The state of Ohio has opted to temporarily halt its emergency scheduling of kratom compounds, a move praised by advocacy groups and seen as a significant shift toward more measured drug policy development. On August 27, 2025, the American Kratom Association (AKA) publicly thanked Governor Mike DeWine and the Ohio Board of Pharmacy for deciding against the immediate classification of kratom-related substances as Schedule I drugs—a designation reserved for those considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
This decision came just days after Governor DeWine had called for urgent regulatory action to curb what he described as an escalating public health threat. The governor had urged the Ohio Board of Pharmacy to take emergency action to classify mitragynine, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MP) as illegal drugs. These kratom compounds, both natural and synthetically modified, have been linked to more than 200 unintentional overdose deaths in Ohio between 2019 and 2024, according to preliminary data from the Ohio Department of Health.
DeWine had characterized synthetic kratom products as “essentially legal, over-the-counter opiates,” raising concerns that these substances, in their modified forms, were being marketed and consumed with little regulatory oversight. His push for immediate action was driven in part by law enforcement and medical examiner reports suggesting a sharp uptick in synthetic kratom-related fatalities over the past two years.
However, the emergency scheduling proposal sparked backlash from consumer advocates and medical freedom proponents who argued that the vast majority of kratom users consume the plant safely and responsibly. Kratom, derived from the leaves of a Southeast Asian tree, is often used for pain relief, mood support, or as an alternative to opioid-based treatments. It remains legal at the federal level and in most U.S. states, though its legal status varies widely.
The American Kratom Association quickly responded to the state’s pause with a statement describing the move as “thoughtful and responsible.” The group emphasized the importance of drawing distinctions between natural kratom and its synthetically modified counterparts, which may have significantly different pharmacological effects. Mac Haddow, the AKA’s senior public policy fellow, applauded the state’s willingness to engage with scientific data and public input before imposing sweeping restrictions. He further called on Ohio officials to consider a regulatory framework that targets specific harmful additives or adulterants rather than criminalizing the entire category of kratom products.
Advocates argue that a blanket ban on all kratom-related substances would have unintended consequences. For many Ohioans, especially those managing chronic pain or seeking alternatives to prescription opioids, kratom offers a legal and accessible option. Critics of prohibition warn that overly aggressive regulation could drive kratom sales underground, making it harder to monitor quality and safety. They point to other states like Utah and Georgia, which have implemented regulatory models that require proper labeling, age restrictions, and testing standards without banning the substance outright.
Ohio’s decision to step back from an immediate ban does not mean regulation is off the table. Rather, it signals an openness to developing more nuanced policies through public hearings, legislative proposals, and scientific consultation. The Ohio Board of Pharmacy is expected to continue evaluating the available toxicology data, along with input from healthcare providers, law enforcement, consumer groups, and the general public.
This moment may serve as a national model for how states can address emerging substances that fall into regulatory gray areas. While concerns over synthetic kratom variants remain serious, Ohio’s decision acknowledges the complexity of the issue and the need to avoid reactionary policies that may do more harm than good. Instead, it opens the door to a broader conversation on drug classification, consumer rights, and the balance between public health and personal freedom.
In the coming weeks, the state may consider draft legislation or updated regulatory proposals that seek to restrict the harmful forms of kratom while preserving access to the natural plant in its traditional, unadulterated form. Whether such efforts can satisfy both public health officials and consumer advocates remains to be seen, but for now, Ohio’s move has earned rare bipartisan praise for its restraint and willingness to listen.
