Three state prohibition bills are sitting on governors’ desks awaiting a signature or veto.
In Louisiana, SB154 will make kratom a Schedule I drug, criminalizing all kratom consumers. In Connecticut, an amendment to HB6855 was slipped into the hemp regulation bill at the last minute– this will schedule kratom. In Texas, SB3 prohibits all THC, even the trace amounts that occur in hemp products.
The Louisiana governor has 10 days to sign or veto a bill if the legislature is in session when the bill is delivered, and 20 days if the legislature is adjourned. Since SB154 was delivered May 29, when the legislature was still in session, Governor Jeff Landry has until Sunday, June 8, 2025 to sign or veto the bill. If Gov. Landry neither signs nor vetoes SB154 within the required timeframe, the bill automatically becomes law without his signature (also known as a “pocket approval”). Should SB154 become law, kratom will be banned starting August 1, 2025.
The Connecticut governor has 5 days to sign or veto a bill if the legislature is in session when the bill is delivered. If the legislature is not in session, the governor has 15 days to act. Since HB06855 passed on June 3, 2025 and the Connecticut legislative session adjourned on June 4, 2025, Governor Ned Lamont has until Monday, June 9, 2025 to sign or veto the bill. If Gov. Lamont neither signs nor vetoes HB06855 within the required timeframe, the bill automatically becomes law without his signature. Should HB06855 become law, kratom will be scheduled October 1, 2025.
Governor Greg Abbott has until June 22, 2025, to sign or veto SB3 in Texas. Since the bill was sent to him within the last 10 days of the legislative session, he has 20 days to act. If he does nothing, the bill will automatically become law without his signature. If Governor Abbott neither signs nor vetoes SB3 by June 22, the bill will automatically become law without his signature. Should it become law, SB3 will criminalize all those using THC in Texas by September 1, 2025.
Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), has spoken out against drug criminalization laws, arguing that addiction should be treated as a medical condition rather than punished. She believes that criminalizing drug use does not help people recover and instead exacerbates health disparities, particularly among communities of color.
Several scientific analyses have demonstrated that prohibition increases and exacerbates problems related to drug use and addiction.
A CATO Institute analysis argues that drug prohibition has contributed to increased overdose deaths, strengthened drug cartels, and failed to achieve its intended policy goals. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/four-decades-counting-continued-failure-war-drugs#
An R Street Institute study highlights how prohibition has led to an increasingly toxic drug supply, with dangerous adulterants like fentanyl and xylazine making drug use riskier. https://www.rstreet.org/research/an-ever-changing-increasingly-toxic-drug-supply-makes-harm-reduction-essential/
In his book Drug Legalization, Chris Meyers examines, in the chapter entitled “Social Consequences of Drug Prohibition”, the “harms to those incarcerated and their families, the violence of the black market, the risks of dangerous unregulated drugs, police corruption, lack of respect for the law, and the high costs of law enforcement efforts. We also must include the fact that prohibition prevents some law-abiding citizens from enjoying drugs that they would like to use. In all, the costs of prohibition seem to far outweigh its benefits.” https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-17005-8_11