AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 41-29-117, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO ADD KRATOM TO SCHEDULE III OF THE UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT; AN ACT TO REPEAL SECTION 27-72-51, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, WHICH PROVIDE AN EXCISE TAX ON THE SALE OF KRATOM PRODUCTS; TO REPEAL SECTION 75-103-1 THROUGH 75-103-7, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, WHICH RELATE TO KRATOM PRODUCTS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Impact
The impact of SB2822 would be substantial, as it would formally categorize kratom under state drug laws, limiting its availability and possibly increasing penalties associated with its illegal sale or use. The inclusion of kratom in Schedule III means that it will be subjected to greater oversight as well as restrictions typical of substances in this classification, affecting various stakeholders including health care providers, businesses selling kratom products, and individuals who use kratom for medicinal or recreational purposes. By repealing the associated excise tax, the legislation may unintentionally influence the pricing and availability of kratom in Mississippi.
Summary
Senate Bill 2822 seeks to amend the Mississippi Code of 1972 by adding kratom to Schedule III of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. This legislation aims to classify kratom, a substance derived from the Mitragyna speciosa tree, as a controlled substance, thereby regulating its use, distribution, and sale within the state. Furthermore, the bill intends to repeal the existing excise tax on kratom products as well as several clauses related to kratom from previous legislation, specifically those in sections 27-72-51 and 75-103-1 through 75-103-7.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding SB2822 include the potential health implications of regulating or banning kratom, which some consider a natural alternative for pain relief and managing withdrawal symptoms from opioids. Advocates for kratom argue that it should not be classified alongside stronger narcotics, while opponents raise concerns regarding its safety, addictiveness, and the necessity of regulation to protect public health. The debate reflects broader discussions about the role of state regulations in managing emerging substances and public health concerns.