Ohio is facing a growing public health debate over the future of kratom, a substance that has seen rising use but also an alarming increase in overdose deaths. Recent state data shows overdoses where kratom was listed as a cause of death have tripled in the last five years. As the number of cases rises, the distinction between natural and synthetic kratom is driving disagreement among state leaders, health officials, business owners, and advocates.
Governor Mike DeWine has called for a complete statewide ban on kratom in all its forms, citing concerns about public safety and the lack of research into its long-term effects. A meeting of the Ohio Board of Pharmacy to discuss potential action was abruptly canceled after DeWine decided to hear the perspective of federal health officials, including U.S. Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed support for the use of natural forms of kratom while opposing synthetic versions.
Kratom in its natural form comes from grinding the leaves of the Southeast Asian plant Mitragyna speciosa. Supporters argue that when used responsibly, it can help manage pain and aid in recovery from opioid addiction. Synthetic kratom, known as 7-OH, is a chemically altered compound that experts warn can be more potent than morphine. This version has been linked to more severe health outcomes and is widely seen as a driving force behind overdose cases.
Some former users describe kratom as a dangerous substance that pulled them into addiction. One man in recovery explained that he began with natural kratom but soon turned to synthetic, which quickly consumed his life. Recovery centers also report seeing patients struggling with withdrawal and side effects similar to opioids, particularly when kratom is mixed with other drugs.
At the same time, there are powerful voices defending natural kratom. Jack Smith, a local business owner who operates three kratom shops, credits the plant with helping him overcome a dependency on pharmaceutical opioids after a racecar accident. Smith argues that natural kratom has helped professional athletes and ordinary people manage pain and addiction. He strongly opposes synthetic kratom, which he believes has damaged the reputation and business of natural kratom products. He explained that synthetic versions contain dangerously high levels of 7-OH, while the natural plant contains only trace amounts.
Public health experts emphasize that kratom is still relatively new to the United States and has not been studied thoroughly. Adam Jurich, vice president of a major recovery center, warned that kratom’s opiate-like effects can leave users in distress and create the potential for misuse, especially among young people. He stressed that adolescents experimenting with kratom could face serious risks, highlighting the need for stronger regulation.
The American Kratom Association (AKA) has taken a clear position, advocating for consumer access to natural kratom products but urging restrictions on chemically modified synthetic products. In a statement, the group said more than 300,000 Ohio residents currently use kratom, and those consumers deserve access to safe, age-restricted, and properly labeled products. The association supports federal recommendations to target synthetic 7-OH while leaving natural leaf products legal under regulation.
Federal agencies have also weighed in. The FDA recently recommended that 7-OH synthetic kratom be scheduled at the federal level, echoing concerns about its addiction liability and heightened potency. Still, the FDA has not recommended similar action against natural kratom, noting that the current safety data does not justify a ban on plant-based products.
The debate in Ohio reflects a larger national conversation about how to handle kratom. On one side are those who believe natural kratom provides a lifeline for people in pain or battling addiction, while on the other are those who see both forms of the substance as a danger that could fuel future waves of addiction and overdose.
For now, DeWine has reiterated his desire to ban kratom entirely, but discussions between state and federal officials continue. As the dialogue unfolds, stakeholders across Ohio remain divided. Shop owners and advocates continue to stress the difference between natural and synthetic versions, while health officials and lawmakers push for decisive action to address rising overdose numbers.
The future of kratom in Ohio is uncertain, but the growing pressure on policymakers suggests that regulations or outright bans are inevitable. Whether the state chooses to distinguish between natural and synthetic kratom or opts for a complete prohibition will determine how this controversial substance is managed moving forward.
