Kratom; add to Schedule III of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
House Bill 1121 amends Mississippi’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act to add kratom to Schedule III, effective July 1, 2025. The bill defines kratom for this purpose as mitragynine and 7-hydroxymytragynine, including their salts, isomers, salts of isomers, sulfate, free acid, and derivatives. By placing kratom in Schedule III, the bill treats kratom-containing materials, compounds, mixtures, or preparations as controlled substances under state law, subject to the regulatory and criminal provisions that apply to Schedule III drugs.
The measure also makes a conforming change to Mississippi Code Section 41-29-117, which lists Schedule III substances, while leaving the rest of the schedule intact. The bill does not alter the existing exemptions for certain federally listed Schedule III substances, and it does not change the treatment of other controlled substances already listed in the statute. Its practical effect would be to prohibit or restrict possession, distribution, dispensing, and other handling of kratom products under Mississippi controlled-substances law, unless another legal exception applies.
HB1121 would directly amend Section 41-29-117 of the Mississippi Code, expanding Schedule III to include kratom and thereby bringing kratom products under the state’s controlled-substances framework. This would affect consumers, retailers, distributors, and healthcare or pharmacy-related actors who handle kratom, as well as law enforcement and prosecutors enforcing controlled-substance laws. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025, so the statutory change would apply prospectively from that date.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented legislative discussion to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy choice to regulate kratom more strictly by classifying it as a Schedule III substance. Because no voting history is provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the record beyond the fact that the bill was introduced for consideration.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the likely issue is whether kratom should be treated as a controlled substance at all. Supporters of scheduling typically argue from public-health, abuse-potential, and consumer-safety concerns, while opponents often argue that kratom is used by some adults for pain management or opioid-withdrawal self-treatment and that scheduling could limit access or push use into unregulated markets. The absence of committee testimony or votes means the record does not identify which of these positions, if any, were raised by legislators or stakeholders.