On Thursday, December 11, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine issued a statement that he had updated a previous request to the Ohio Board of Pharmacy (BOP), issued in August, to ban all kratom immediately under an emergency rule.
The new request seemed to suggest that the BOP ban only “synthetic kratom” under the emergency rule and then go through a longer, non-emergency process to consider banning what he calls “natural kratom (mitragynine)”.
“In reviewing this issue over the past few weeks, national experts, including the FDA, agree that synthetic kratom compounds should be scheduled as illegal,” said Gov. DeWine in the December 11 statement. “However, while there is a clear path to take action on synthetic kratom, I still have deep concerns about natural kratom, given the harms, including fatalities, attributed to it. Pursuing the regular rule process for a ban on natural kratom will allow for hearings, testimony, and a deliberative process.”
On the following day, December 12, the Ohio BOP issued a confusing statement entitled “Consumer and Retailer Notice: Kratom-Related Products Now Illegal in Ohio” with the new emergency rule attached to it. The statement reads, “Effective December 12, 2025, OAC 4729:9-1-01.1 makes all forms of kratom-related products, except for products composed solely of mitragynine, illegal to sell, possess, or distribute in the state of Ohio.”
This seems to state that everything but isolated mitragynine is illegal in Ohio. The statement goes on to define “kratom-related products” as products that include “all derivatives of kratom, except for products that contain only mitragynine.”
The next paragraph seems to contradict these statements.
Does this ban apply to kratom products that contain only mitragynine such as natural kratom in its vegetation form?
No. The rule does not prohibit the sale, possession, or distribution of kratom products containing only mitragynine, including natural kratom in its vegetation form. Any product that contains both mitragynine and another derivative of kratom, such as 7- hydroxymitragynine (sometimes referred to as 7-OH), would be illegal to sell, possess, or distribute under this rule.
Natural kratom in its “vegetation form” does not contain only mitragynine. In most kratom sold in the United States, mitragynine appears as the most abundant alkaloid, but kratom contains over 50 alkaloids, including 7-hydroxymitragynine in very trace amounts.
The statement seems to suggest that it’s trying to ban products that contain unnatural amounts of four compounds that it lists: 7-hydroxymitragynine, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, dihydro-7-hydroxy mitragynine, and 7-acetoxymitragynine, but the BOP and the governor’s office seem to think mitragynine is the scientific word for natural leaf kratom, rather than an alkaloid in kratom. The statement again refers to products not covered in the ban as “Kratom Products (mitragynine only)”.
The attached emergency rule is equally confusing. Under the heading “The following are classified as schedule I controlled substances” it lists “A) Mitragynine-related compounds” as being the four compounds listed in the statement, including 7-OH. Since both dried kratom leaf and kratom extracts contain trace amounts of 7-OH, this would effectively ban all kratom products.
The American Kratom Association (AKA) has been advocating for the Kratom Consumer Protection Act in states and federally for several years. These laws would limit the amount of 7-OH in kratom to less than 2% of total alkaloids. The AKA responded to the action in Ohio in an email sent on Monday:
The Ohio Board of Pharmacy has issued an emergency action targeting 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and synthetic kratom-derived products, making those products illegal in Ohio. It is important for advocates to understand that this emergency action is not aimed at traditional, mitragynine-based kratom leaf products, and it does not immediately make natural kratom illegal for Ohio consumers.
However, the language in the final order lacks the precision needed to make the difference between natural kratom leaf product and extracts using FDA approved food grade solvents all contain trace amounts of 7-OH. The Governor’s office added language to the order in an attempt to clarify, but we believe additional clarifying language is needed.
It is progress that the Board and the Governor have now formally acknowledged the immense differences between natural kratom products and high-potency 7-OH synthetic products—a distinction the American Kratom Association has been advocating for since action intended to ban all kratom products earlier in 2025. The AKA supports the removal of synthetic and 7-OH products from the marketplace and recognizes this action as an important step toward separating unsafe synthetics from kratom products.
That said, we must be clear-eyed: the Ohio Board of Pharmacy and the Governor’s office are not friendly toward safe kratom overall, and the Governor and Board has signaled its intent to pursue scheduling of kratom in Ohio. This means Ohio remains a high-risk state, and continued advocacy is critical.
Ohio tried to ban kratom in 2018 through its BOP process. Thousands of Ohioans wrote letters in opposition to a ban during the public comment period, and the AKA delivered a petition to the BOP with over twenty thousand signatures urging officials to keep kratom legal. The attempted ban ultimately failed.
Under the emergency rule, the four compounds (7-hydroxymitragynine, Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, Dihydro-7-hydroxy mitragynine, and 7-acetoxymitragynine) will be illegal for a period of 180 days, during which the BOP will propose a rule to permanently ban the compounds.
There are many steps to permanently ban a substance under the longer rulemaking process, a formal administrative and legislative rulemaking process tied to Ohio’s controlled substances law (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3719). This is the process kratom underwent in 2018 and will undergo again, presumably at some point in 2025.
STEP 1: Scientific and regulatory review. The BOP evaluates a substance based on factors such as its potential for abuse, pharmacological effects, current scientific knowledge, public health risk, and whether it has an accepted medical use. This review may rely on toxicology reports, federal agency positions, adverse event data, or recommendations from law enforcement or public health officials.
STEP 2: BOP makes a formal recommendation to schedule the substance into one of Ohio’s controlled substance schedules (Schedule I through V). This recommendation is not law by itself; it triggers the administrative rulemaking process.
STEP 3: Administrative rulemaking. BOP files a proposed rule with the appropriate state agencies, formally announcing its intent to amend Ohio’s controlled substance schedules. This step opens the proposal to regulatory scrutiny and public participation.
STEP 4: Public notice and comment period follows. The proposed rule is published, and members of the public, advocacy groups, scientists, businesses, and other stakeholders are allowed to submit written comments or testimony either supporting or opposing the proposal. This phase can significantly influence whether the rule advances, stalls, or is modified.
STEP 5: Proposal is examined by the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR). JCARR evaluates whether the Board has acted within its statutory authority, followed proper procedure, and used reasonable justification. JCARR has the power to delay or block a rule if it determines the agency exceeded its authority.
STEP 6: If JCARR does not block the rule, the Board may proceed to final adoption of the rule. Once adopted and filed, the rule becomes part of the Ohio Administrative Code, officially placing the substance into a controlled schedule.
STEP 7: The substance becomes illegal to manufacture, sell, possess, or distribute, except as allowed under Ohio law (for example, licensed medical or research use if applicable). Enforcement authority then falls to state and local law enforcement agencies.
Importantly, at any stage—especially during public comment or JCARR review—the process can be halted, delayed, or abandoned, which is why proposed bans like the 2018 kratom action did not automatically result in prohibition.