Banning Kratom Would Be a Mistake for Arizonans

Most Arizonans have never heard of kratom or 7‑hydroxymitragynine—known as 7‑OH. They soon might.

Kratom is a plant native to Southeast Asia whose leaves have long been used for their mild stimulant and analgesic effects. In the United States, people often use kratom to manage chronic pain, reduce opioid use or ease anxiety. One of its naturally occurring compounds is 7‑OH, present only in trace amounts in the leaf but responsible for some of kratom’s analgesic properties. More recently, manufacturers have produced concentrated or semi-synthetic versions of 7‑OH and marketed them in higher-potency products.

That emerging market has drawn the attention of regulators—and lawmakers. In Arizona, legislators are now considering a bill − HB 2415 − that would effectively ban 7‑OH products altogether.

Should Arizona ban kratom?

The push for prohibition rests heavily on concerns about overdose risk. But here is the key fact often missing from the debate: fatal overdoses from kratom or 7‑OH are very rare. And in the small number of cases where deaths have been reported, toxicology results almost always show multiple substances in the decedent’s system—frequently including fentanyl, heroin, benzodiazepines, alcohol, or other psychoactive drugs.

In other words, these are not clear-cut cases of kratom or 7‑OH acting alone. They are cases of polysubstance use, where isolating a single cause is difficult, if not impossible.

This distinction matters. Policymaking by anecdote—especially when those anecdotes are incomplete—can lead to serious mistakes.

We have seen this pattern before. A concerning substance emerges, regulators highlight worst-case scenarios, and lawmakers respond with calls for prohibition. The nuance disappears. The risk is exaggerated. And the resulting policies often create more harm than they prevent.

Does kratom contain excess 7‑OH?

To be clear, some products marketed as “enhanced kratom” do contain unnaturally high concentrations of 7‑OH. That raises legitimate safety concerns, particularly in an unregulated market where labeling can be inconsistent. But acknowledging risk is not the same as justifying prohibition.

Kratom contains only trace amounts of 7‑OH, and millions use it without problems. Arizona lawmakers would keep kratom legal but ban 7‑OH products. The black market won’t mind. Thousands of Arizonans who depend on 7‑OH for PTSD or pain relief will turn to illegal sellers or cross state lines—and cartels will be ready to add another product to their lineup.

That shift can be lethal. Potency is often unknown in illegal markets, and contamination frequently occurs.Others may return to opioids, including those laced with fentanyl, the very driver of today’s overdose crisis. In that context, prohibition is not a neutral act. It changes behavior in ways that can increase risk.

What is federal regulators safety record on substances like kratom?

And we should also be cautious about relying on federal agencies as the ultimate decision-makers. The FDA has a history of acting on incomplete evidence and causing unintended consequences—such as approving NSAIDs like Vioxx, which the manufacturer later withdrew for safety reasons, and approving controversial Alzheimer’s treatments like Aduhelm despite weak evidence of benefit. Centralized authority does not guarantee good judgment, especially when political pressure and public fear come into play.

A more sensible approach would focus on harm reduction rather than elimination: accurate labeling, age restrictions, product testing, and consumer education. These measures address real risks without depriving individuals of choices that may help them avoid more dangerous substances.

Arizona lawmakers should keep this in mind as they consider banning 7‑OH. Risk doesn’t disappear when policymakers outlaw a product. It just shifts, usually somewhere less safe, less visible, and more dangerous. We’ve seen this before. Arizona doesn’t need to repeat it.