Georgia House Bill 968 contains language that would add kratom compounds to the list of Schedule I controlled substances, and at the same time restrict the sale of kratom to over-the-counter sales in pharmacies. One problem with this bill: It is legally impossible.
Under HB 968, the pharmacy sales provision for kratom is designed to allow licensed pharmacies to sell certain kratom products, like capsules, powders, or extracts, under specific conditions. Pharmacies would verify the age of purchasers, typically requiring them to be 18 or older, and ensure that products meet labeling, dosage, and concentration requirements. Pharmacies might also have to submit information about their suppliers, the alkaloid content of products, and any safety testing certifications to the state. During the sale, the pharmacist would confirm that the product complies with the bill’s restrictions, such as limits on alkaloid content, and maintain records of the transaction, including purchaser information and quantity sold. These records might also be reported annually to state authorities, and violations of the rules could result in fines, license suspension, or other penalties. Patients would likely not need a prescription to purchase kratom products from a licensed pharmacy because the bill’s pharmacy sales provision treats kratom more like a regulated over-the-counter or dietary supplement item.
The contradiction arises because HB 968 simultaneously classifies mitragynine and 7‑hydroxymitragynine, the primary alkaloids in kratom, as Schedule I substances. Any kratom product contains mitragynine, so under the Schedule I classification, selling or possessing these products would technically be illegal. The pharmacy provision assumes that pharmacists could sell kratom legally, but the bill does not explicitly exempt licensed pharmacies. This means that, while the law outlines a step-by-step process for regulated sales, in practice, it conflicts with the criminalization of the active compounds, creating a legal paradox in which following the sales rules could still constitute a Schedule I violation.
Once mitragynine (and therefore kratom) is Schedule I, pharmacists cannot legally sell it, doctors cannot prescribe it, and possession is criminal.
The pharmacy-only kratom proposal and the Schedule I mitragynine proposal are not legally nor logically compatible, even thought they occur in the same bill. They represent different policy directions, and depending on which version of the bill passes (or whether amendments remove parts), the final law would go one way or the other. So if the Schedule I language remained in the final law, the pharmacy provision would become meaningless or would have to be removed.
Georgia currently has a Kratom Consumer Protection Act that took effect on January 1, 2025. Kratom products must be kept behind the counter or in a secured display accessible only to store employees, and vendors must verify that buyers are at least 21 years old before selling or transferring kratom products to them. The law also prohibits ingestion of kratom via vaping or similar electronic devices and places limits on the concentration of mitragynine and 7‑hydroxymitragynine in products. Products must be derived from the natural plant without synthetic alkaloids or unsafe additives, and they must meet specific labeling requirements including serving sizes and safety information. Violations can result in misdemeanor or felony penalties depending on the offense.
The three possible models, prohibition, the current regulation, or a pharmacy-based regulatory model cannot co-exist. Georgia legislators will have to decide on one approach before moving forward.