Tennessee lawmakers are advancing legislation that would effectively ban kratom and criminalize its possession statewide. These bills would eliminate a legal market and expose thousands of Tennesseans to criminal penalties, while doing little to address the risks lawmakers say they are trying to prevent. They also ignore why Tennessee citizens seek out kratom in the first place.
Sen. Todd Gardenhire (R-District 10) has introduced Senate Bill 1655 and Senate Bill 1656, while Rep. Esther Helton-Haynes (R-District 30) is sponsoring companion measures, House Bill 1647 and House Bill 1649. The proposals differ in severity: SB 1655 and HB 1647 would make kratom possession a Class D felony punishable by up to 12 years in prison, while SB 1656 and HB 1649 would classify possession as a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to 11 months and 29 days in jail.
Kratom is a plant-derived substance that produces stimulant-like effects at low doses and opioid-like effects as high doses. Many people report using it to manage chronic pain to reduce reliance on prescription opioids and illicit drugs. That demand is reflected in Tennessee’s existing legal kratom market, which serves 38,000 users and generates an estimated $19 million in annual sales, including about $1.3 million in state sales tax revenue, according to the state’s fiscal analysis of SB 1655.
Should one of these bills become law, it would eliminate a market that brings revenue to Tennessee’s government while also potentially adding millions to incarceration costs. Meanwhile, the state’s corrections system is already under strain, raising questions about its capacity to absorb additional individuals.
Kratom is not driving Tennessee’s overdose deaths, which numbered more than 3,500 in 2023, the most recent year of available data. Instead, nearly half of these fatalities involved fentanyl or tramadol, highlighting the growing roles of synthetic opioids in the state’s overdose crisis. Research suggests that people actually use kratom to avoid the dangers of both legal and illicit opioids. A 2025 study in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that regular kratom consumers use it to manage opioid dependence and avoid illicit drug use. Similarly, a 2022 analysis of more than 6,000 public comments submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which were submitted during a comment period attached to a 2016 proposal by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, found that many users report turning to kratom to manage opioid withdrawal and maintain abstinence, warning that criminalization could push them toward illicit opioids.
The push for criminalization follows the 2024 death of Matthew Davenport, whose case has been cited as the justification for the legislation. According to the Hamilton County Medical Examiner’s autopsy report, his death involved the consumption of multiple substances, including kratom, prescription medications, and the over-the-counter antihistamine Benadryl, consistent with a potential role for drug interactions. Evidence from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention shows that in overdose deaths where kratom is detected, other substances are almost always present, frequently opioids such as fentanyl.
Davenport’s death reflects a broader challenge. Many drugs, including common over-the-counter medications like Benadryl, can pose risks when recklessly combined. Public health responses typically address these risks through a combination of regulation, clear labeling, and clinical guidance to help consumers and providers avoid harmful interactions, rather than relying solely on criminal penalties.
This pattern is also reflected in the research on potential overdoses of kratom. A 2024 peer-reviewed review in Frontiers in Pharmacology found no established lethal level for kratom’s primary compound and noted its respiratory effects are weaker than those of traditional opioids. In most cases, other substances are also present, making it difficult to attribute overdose deaths to kratom alone.
Tennessee’s kratom bills are aimed at reducing overdoses, with supporters of the legislation arguing that restricting access would reduce the likelihood of similar incidents. But simply prohibiting kratom is unlikely to reduce drug overdoses within the state. When legal access to a substance disappears, users often turn to illicit markets or substitute substances, which can introduce greater risks, particularly in a drug environment increasingly dominated by fentanyl. More importantly, these bills do not address why people use kratom in the first place. Removing access without providing effective alternatives risks pushing individuals toward more dangerous substances, undermining the public health goals these bills aim to achieve.
None of this suggests kratom use is without risk. Like many drugs, it can have adverse effects, particularly when combined with other medications. But this is precisely the issue these bills fail to address. Drug interactions are best addressed through targeted regulation. Accurate labeling, consumer education, and clearer guidance for prescribers are more effective than broad criminalization.
Beyond these public health concerns, the fiscal implications of both bills underscore their broader impact. The fiscal note for SB 1655 projects hundreds of new possession convictions each year, adding millions in annual incarceration costs, while not accounting for whether the state has the capacity to house additional individuals. The fiscal note for SB 1656 projects similar caseload increases at the local level, shifting costs to county jails and local governments. Together, these proposals would expand correctional burdens across the state without addressing the underlying drivers of substance use.
A more targeted approach is available. Several states have adopted versions of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act, which sets age restrictions, requires mandatory lab testing, caps alkaloid concentrations, and mandates accurate labeling. Those are the kinds of safeguards that could have warned Matthew Davenport and his prescribing physician about the risks of combining kratom with his medication, while preserving lawful access for adults who rely on it for pain management and opioid withdrawal.
Tennessee has already considered similar legislation, Senate Bill 2417. Revisiting a regulatory approach would better align policy with the realities of how kratom is used and the risks it presents.
Criminalizing possession will not prevent dangerous drug interactions. It will expand the state’s use of incarceration, eliminate a legal market, and create new risks for people already navigating substance use challenges. A policy focused on regulation, information, and treatment would address those risks without making them worse.