Cato Institute: Prohibition of Concentrated 7-OH Will Backfire — California Should Regulate, Not Ban

Why it matters

A senior Cato Institute fellow testified before the California legislature that provisions effectively banning concentrated 7-OH would push consumers to unregulated sources, potentially worsening harm rather than reducing it — a policy argument gaining traction among libertarian and some medical voices.

The big picture

California's AB 1088 is one of the most consequential kratom bills in the nation, covering the country's most populous state and a major retail market. The bill's consumer-protection provisions — labeling, testing, age restrictions — have broad support, but provisions limiting 7-OH concentrations to trace amounts amount to functional prohibition. Testimony from across the political spectrum reflects a split between those who view concentrated 7-OH as categorically dangerous and those who argue the evidence for solo-substance lethality is weak and that prohibition displaces risk rather than eliminating it.

Key findings

• AB 1088 would establish testing requirements, labeling standards, and age restrictions for kratom products — provisions Cato supports — but would effectively prohibit concentrated 7-OH by limiting it to trace levels
• Testimony reviewed multiple widely-cited overdose deaths and found nearly all involved polysubstance exposure including fentanyl, amphetamines, sedatives, or prescription medications alongside 7-OH
• Fatal cases attributed solely to kratom or 7-OH are "exceedingly uncommon," per the testimony, though multi-drug interaction risks are real
• Singer argued that restricting legal access would push consumers to online, out-of-state, or illicit sources where product purity and potency cannot be verified
• California has regulatory precedents for alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco that could be applied to kratom rather than defaulting to prohibition
• The DEA has not yet initiated its review following the FDA's 2025 recommendation to schedule certain 7-OH products

What they say

"Restricting legal access may also produce unintended public health consequences. Thousands of consumers report using kratom or 7-OH to manage chronic pain, anxiety, post-traumatic stress symptoms, or to reduce their reliance on more dangerous opioids." — Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

Bottom line

The Cato Institute's California testimony argues that effective prohibition of 7-OH is likely to backfire by creating unregulated black markets, and that regulation rather than prohibition is the evidence-based path.