
Connecticut House Bill 6855, currently awaiting the signature of Gov. Ned Lamont, proposes sweeping changes to the state’s drug policy. Ostensibly a bill focused on regulating cannabis, hemp products, and pharmacy practices, HB 6855 also gives heightened authority to the Department of Consumer Protection to designate and schedule additional substances as controlled drugs.
Buried in the language of the bill is a troubling and unjustifiable provision: the inclusion of Mitragyna speciosa, commonly known as kratom, as a substance to be classified under Connecticut’s controlled substances framework.
There is no distinction made between the natural leaf, which has centuries of safe use, and more modern concentrated extracts and semi-synthetic or synthetic derivatives that are calling themselves kratom, which should be the focus of this legislation.
The inclusion of regular leaf kratom is not only scientifically unsound, but it also threatens more than 250,000 Connecticut residents who rely on kratom for relief from occasional pain, mood enhancement and for some people, to help them substitute for, or wean off opioids. As a pharmacist, clinical pharmacologist and faculty member in the University of Connecticut’s Department of Pharmacy Practice, I have worked to educate students and vulnerable communities about opioid risks and provided naloxone kits to communities throughout Connecticut to control the opioid epidemic. I fear this one aspect of the bill could be counter to those efforts while the general aspects of the bill are sound.
Not all kratom is equal, and as such lumping whole leaf kratom into this bill is both alarming and unwarranted. Kratom, a plant in the coffee family, has been used safely for centuries in Southeast Asia. Kratom alkaloids primarily work through serotonin and alpha-1 and alpha-2 stimulation and only partially interact with opioid receptors. Animal studies suggest kratom alkaloids are not desired by morphine addicted rats, do not provide euphoric effects like regular opioids, lessen opioid withdrawal symptoms, and ultimately lower the use of opioids.
Anecdotal experiences in illicit opioid users abound suggesting less opioid use and sharing of needles, and enhanced ability to work and care for themselves when kratom is used. In 2024 the Food and Drug Administration set out to establish a safe dosing range and found kratom was well tolerated at all tested levels, even at the highest dose of 12 grams. Until recently, kratom was supplied by law-abiding businesses as natural health remedies and the available evidence suggests it was not a public health threat.
Its pharmacological profile is vastly different from illicit opioids or synthetic compounds sold as dietary supplements (tianeptine, 7-hydroxymitragynine, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl) that only work through potently stimulating opioid receptors. The 7-hydroxymitragynine and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl products were being sold as kratom and much of the recent fervor against kratom is actually a backlash against these products. Animal studies and anecdotal human experiences strongly suggest that these products cause euphoria, are highly addictive, and reinforce the use of opioids. Bad actors have invaded the market with these synthesized, concentrated, and dangerous products. These synthetic drugs are commonly packaged to target minors by mimicking popular consumer products like ice cream cones, sugar encrusted gummies, taffy, popping crystals, and chocolate bars.
We applaud the Connecticut legislature’s proposed action against these potent opioid receptor stimulators and against other synthetic products such as intoxicating hemp (which chemically convert CBD into intoxicating THC), phenibut, xylazine, and nitrous oxide. While only tianeptine, 7-hydroxymitragynine, and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl potently stimulate opioid receptors like heroin, all these products are referred to as “gas station heroin” because they do not meet the definition of dietary supplements, are addictive/habit forming, pose a direct threat to public health, and are commonly sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores.
Leaf kratom is not “gas station heroin” for the reasons mentioned above and should not be the focus of scheduling activities. Semi-synthetics and synthetics that amplify potency from what is found in nature are the problem – not what Mother Nature created.
Legislation needs to draw that clear distinction to avoid ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’, which unfortunately is the case with this bill here in Connecticut. HB 6855 explicitly identifies kratom’s leaves, stems, and extracts as a substance subject to scheduling by the Department of Consumer Protection. There are no requirements for public hearings, scientific evaluation, or consultation with medical and pharmacological experts. The bill does not specify the schedule placement, but contextually groups natural leaf kratom with unapproved drugs.
This move would be devastating, not just for consumers, but for public health. Criminalizing kratom will not make vulnerable populations safer; it will drive kratom users to unregulated markets or back to dangerous counterfeit or illicit opioids. It will also criminalize responsible adults for using a botanical that they depend on for daily functioning and wellbeing.
Consider that the scheduling of natural kratom has been rejected at a Federal level twice in 2016 and 2018 respectively, and by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2021. Banning was not thought to be the answer because of the overwhelming number of compelling anecdotes that kratom consumers shared and the known risks if those people returned to counterfeit or illicit opioids. This bill stands in direct opposition to scientific advancement and the accelerating momentum towards evidence-based regulation of kratom in the U.S.
Currently, more than 128 million people are covered by meaningful kratom consumer protection laws passed in 17 states. Connecticut should follow the trend and create more stringent regulations for kratom rather than ban it. As the chair of the Kratom Consumer Advisory Council, we have identified ways to reduce the risks of kratom use in communities while preserving access. These best practices make up the backbone of legislation that just passed in Nebraska and Colorado and can be a model for Connecticut.
To be clear, we are in agreement with the inclusion of 7-hydroxymitragynine, a semi-synthetic alkaloid, in this bill, but it needs to be clarified that it is banned if it makes up more than 2% of the total alkaloid fraction of kratom. This is because a tiny amount of mitragynine is converted into 7-hydroxymitragynine in the leaf drying process when kratom powder is formed. Banning any concentration of 7-hydroxymitragynine would still effectively be a kratom ban.
The scientific community generally agrees: leaf kratom is not without risks but the risks can be managed through sensible regulation, not prohibition. A scheduling action on all forms of kratom based on incomplete or biased understanding risks eroding public trust in our drug policy. Of concern to clinical pharmacologists like me, it sets a dangerous precedent for how we handle emerging natural substances.
Leaf kratom does not belong in HB 6855, a bill that was rushed through in the last three days of the legislative session without citizens being aware that it even included leaf kratom and denying their ability to tell legislators the implications passage would have on their wellbeing. Its inclusion is arbitrary, unsupported by contemporary science, and inconsistent with the bill’s stated goals of improving drug regulation and public safety in Connecticut.
We urge Gov. Lamont to, at a minimum, demand the removal of language targeting kratom. Public policy should be guided by science —not fear, misinformation, or political expediency. We are happy to work with regulators and legislators to come up with regulatory language that threads the needle between safety and access.
C. Michael White, Pharm.D. is a Distinguished Professor and Chair, Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut. Matthew Lowe is Executive Director of the Global Kratom Coalition.