The government’s first instinct when something scares people is to rush out bad policy before it’s checked the facts. Whether that be for gun control, COVID-19 lockdowns and forced vaccines for kids, or, well, you name it. Conservatives rightly criticize that impulse. Good policy is never made in the midst of panic.
Yet now Washington risks making the same mistake in another area. This time, it’s considering the most extreme federal action available against 7-OH, not because the science has suddenly changed, but because powerful interests are demanding it.
You’ve probably never heard of Kratom or 7-OH, but 7-OH is derived from the Kratom plant and is used as an alternative to opioids in the fight against addiction. It’s a legal substance from the leaves of a common tropical plant. You’d think, in the war on addiction, anything that could help would be cheered, but that’s not how reality works.
This isn’t a new fight. Washington already tried this once. The Obama Administration pushed to make it a Schedule I drug, like bath salts, in 2016. President Trump’s first administration took a second look and concluded the science didn’t justify it. President Trump's judgment was right in 2018. Before reversing it in 2026, the administration should explain what scientific evidence has changed.
There is no issue where everyone is on the same side, and when it comes to anything dealing with pain or addiction, there is too much money involved to not have people pushing and pulling in every direction.
In this case, government regulation is being weaponized by the Kratom industry to eliminate 7- OH as an option for people seeking possible ways out of really bad situations, which is weird since 7-OH comes from Kratom. The Washington Examiner reported, “the kratom industry has been pushing bans like this because it doesn’t like the 7-OH competition.”
No industry likes competition, and everyone hates government interference in their industry…unless it can be weaponized against their opponents; then the most “free market” people in the world pull every string they can get their hands on to direct government power at their competition. I saw this firsthand when I worked in telecom and tech policy – each side extolling the virtues of free markets when the government was looking at them, then encouraging that same government to regulate their competitors.
“For months, the fight over 7-OH has been framed as a simple public health debate,” according to Florida Politics. “But major investigations from The New York Times and WIRED have pulled back the curtain on something far more troubling: an entrenched segment of the kratom industry has been working to protect its own market position by pushing restrictions on competitors, while leaving many other more dangerous kratom products, including mixed beverages, shots and powders, on the shelves.”
In this case, this is kind of like egg whites lobbying to get yolks banned, as “Big Kratom would have you believe that their product is fine, but that 7-OH is not," The Examiner reported. "That’s the story that’s being whispered in the president’s ear right now by people such as DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has $1 million invested in kratom. But the reality is very different.”
As I said, Washington has already tested this idea once when the Obama administration pushed it and President Trump, after reviewing the evidence, rejected Obama’s conclusion. That's why today's debate shouldn't be whether the government has the power to ban 7-OH. It should be whether anything has changed scientifically since Trump's HHS concluded Schedule I wasn't justified in the first administration. (Hint: it has not changed.)
The Cato Institute writes, “Moving 7‑OH into Schedule I would not eliminate demand; it would displace it, shifting sales from regulated retail settings into illicit markets where potency is unverified, adulteration is common, and risks are far greater. Such a step could also provide transnational criminal organizations with yet another product to layer onto a portfolio already dominated by fentanyl and its analogues. In striving to prevent harm, lawmakers risk repeating a familiar policy pattern — one that inadvertently amplifies danger while removing a lower-risk alternative from the legal marketplace.”
As someone who used an alternative (vaping) to quit smoking after countless tries, I like the availability of alternatives. As someone who supports individual rights, I’m not a fan of bans. Studying everything is the way to go, so you can move with knowledge and certainty. That can’t happen with a ban, just as the people who will finally be able to quit smoking with vaping wouldn’t be able to with a ban of that, or those addicted to opioids won’t be able to get free of them with a ban of 7-OH.
Derek Hunter is the host of the Derek Hunter Show on WMAL in Washington, D.C., and has a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member