Ohio Lawmaker: Banning Kratom Outright Would Push It to Black Market; Strict Regulation Is Smarter Policy

Why it matters

A physician-legislator's call for a regulatory middle ground — rather than outright prohibition — reflects a growing debate among policymakers and clinicians about whether banning kratom will actually reduce harm or simply drive users to unmonitored black market products.

The big picture

Ohio's Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review considered an Ohio Pharmacy Board proposal to classify synthetic kratom as Schedule I, which would effectively ban its sale statewide. The debate mirrors battles playing out in dozens of state legislatures, where the choice between prohibition and regulation has divided lawmakers across party lines. Critics of full bans argue they eliminate oversight rather than eliminating risk.

Key findings

• Ohio Rep. Anita Somani (D-Dublin) — a physician — issued a statement opposing the Pharmacy Board's proposed Schedule I classification for synthetic kratom
• Somani warned that banning kratom would push sales underground, eliminating regulatory oversight
• She expressed support for age-21 restrictions, clear labeling and dosage rules, and banning the most potent synthetic forms
• Somani also supports placing kratom products behind the counter at retail stores, similar to pseudoephedrine and tobacco
• The Ohio Pharmacy Board's proposed rule would classify synthetic kratom as Schedule I — effectively banning it from retail sale statewide

What they say

"Banning kratom entirely would mean it would only be sold on the black market. That would prevent the proper regulations being put in place to monitor its sales and side effects." — State Rep. Anita Somani (D-Dublin)

Bottom line

An Ohio physician-lawmaker argues that classifying synthetic kratom as Schedule I would drive sales underground rather than reduce harm, and calls instead for potency caps, age limits, and strict labeling requirements.