Colorado House advances Kratom regulation bill thought dead in the water

A proposal aimed at introducing more regulation around Kratom - a federally legal herbal substance linked to numerous deaths in Colorado - secured preliminary approval in the state House on Tuesday evening, albeit in a significantly revised form.

Initially intended to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for Kratom and restrict a semi-synthetic variant (commonly called Krypton), the bill was amended to remove those structural elements. The current version instead imposes access limitations and packaging requirements, including disclaimers.

The bill, Senate Bill 72, had been declared dead just a day earlier before being revived through a rarely used procedural maneuver called a super motion early on Tuesday morning.

Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa), a tree native to Southeast Asia known for its opioid- and stimulant-like effects, has gained popularity in Colorado and the wider United States in recent years. The US Drug Enforcement Administration classifies it as a 'drug of concern', though it remains legal and readily available in many convenience and grocery stores across the country. The FDA has not approved its use but the National Institute of Health has reported anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness in easing opioid withdrawal symptoms and managing pain - while also noting that better treatments exist.

Colorado lawmakers have considered heavily regulating Kratom for years, with little legislative success beyond a simplified KCPA framework (see below). The only concrete step occurred in 2022, when the legislature directed the Department of Revenue to study regulatory options for Kratom production and sales.

Currently, much of Colorado follows the Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), a regulatory framework developed by the American Kratom Assosociation - advocates for legal and regulated Kratom in the USA. The act prohibits the sale of Kratom products to individuals under 21 (Castle Rock 18 years old) and bans any products containing fentanyl or other controlled substances. The act also states Kratom products must include clear labeling with the manufacturer’s information and a full list of ingredients, and cannot be displayed where they are accessible to minors. It is worth noting the towns of Monument, Greenwood Village and Parker banned Kratom completely in 2019.

If introduced, SB72 will implement recommendations from the Department of Revenue’s 2023 study, funded by the state's tobacco litigation settlement fund. These included labeling standards, product testing, adherence to manufacturing practices similar to those for dietary supplements and a regulatory fee. However, the Department of Revenue opposed both the funding source and the bill itself, citing insufficient provisions for licensing and enforcement. These new regulations would expand the current Kratom bill and more heavily regulate Kratom in Colorado than in other KCPA states.

Recently concerns have grown in Colorado about 7-hydroxymitragynine (7oH), a semi-synthetic derivative often sold as a standalone ingredient but not technically considered Kratom. A letter published in the journal Addiction warned that chronic use of 7oH could lead to opioid-like dependency and addiction, in addition to acute toxicity risks.

The bill had stalled in the House Appropriations Committee, with Chair Rep. Emily Sirota, indicating she would not schedule it for a hearing. That changed on Tuesday morning when the committee convened for unrelated business, providing Rep. Scott Bottoms, an opportunity to use a rarely invoked 'super motion' to bypass committee review and bring the bill directly to the House floor. The motion passed 6-4, despite Sirota’s objections.

On the House floor, co-sponsors Reps. Mandy Lindsay and Matt Soper agreed to an amendment stripping the bill of its regulatory framework and penalties.

Rep. Bottoms criticized the initial decision to block the bill, saying the process lacked fairness - though he ultimately opposed the bill in its amended form.

Despite the changes, Soper emphasized that the bill still represents significant progress. It would require Kratom to be stored behind retail counters, include prominent warnings on packaging, and provide dosage information, including 24-hour intake limits and contraindications, such as pregnancy and drug interactions.

Additionally, the bill bans any Kratom product containing more than 2% 7oH.

The Kratom industry pushed back. The Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust, an advocacy group promoting herbal treatments for opioid addiction, argued the 2% cap is arbitrary and not supported by scientific evidence. They warned that the restriction could eliminate most effective products while failing to remove potentially dangerous ones.

“This isn’t public health policy - it’s regulatory theater,” the group stated, calling instead for dosage-based limits, accurate labeling, and robust enforcement mechanisms. They also contested claims that 7oH poses significant health risks.

“This is a good first step,” Soper said, emphasizing the need to protect public health incrementally given the evolving understanding of kratom. Lindsay echoed that sentiment: “This is the beginning of the regulatory and licensing journey for a relatively new product.”

The bill is scheduled for a final House vote on Wednesday. If approved, it will return to the Senate for consideration of the amendments.