Ilana Rubel — Said she sits on Ways and Means and described how RS measures can bypass a hearing if introduced there.
Ilana Rubel — Explained that an RS in Ways and Means can bypass a hearing and asked whether the sponsor would be content to leave House Bill 903 unchanged this year.
Ilana Rubel — Said she would support the substitute motion because she does not like surprise process changes and wants affected parties to have a chance to testify.
Ilana Rubel — Was asked a procedural question about whether RSs ever fail in Ways and Means.
Ilana Rubel — Said RS measures in Ways and Means always pass on a straight party-line vote.
Ilana Rubel — Referred to as the sponsor's good friend to the right and as someone who may have a better idea about the bill changes.
Ilana Rubel — Said she shares the concerns, supports the bill, and urged the sponsor not to overemphasize the sprinkles issue.
Ilana Rubel — Continued urging the sponsor to keep House Bill 903 as-is for this year and avoid procedural maneuvering over sprinkles.
Ilana Rubel — Explains that Rule 27 allows submission of a minority report when testimony or debate was insufficient.
Ilana Rubel — Name appears in the roll call but the vote is not captured in the transcript.
Dr. Keller — Said federal law moves slowly and predicted a federal ban may be coming.
Dr. Keller — Was asked about kratom as a gateway drug.
Dr. Keller — Testified that kratom is a gateway drug and said it is marketed to kids and available without a prescription.
Dr. Keller — Said kratom can lead to escalating use and other drugs, calling it a gateway drug in his opinion.
Dr. Keller — Said generic buprenorphine naloxone costs about $30 per month and speculated kratom use may cost more over time.
Dr. Keller — Said kratom’s societal cost includes deaths and opioid withdrawal treatment.
Dr. Keller — Said he first heard of kratom being used for opioid effects about 15 years ago.
Dr. Keller — Said kratom use in jails has grown and become more potent over time.
Dr. Keller — Continued describing the length of time kratom has been known in correctional settings.
Dr. Keller — Was asked whether acute mitrogeninine syndrome is an officially recognized diagnosis, but did not finish answering in this section.
Dr. Keller — Said he does not know whether the condition is an officially recognized diagnosis and doubted it would be in the billing manual.
Dr. Keller — Said he does not know how to answer the question and stated, 'We diagnose that.'
Dr. Keller — Answered a question about Suboxone, saying it can be abused like other opiates but the abuse risk is lower because it is mixed with naloxone.
Dr. Keller — Said he had not looked up the exact number of deaths, but argued Suboxone has risks and that its risk is far less than kratom.
Dr. Keller — Reiterated that Suboxone is far less risky than kratom.
Marco Erickson — Representative Erickson continued his questioning after Dr. Keller’s testimony, focusing on substance use treatment issues including Suboxone, medication-assisted treatment costs, and the potential impact on Medicaid.
Marco Erickson — Likely a misspelling of Representative Erickson; recorded as voting no on the substitute motion.
Lou Skeen — Named as the next person to testify, apparently in person or possibly in another room.
Lou Skeen — Identified as the last in-person witness and said he was representing himself before deferring time.
Kurt Bramble — Kurt Bramble testified virtually on behalf of the American Kratom Association and argued that the regulatory concern should focus on synthetic or adulterated kratom products, especially 7-OH, rather than whole-plant kratom. He said FDA and DEA initially supported scheduling kratom in 2016, but later scientific review and research from agencies and universities indicated pure plant kratom does not meet the criteria for scheduling. He noted that reported kratom-related deaths were typically tied to adulterants such as fentanyl, benzodiazepines, tramadol, and other narcotics, and pointed out that many states have adopted Kratom Consumer Protection Acts. Bramble further stated that FDA and DEA’s recent public comments were aimed at 7-OH and other synthetic derivatives, not pure kratom leaf products, and that FDA warning language is standard boilerplate used on many natural supplements. He concluded that he would support scheduling only if whole-plant kratom met the eight-factor analysis, but maintained that current research and an FDA dose-finding study show natural kratom leaf products are generally well-tolerated and do not meet scheduling criteria.
Mr. Bramble — Mr. Bramble said the American Kratom Association strongly supports regulating kratom and wants labeling requirements, content disclosures, warnings, age limits, and penalties for violations. He added that regulation is needed because bad actors have adulterated kratom with substances like fentanyl, tramadol, and benzodiazepines, and are now synthesizing derivatives such as 7-hydroxymitragynine and pseudoxyl.
Bob Durkin / Robert Durkin — Lou Skeen deferred his time to Bob Durkin, who was confirmed to testify virtually.
Robert Durkin — Confirmed as the final virtual witness.
Bob Durkin — Bob Durkin, a pharmacist, Army veteran, and former FDA official representing the American Kratom Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He argued that the bill is confusing because it targets man-made kratom-related chemicals rather than kratom itself, which he said is not an opioid and does not cause respiratory depression. He distinguished kratom from synthetic compounds like 7-hydroxymitragynine and related substances, said safety concerns should not be extrapolated to kratom, and suggested that if the state regulates kratom it should do so through a KCPA-style framework with labeling, age restrictions, store placement rules, and warnings rather than outright prohibition.
Mr. Durkin — Mr. Durkin testified that regulation has worked in other states, noting that about 20 states have consumer protection acts and citing Rhode Island as an example of a state that reversed an earlier kratom ban. He then argued that reported adverse events are usually tied to synthetic or chemically modified compounds rather than kratom leaf itself. In response to questions, he clarified that mitragynine is a natural alkaloid found in kratom, while other compounds discussed are man-made or chemically altered, and used a coffee analogy to explain how processing can change the substance. He further explained that mitragynine can slowly oxidize into 7-hydroxymitragynine and that ingestion produces multiple metabolites.
Rob Beiswenger — Representative Byswinger made a substitute motion and argued against classifying the product as Schedule I, saying it has medical value and that criminalizing users would create unnecessary jail and budget burdens. He noted that supporters of kratom are open to regulation and concluded by moving to lay House Bill 864 on the table.
Rob Beiswenger — Representative Beiswenger votes no on the roll call.
Rob Beiswenger — A committee member is addressed as 'Representative Byswinger'; likely a transcription error for a member name.
Rob Beiswenger — Addressed by Representative Kaler while discussing the scope of the section.
Rob Beiswenger — Recorded as voting no on the substitute motion.
Tanya Burgoyne — Named as co-chair and someone with whom time would be split.
Erin Bingham — Aaron Bingham delivered an extended closing statement urging the committee to prioritize public safety over industry interests. He argued that 7-OH is naturally occurring in kratom, cited public health concerns and adverse reactions, and said the product lacks adequate testing and FDA approval. He contended that regulation would not sufficiently control potency or prevent harm, emphasized that the industry has the resources to do the science but has not done so, and called for the committee to pause action, study the issue further, and move kratom-related substances to Schedule I.
Dori Healey — Representative Dori Healey is recognized and addressed, then begins speaking in support of Representative Rubel's motion, arguing that the Legislature can act quickly when it wants to.
Dori Healey — Representative Healy asked the sponsor to clarify what qualifies as life-threatening, prompting a brief exchange focused on defining that term.
Richard Cheatum — Speaker references Representative Furman’s earlier point about testimony.
John Shirts — Representative Stone asks a parliamentary procedure question about how the motion would work.
John Shirts — Representative Stone votes yes.
Jordan Redman — Representative Redmond says the matter will likely come to business regardless and characterizes it as regulatory business.
Jordan Redman — Representative Redmond votes yes on the roll call.
Jordan Redman — Representative Redmond is the sponsor of the next bill on the agenda.