Michigan has seen competing legislative proposals on kratom, reflecting a deep divide among lawmakers, health officials, and the public about how the substance should be treated under state law.
House Bill 4969 was introduced to create a regulatory framework for kratom rather than prohibit it. The bill would establish a vendor licensing system administered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, require buyers to be at least 21 years old, and set product testing standards to verify alkaloid content and screen for contaminants. Labeling requirements under HB 4969 would mandate that kratom products disclose the total weight of kratom, the concentration of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine in milligrams per serving, manufacturer name and address, batch or lot numbers, expiration dates, and a statement that the product has not been evaluated by the FDA. Products would also need to carry prominent warnings advising against use by pregnant or nursing women, minors, and individuals taking prescription medications without physician guidance.
Vendors found in violation of HB 4969 would face civil penalties ranging from $500 to $1,000 for a first offense and up to $5,000 per incident for repeat violations. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development would be authorized to conduct inspections, collect product samples, and issue cease-and-desist orders for adulterated or mislabeled products.
However, the more recent legislative development is House Bill 5537, which takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than regulating kratom, HB 5537 proposes banning the substance in Michigan entirely. This bill has shifted the center of the legislative debate and introduced new urgency into discussions that had previously focused on how to regulate kratom, not whether to prohibit it.
The House Commerce and Tourism Committee has held hearings on both bills, with significant disagreement among stakeholders. The American Kratom Association supports HB 4969 as a model for responsible regulation. Public health advocates and some medical organizations have expressed support for HB 5537 or, at minimum, for stricter controls than HB 4969 would impose. The Michigan Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians has called for stronger alkaloid concentration limits and mandatory adverse event reporting by vendors regardless of which regulatory path Michigan ultimately takes.
The legislative process has slowed due to disagreements over enforcement mechanisms, implementation timelines, and the cost of running a licensing and inspection program. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs estimated that implementing HB 4969 alone would require hiring three full-time inspectors and establishing a new administrative division at an annual cost of approximately $450,000. The introduction of HB 5537 has added another layer of uncertainty to the outcome.
Public Health Expert Opinions and Safety Risks
Public health officials and medical professionals in Michigan have raised consistent concerns about kratom, particularly given the rise in emergency department visits and the lack of federal regulation governing product safety.
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services documented 127 emergency department visits in 2024 where kratom use was identified as a contributing factor, compared to 83 visits in 2023. Some of those cases involved products that tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids, tianeptine, or phenibut, none of which were disclosed on product labels. State health officials issued public advisories warning consumers about adulterated kratom products and recommending that purchases be made only from vendors who provide certificates of analysis from accredited laboratories.
Addiction medicine specialists who testified before the Michigan Legislature emphasized that neither HB 4969 nor the current version of HB 5537 adequately funds public education efforts about kratom’s risks or resources for individuals experiencing dependence. These specialists have documented withdrawal symptoms in regular kratom users that include muscle aches, insomnia, irritability, decreased appetite, fever, and diarrhea. The severity of withdrawal correlates with the amount and frequency of use.
Emergency room physicians across Michigan have reported cases requiring medical intervention. A 34-year-old Detroit resident was hospitalized in November 2024 after consuming what was labeled as pure kratom powder purchased from a local convenience store. Laboratory analysis revealed the product contained a synthetic cannabinoid not listed on the label. The patient experienced seizures, severe agitation, and cardiac arrhythmia requiring three days of intensive care. Medical facilities in Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, and Lansing have reported similar cases involving adulterated products.
A 52-year-old Lansing resident experienced dangerous drops in blood pressure in 2024 after combining kratom with a prescribed antihypertensive, requiring emergency treatment. Healthcare providers have noted a pattern of increasing kratom-related presentations in emergency settings, particularly involving drug interactions with prescription medications.
The Michigan Poison Control Center received 43 calls related to kratom exposure in 2024, with reported symptoms including nausea, vomiting, rapid heart rate, confusion, and seizures. Three of those cases required intensive care unit admission.
A case at a Grand Rapids hospital in 2023 documented neonatal abstinence syndrome in an infant born to a mother who used kratom during pregnancy. The infant required a 12-day hospital stay with pharmacological management of withdrawal symptoms, including tremors, irritability, high-pitched crying, and feeding difficulties. Medical providers continue to advise that pregnant and nursing women avoid kratom due to insufficient safety data.
