most potent forms of the product.
What Happens Next
The temporary Schedule I designation could last up to two years. After that, the DEA could move toward a permanent scheduling.
The public comments collected in September will shape that decision. Nearly 36,000 submissions reflect a wide range of views, from users defending their access to advocates worried about addiction.
The states that have already banned 7-OH or kratom outright will continue to enforce those bans. The patchwork approach means users in one state may face different rules than users in the next county over.
The Debate Over How Far to Go
The threshold approach, similar to what the DEA proposed in July, strikes the right balance. It would leave mild kratom products unregulated while criminalizing more potent ones. That preserves access for people who use the plant responsibly while targeting the versions that carry the greatest risk.
The deaths at the University of Mississippi are tragic, but they do not establish causation. The presence of kratom on the scene is not proof of its danger. What the deaths do prove is that the market exists and that people are consuming these products.
The patchwork of state bans is a stopgap measure. It is better than nothing, but it is not a coherent national policy. The federal government should act, and it should act carefully.
A measured approach respects individual liberty while protecting public health. That means regulation, not prohibition. It means thresholds, not blanket bans.
The debate over kratom and 7-OH is not going away. The deaths at the University of Mississippi have refocused attention on the issue. The public comments collected in September show that people care deeply about the outcome.
The DEA’s July proposal offers a path forward. It deserves careful consideration, and it deserves to be improved. The best outcome is one that regulates the dangerous products while leaving the safe ones alone.
That is the part worth watching.
Key Timeline
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| DEA 7-OH proposal announced | July |
| Public comment period closes | Sept. 10 |
| Emergency state bans issued | Ongoing |
| Possible permanent scheduling | Up to two years after temporary designation |
The Players
- DEA — Proposed temporary Schedule I designation for 7-OH above a certain potency threshold.
- American Kratom Association (AKA) — Says kratom is regulated under a dietary supplement law, opposes tighter controls.
- Shatterproof — Helped states craft policies based on marijuana legalization provisions.
- Utah — Requires specialty tobacco licenses and third-party lab testing, banned “pure leaf” kratom.
- West Virginia — Funds enforcement through product taxes.
The timeline shows the federal agency moving first, with states following behind. The public comments collected in September will shape the decision on whether the temporary designation becomes permanent.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the small kratom seller and is against any new rulebook that would raise the cost of entry for them while leaving the big players untouched. The deaths of two University of Mississippi students have brought renewed focus to the conversation, but authorities have not claimed kratom contributed to either death.
The July proposal by the DEA offers a path forward that respects the distinction between mild kratom products and the more potent versions. A threshold approach allows the former to remain unregulated while targeting the latter, preserving access for responsible users while protecting public health.
The paper’s position on regulation is clear: rules should target actual harm, not the whole market. When an agency proposes a rulebook that could raise costs for small sellers without touching the big players, the paper is against it.
Source material: “Kratom and 7-OH should be regulated, experts agree. They’re split on how,” STAT.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.