Previously Published in The Messenger
By Madison Warren
At Tuesday’s General Meeting of the Suffolk County Legislature, officials heard lengthy testimony during a public discussion on what should be done regarding a proposed ban on Kratom. More than fifty speakers came forward to share how the ban would impact them, offering both support and opposition.
The legislative discussion follows Nassau County’s recent prohibition on the sale and distribution of Kratom, which removed products from store shelves and imposed penalties on businesses that continue to sell it.
The Legislation, I.R.1279, sponsored by Deputy Presiding Officer Jim Mazzarella (R-Moriches) and co-sponsored by Legislators Leslie Kennedy (R-Nesconset), RJ Renna (R-Lindenhurst), Chad Lennon (C-Rocky Point), and Jason Richberg (D-West Babylon), would ban the sale and distribution of Kratom in Suffolk County.
Kratom is a tropical tree native to Southeast Asia whose leaves contain active compounds, primarily mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine (70H), that can produce stimulant-like effects. Many people use it for energy, focus, mood enhancement, relief from pain, managing withdrawal symptoms from substances such as opioids, or relaxation.
While some describe benefits, many argue it is far from a risk-free supplement. Several speakers shared personal accounts of becoming dependent on Kratom, experiencing adverse health effects, or using it as a gateway to other substances.
As of now, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Kratom for the treatment of pain, anxiety, opioid withdrawal, or any other medical condition. Federal agencies have also raised concerns regarding its safety, potential contamination, and risk for dependence or addiction.
A wide range of voices had the opportunity to be heard, including doctors, attorneys, law enforcement, parents, members of the sober community, and residents from across Suffolk County.
Megan O’Donnell, one of the first speakers at the afternoon meeting, shared her perspective from her role as Division Chief with the District Attorney’s office, where she oversees four bureaus, including the Narcotics Bureau. Drawing on nearly thirty years of experience in law enforcement, she said County-level legislation would provide a stronger model for police and prosecutors, noting that current state law only addresses the minimum age at which Kratom can be sold.
O’Donnell explained that under existing law, enforcing underage sales violations can place minors in uncomfortable positions, as their identity and age may be required as evidence in a criminal case. She added that a county law could help create clearer enforcement standards while better protecting young people involved in investigations.
She also noted safety concerns surrounding individuals who ingest Kratom and then drive. Unlike alcohol and other substances that have been extensively studied for years, she said, there is little established guidance or clear legal comparison when it comes to Kratom and impairment. Her central message was that restricting the sale of the substance would help reduce access and, in turn, could help prevent dangerous driving situations.
Legislators are also weighing whether any ban should specifically target 7-Hydroxymitragynine (70H) products while still allowing natural Kratom leaf to be sold legally. Presiding Officer Anthony Piccirillo (R-Holtsville) said one of his concerns is that removing a product that has been sold for decades could unintentionally create a black market where none previously existed. He noted that forcing consumers to seek it through illegal channels could make access more dangerous and create an entirely new challenge for law enforcement.
Adam Birkenstock, a social worker who said he regularly works with individuals struggling with addiction and those in recovery, shared concerns about Kratom during the meeting. He said the substance is often marketed as a remedy for anxiety and relaxation, but in his experience, he has frequently seen addiction continue to develop through Kratom use. He also added that many people are told the product is completely safe but said that it does not reflect the full reality he has witnessed.
A Long Island mother delivered one of the more emotional testimonies of the day, saying Kratom had “completely destroyed” her life. She said that while on her sobriety journey, she was served a drink at a Kratom bar after being told it contained no alcohol and was considered “safe” for those in recovery. According to her testimony, she became immediately dependent and returned day after day for more.
With her 14-year-old son beside her for support, she said he watched her life unravel as she lost focus on everything except the drug. She described becoming deeply depressed toward the end of her use, questioning whether she wanted to keep living and feeling unable to stop. She told legislators that after a long and difficult battle to quit, she is now three years free from Kratom and has never been happier.
Another speaker shared a vastly different perspective, describing Kratom as something that greatly improved his quality of life. He said he was involved in a serious accident as a child and had lived with chronic pain for much of his life afterward. According to his testimony, years of discomfort and limited relief led him to eventually try tea made with Kratom.
He told legislators that the substance helped ease the pain he imparted to the Legislature that the industry is currently self-regulated, and products sourced from Indonesia go through multiple rounds of scrutiny before hitting shelves.
Moreover, nearly all speakers, either opposed to or in favor of the ban, said that 70H should not be marketable. The Legislature voted to recess the bill until the next General Meeting, as they continue to weigh how to effectively enforce the sale distribution of the relatively new substance.