Physician and public health testimony submitted to Michigan legislative committees reflects growing consensus that the current unregulated market creates risks that would not exist under a consistent quality control system. However, there is no unified position among health stakeholders on whether regulation or prohibition better protects public health. That disagreement is central to why both HB 4969 and HB 5537 remain in play.
House Bill 5537: Michigan’s Proposed Kratom Ban
House Bill 5537 represents a significant departure from the regulatory approach proposed in HB 4969. Rather than creating a licensing and testing framework, HB 5537 would prohibit the manufacture, distribution, sale, and possession of kratom and its derivatives in Michigan.
The bill identifies mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, the primary active alkaloids in kratom, as controlled substances under Michigan law. If enacted, HB 5537 would make kratom legally equivalent to other prohibited substances, exposing individuals and businesses to criminal penalties for possession or sale.
Under the proposed language of HB 5537, penalties for selling kratom would vary based on quantity and whether the sale occurred near a school or involved a minor. Retail vendors currently selling kratom products in Michigan, including smoke shops, gas stations, and online retailers operating in the state, would be required to cease sales immediately upon enactment. The bill does not include a transition period or safe harbor provision for businesses to sell through existing inventory.
Stakeholder reactions to HB 5537 have been sharply divided. The American Kratom Association has opposed the bill, arguing that a ban would push kratom users toward unregulated markets or more dangerous substances, including prescription opioids and illicit drugs. The organization has submitted formal testimony urging the legislature to reject HB 5537 and advance HB 4969 instead.
Medical and public health groups have responded differently. Some physicians and addiction specialists have expressed support for HB 5537, citing concerns about kratom’s opioid-like pharmacology, the risk of dependence, and the documented harm caused by adulterated products. Others in the medical community have taken a more cautious position, noting that prohibition without adequate treatment infrastructure could leave kratom-dependent individuals without safe options.
Retail industry groups representing convenience stores and specialty retailers have raised economic objections, estimating that a ban would eliminate a significant revenue stream for small businesses operating in Michigan. Several vendors have requested the opportunity to testify about the practical impact of HB 5537 on business operations.
As of mid-2025, HB 5537 remains in committee. The bill has not advanced to a floor vote, but its introduction has complicated the path forward for HB 4969 by forcing legislators to take a more explicit position on whether regulation or prohibition better serves Michigan residents. The two bills reflect genuinely different views about kratom’s risk profile and the proper role of government in controlling access to the substance.
Federal and Local Regulatory Responses to Kratom
Kratom is not currently classified as a controlled substance under federal law, but the FDA has taken an active and consistently critical stance toward the substance for more than a decade.
The FDA has issued multiple public health advisories warning consumers about kratom use. The agency has stated that kratom has properties consistent with opioids and has documented its own analysis of kratom-related deaths submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. In 2016, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced it intended to temporarily classify mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine as Schedule I substances, a move that would have made kratom federally illegal. The DEA withdrew that notice after public and congressional pushback but has not closed the door on future scheduling action.
The FDA has used its authority to take enforcement actions short of scheduling. The agency has issued import alerts allowing U.S. Customs to detain shipments of kratom products without physical examination. The FDA has also sent warning letters to kratom companies making therapeutic claims, citing violations of federal drug and dietary supplement law. In 2023, the FDA warned that kratom products marketed with claims about treating pain, opioid withdrawal, or other conditions are being sold illegally as unapproved drugs.
At the state level, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has not taken a formal regulatory position equivalent to a ban or licensing requirement, as those decisions rest with the legislature. However, the department has issued consumer advisories and collaborated with poison control centers and emergency departments to track kratom-related adverse events. The department’s adverse event data has been submitted as evidence in legislative hearings supporting stronger oversight.
The Michigan Pharmacists Association has submitted comments to legislative committees noting the absence of standardized dosing guidance and the lack of any mechanism for pharmacists to counsel patients on kratom use, given that it is not a regulated drug or supplement under current Michigan law.
At the local level, several municipalities in other states have enacted their own kratom ordinances, but no Michigan city or county has enacted a local kratom ban or licensing requirement as of 2025. Michigan preemption law on this issue remains untested, and it is unclear whether local governments would have the authority to regulate kratom independently of state action.
The Kratom Consumer Protection Act, a model legislation framework promoted by the American Kratom Association, has been adopted in several states including Utah, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. HB 4969 closely mirrors this model. Michigan’s consideration of both a consumer protection framework and an outright ban through HB 5537 puts the state at a crossroads that federal inaction has left to individual states to resolve on their own terms.