On January 14, the North Dakota House Judiciary Committee voted against the kratom ban bill. The Do Not Pass vote prevents HB 1101 from moving forward at this time. The Committee voted 10 to 3 in opposition to the bill, with one member abstaining.
On January 15, the bill went to a vote in the North Dakota House and was defeated 77 -15.
In a move that has sparked significant debate, North Dakota House Bill 1101 sought to ban kratom, a botanical substance derived from the leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree, native to Southeast Asia. If passed, the bill would have added mitragynine, the primary active compound in kratom, to the list of controlled substances, making it illegal to manufacture, sell, buy, and possess kratom in North Dakota.
Interestingly, HB 1101 classifies kratom as an “opiate,” despite the fact that an opiate, by definition, is derived from the opium poppy. This classification has raised eyebrows, as many substances listed as opiates in Subsection 3 of section 19-03.1-05 of the North Dakota Century Code do not fit this definition. It appears that North Dakota legislators may have confused the terms “opioid” and “opiate.” An “opioid” is any substance that acts on opioid receptors, a category that includes both natural and synthetic substances.
The bill was sponsored by North Dakota Representative Jeremy Olson (R) on behalf of Providence House, a for-profit rehabilitation business located in Arnegard, ND. It was also co-sponsored by seven other Republican representatives. A public hearing was held on Monday, January 13, where kratom advocates testified against the bill, while public officials, including the Executive Director of the North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy, supported the criminalization of kratom consumers.
New Legislation Misses the Mark on Addiction
This legislative move runs counter to the recommendations of Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). In 2021, Dr. Volkow emphasized that addiction is a medical condition—a treatable brain disorder—not a character flaw or a form of social deviance. She argued that the U.S. must adopt a public health approach to drug addiction to promote population well-being and health equity.
Before HB 1101, there had been no attempts to ban kratom in North Dakota. The bill has ignited controversy, with opponents arguing that it could drive kratom use underground, leading to unregulated and potentially dangerous black market products. Proponents, however, believe that kratom poses significant health risks and should be controlled to protect public safety.
North Dakota’s drug laws and policies have historically focused on stringent control measures. The state has implemented various opioid safety policies, including prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP), opioid prescribing regulation guidelines, and naloxone access initiatives. Additionally, North Dakota has a Good Samaritan Law that provides immunity from prosecution for individuals seeking medical assistance during an alcohol-related emergency.
The debate over HB 1101 highlights the ongoing tension between public health approaches and criminalization in drug policy. As North Dakota lawmakers continue to deliberate, the outcome of this bill will likely have significant implications for kratom users and the broader conversation on drug regulation in the state.