Kratom, derived from the Mitragyna speciosa tree native to Southeast Asia, has been used for centuries in traditional medicine for its stimulant and pain-relieving properties. In recent years, it has gained widespread popularity in the United States as an alternative treatment for pain management, opioid withdrawal symptoms, and mental health issues. However, concerns over its safety and potential for abuse have made it a polarizing topic among policymakers and health professionals.
The Push Behind House Bill 1101
The bill was introduced during the 69th Legislative Assembly session and is sponsored by Representative Jeremy Olson, a Republican from District 26. Olson stated that he presented the bill on behalf of Providence House, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center in Arnegard. According to Logan Jangula, clinical director at Providence House, kratom’s widespread availability in gas stations and convenience stores across North Dakota has raised alarms about its potential for addiction.
“Kratom is available at any gas station or corner store,” Jangula explained. “At low doses, it acts like a stimulant, and at high doses, it acts like an opioid because it attaches to the same receptor cell in the brain. It can cause problems, and some people actually have to take suboxone to get off of kratom because the withdrawals mimic opioid withdrawals.”
Jangula also noted that while he had not encountered cases of fatal overdoses from kratom at his facility, its unregulated nature posed significant risks for individuals recovering from substance abuse. Specialized testing had been required for patients at Providence House’s outpatient clinic due to kratom’s presence among clients.
Advocates Push Back
The American Kratom Association (AKA), a leading advocacy group for kratom consumers, has strongly opposed HB 1101. Mac Haddow, the AKA’s senior fellow on public policy, argued that banning kratom based on incomplete research would be premature. He cited recent testimony by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) representatives in court cases where they admitted that kratom’s safety profile had not yet been fully determined.
“We don’t ban substances because of what we don’t know,” Haddow remarked. “We ban substances because of what we do know.”
He emphasized that ongoing studies by federal agencies like the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) are crucial to understanding kratom’s potential benefits and risks fully.
Haddow also highlighted the FDA’s stalled efforts to schedule kratom at the federal level due to insufficient evidence about its alleged dangers. The FDA has previously expressed concerns about kratom’s potential for abuse and physical dependence but has yet to conclude its three-year study into the substance’s addiction liability.
Balancing Regulation with Consumer Safety
While some states have banned kratom outright—such as Arkansas, Indiana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont—others have adopted regulatory frameworks instead of prohibition. Thirteen states, including Utah, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, have passed Kratom Consumer Protection Acts (KCPA), which establish guidelines for product labeling, age restrictions (typically 18 or 21), and bans on adulterated or contaminated products.
Haddow urged North Dakota legislators to consider adopting similar measures rather than imposing a blanket ban. “The better regulatory approach is to regulate the product so that it is properly labeled and meets product specifications,” he said. “That limits the potency so you don’t get artificially spiked products which are dangerous.” Haddow confirmed that he had shared a model KCPA with Representative Olson in hopes of steering discussions toward regulation rather than prohibition.
The Broader Debate on Kratom’s Role in Public Health
The debate over kratom extends beyond state legislatures into national conversations about its role in addressing America’s opioid crisis. According to NIDA Director Dr. Nora Volkow, kratom may hold promise as part of a broader strategy to combat opioid addiction by providing an alternative for pain management and withdrawal treatment. NIDA has allocated $100 million toward research into kratom’s potential applications in this context.
However, critics remain cautious about endorsing its use without further study. The FDA maintains that kratom is not approved as a dietary supplement or over-the-counter medication due to unresolved questions about its safety profile. In August 2024, the agency reiterated concerns about its abuse potential and possible side effects such as respiratory depression—a hallmark risk associated with opioids.
A Growing Consumer Base
Despite regulatory uncertainty, kratom continues to attract millions of users across the United States. According to Haddow, consumer numbers have surged from an estimated 3-5 million in 2016 to over 20 million today. People turn to kratom for various reasons: some use it as a stimulant akin to coffee; others seek relief from depression or chronic pain without resorting to pharmaceutical drugs.
This growing popularity underscores the need for balanced policymaking that considers both consumer demand and public health concerns. As Haddow noted: “No state has banned kratom since Rhode Island did in 2017 at the behest of the FDA… We think [regulation] provides adequate protections for consumers while ensuring they can safely access products.”
Looking Ahead
House Bill 1101 is set for further discussion in North Dakota’s Judiciary Committee following its initial reading earlier this month. As debates unfold, stakeholders on both sides will continue advocating for their perspectives—whether through calls for prohibition or frameworks like KCPA aimed at ensuring safe access.
For now, North Dakota finds itself at a crossroads: will it join states opting for regulation or follow those implementing outright bans? The decision could have far-reaching implications not only for local consumers but also for national conversations surrounding this controversial yet increasingly popular herbal supplement.