By Matthew Lowe
As Suffolk lawmakers consider new restrictions on kratom, there’s a clear opportunity to take a more measured, effective approach — one that aligns with the direction already being set at a federal level.
Under the Trump administration, federal health officials have begun drawing an important distinction: not all products marketed as “kratom” are the same. In particular, regulators have raised concerns about concentrated synthetic compounds including 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), which are increasingly sold in gas stations and vape shops and can behave far more like opioids.
For centuries, natural kratom leaf has been used in Southeast Asia, typically brewed as a tea or consumed in its raw form. Today, many adults in the United States use it for similar purposes — as an alternative for pain management, to support recovery, or to manage daily functioning.
Even experts who study addiction recognize the difference. Dr. Nicole Avena, a neuroscientist at Mount Sinai, recently told Suffolk lawmakers that natural kratom leaf poses “very low risk” and may offer meaningful benefits. At the same time, she drew a clear line: newer, highly concentrated synthetic products are a separate and growing concern — one that deserves targeted attention.
That nuance is critical. In recent years, a wave of lab-made derivatives has entered the market, often marketed under the same “kratom” label despite having vastly different chemical profiles and potency levels. These products can contain concentrations far exceeding what occurs naturally and are more likely to produce opioid-like effects, raising legitimate concerns about misuse and dependence.
Federal regulators have already begun to respond accordingly, signaling support for addressing these concentrated synthetic compounds directly. That approach reflects a simple principle: effective policy focuses on the substances that actually drive risk.
Just as important, it recognizes the risks of getting ahead of the evidence. Moving too quickly to impose broad prohibitions, before federal guidance is fully implemented, can create unintended consequences, including pushing consumers toward unregulated markets or more dangerous alternatives.
Some policymakers are already moving in that direction. Assemblymember Jake Blumencranz has introduced legislation that reflects this distinction — focusing on higher-risk synthetic products while preserving access to traditional, lower-risk forms of kratom. It’s a pragmatic framework that acknowledges both the science and the lived experiences of constituents.
Suffolk County now faces a similar choice. A blanket ban may sound decisive, but it risks missing the mark — sweeping in fundamentally different products under a single label and removing access for responsible adults who have relied on natural kratom for years.
It also risks undermining public trust. When policies fail to distinguish between products with very different risk profiles, they can appear disconnected from both the science and the experiences of the people they affect — including veterans and others who have found natural kratom to be a meaningful part of their daily lives.
There is a better path forward. By focusing enforcement on dangerous synthetic products — and maintaining access to natural kratom leaf — lawmakers can take a balanced approach that protects public health, aligns with federal direction, and reflects the needs of their communities.
That’s not a compromise. It’s good policy.
Matthew Lowe is the Executive Director of the Global Kratom Coalition.