The Ohio Board of Pharmacy issued an emergency ruling Dec. 12 banning most kratom products for 180 days, a misguided public health mistake that substitutes political panic for sound policy. The ruling imposes a sweeping de facto prohibition disguised as a measured action on synthetic products. By banning nearly every kratom product, save for unprocessed leaf kratom, the state has functionally outlawed the entire consumer market. This will push the market underground, eliminate safe access for adults, and criminalize consumers across the state. Far from addressing legitimate safety concerns, the rule is likely to create new and more severe ones.
The ruling, issued at Gov. Mike DeWine’s request, classifies “mitragynine-related compounds” as Schedule I controlled substances. This includes compounds derived from kratom, like 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), whether synthetic or naturally occurring. The practical effect is that the rule bans not only synthetic kratom compounds, but also any processed kratom product on the market.
The rule’s lone exemption is for mitragynine itself and “natural kratom in its vegetation form.” In other words, the only kratom product now legal in Ohio is raw, unprocessed leaf—a form impractical for most consumers that represents a fraction of the existing consumer market. What DeWine has billed as a narrow ban on “synthetics” is, in reality, the elimination of the legal kratom industry in Ohio.
DeWine justified the ban by citing more than 200 Ohio overdose deaths since 2019 in which kratom played a role. Yet, toxicology reports consistently show these overdoses involve poly-drug use, most often with illicit opioids like fentanyl, benzodiazepines, or alcohol. Additionally, because managing opioid dependence is a common motivation cited by kratom users, its role in these overdose incidents is unclear.
Meanwhile, Ohio has seen a dramatic decline in overall overdose deaths even as kratom use has become more common. This correlation deserves scrutiny, not panic. For many adults, kratom serves as a less-risky alternative to illicit opioids and as a tool for managing both pain and opioid dependence. Criminalizing products that people with substance use disorder tell us they rely on to maintain abstinence will not make them safer. It will only push them toward the more dangerous options of illicit kratom supplies, which may be adulterated with substances like fentanyl, or toward illicit opioids, potentially increasing overdoses in the state.
The emergency prohibition on 7-OH and other kratom derivatives is an example of the “ratchet effect” we repeatedly see in drug policy, where fear and incomplete data lead to pre-emptive scheduling, which then paralyzes scientific research and halts the development of science-informed regulations. Once a substance is classified as Schedule I, studying its risks, benefits, or safe manufacturing standards becomes practically impossible.
DeWine is correct to consider the state’s role in safeguarding public health from novel products and substances. But such decisions must be grounded in the full spectrum of evidence, including the testimony of thousands of Ohioans who use kratom and 7-OH responsibly for pain management and opioid withdrawal. Public policy should aim to reduce death, disease, and crime. An emergency prohibition will do the opposite, driving consumers toward dangerous, unregulated products or back to the illicit opioid supply.
If protecting public health is truly the goal, Ohio should pursue regulation, not prohibition. As with other adult substances, like alcohol and cannabis, the state can establish product safety standards, require accurate labeling and potency testing, maintain a system of registration for manufacturers and retailers, and restrict legal sales to adults. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy and the state legislature should look beyond emergency scheduling and embrace a regulatory approach that protects consumers through clarity, quality controls, and age gating—not through criminalization that invariably causes more harm than it prevents.