Committee holds off on kratom ban

BOISE — Dozens of people from across the state crowded into the House Health and Welfare Committee on Wednesday and Thursday to testify on a bill seeking to ban kratom in Idaho. While users and sellers of the supplement spoke to its utility for pain relief, public safety officials cautioned about its susceptibility to abuse.

House Bill 864 seeks to classify derivatives of Mitragyna speciosa, known as kratom, as a Schedule 1 controlled substance starting July 1. If added to Idaho’s Uniform Controlled Substance Act, it would criminalize users and distributors across the state, in line with marijuana and other substances with a Schedule I classification in the state.

The supplement, which currently lacks any regulation in Idaho, comes from the leaves of a tropical South Asian tree and is currently sold for a range of purposes, including pain relief, anxiety and opioid withdrawal, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Allie Mathes, a Coeur d’Alene resident, spoke of her experience being adopted from Guatemala and lacking access to her family’s medical history. It led to her being diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis a few years ago, at which point it had developed into a “severe state” and had “already caused irreparable damage.”

Though prescribed opiate painkillers to manage the pain, Mathes said they either didn’t work or came with significant side effects that made it “impossible” for her to function normally. 

“Natural kratom has been different,” Mathes said. “It has helped me reduce my pain in a way that allows me to live a normal, functional and productive life.”

Divided testimony

The several hours of testimony on how Idaho should approach the issue centered around whether a distinction can be made between the kratom leaves and their synthetic alternatives.

Users, sellers and kratom advocacy groups were widely opposed to moving kratom to Schedule 1 and criminalizing current users, but offered support for new regulation. Law enforcement, physicians and individuals who lost family members to kratom, favoring more restrictive action, spoke in support of the bill.

Luke Cuccia, co-founder of the Eagle Creek Ranch Recovery, a drug and alcohol treatment provider in Canyon County, disagreed with kratom being promoted as a treatment to ease opioid withdrawal, as the substance was itself leading to consumption-related ailments.

Cuccia said he has observed a 225% increase in kratom use disorder at his recovery center. Under current Idaho law, kratom can be acquired by simply walking into a convenience store, but addiction has to be treated “the same way that we treat heroin,” Cuccia said.

Andrea Jackson, president of Jackson BevCo, said her company has been able to “safely and responsibly” sell kratom for 15 years by only selling natural leaf kratom and having its kratom product suppliers provide testing results from a qualified lab. 

Lora Romney, a kratom user, said she has taken kratom’s leaf form daily for nine years to address pain from a facial nerve condition. Since she began taking the drug, Romney said she has been able to reduce her pain to a “livable level.” Though open to restrictions for 7-OH, she cautioned that a total ban would result in Idahoans looking for other, more dangerous substances.  

If kratom is classified as a Schedule I drug, Romney said she would be made a “criminal for just trying to control my pain.”

Committee deliberation 

The committee was divided following testimony on what course of action to take, with several noting they were unaware of kratom and its uses before this legislative session. Rep. Megan Egbert, D-Boise, brought forward the first motion, opting to send the bill to the House floor with no recommendation. Though preferring regulation, Egbert said she feared the legislative session would conclude without any action on the substance. 

Rep. Rob Beiswenger, R-Horseshoe Bend, said the committee should avoid making a “bigger mistake” by recommending a ban on kratom. Beiswenger noted that Schedule 1 drugs are deemed to have no medical value, a classification he said contradicts the testimony delivered to the public. 

“We're going to potentially put people in jail for using this and I can't stomach it,” Beiswenger said.

Ultimately, it was the motion from Rep. Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, to postpone a decision until March 25 that prevailed in an 11-5 vote.