Kratom regulation bill clears Rhode Island House
Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy, a Westerly Democrat, rises to defend his bill that would regulate the psychoactive compound kratom during the Rhode Island House of Representatives' floor session on Thursday, May 29, 2025. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)
For the second year in a row, the Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a bill that would legalize and regulate the sale and manufacture of kratom, the psychoactive drug derived from a plant native to Southeast Asia.
The bill's sponsor, Speaker Pro Tempore Brian Patrick Kennedy of Westerly, returned to the House chamber just in time to see the legislation succeed by a 40-23 vote. Kennedy has been absent from the House floor since April 22 for medical reasons, chamber spokesperson Larry Berman confirmed in a Thursday evening email.
Kennedy's successful bill, H5565A, would remove Rhode Island from a list of six states that ban outright the sale and manufacture of kratom. The plant contains dozens of psychoactive alkaloids — the chemicals responsible for an array of effects including stimulation, euphoria and sedation. Due to its interaction with the brain's opioid receptors, some people who use kratom are recovering from or trying to quit opioids. The alkaloids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine are largely responsible for kratom's dose-dependent effects and are the substances most frequently targeted by legislation.
Most states do not regulate kratom, but some have started to adopt legislation backed by the kratom industry and advocacy groups nationwide. Fourteen state legislatures have passed kratom 'consumer protection' bills as of March 2025, according to KFF Health News. Like those bills, Kennedy's legislation — and its companion S0792 in the Senate sponsored by Sen. Hanna Gallo, a Cranston Democrat — puts in place the regulatory framework for the drug's sale and distribution with the intent of reining in gray market sales in places like head shops and gas stations.
The measure passed last year in both the House and Senate during the waning hours of the legislative session in mid-June. But Gov. Dan McKee vetoed the legislation when it arrived on his desk a few weeks later, citing regulatory confusion and the advice of state health officials. It's unclear if McKee will nix the bill again this year.
This year's bill is called the Rhode Island Kratom Act, and adds a new licensing and tax mechanism in coordination with the Department of Revenue, which was absent in last year's iteration.
'We're looking for new sources of revenue for the state of Rhode Island,' Kennedy said on the House floor. 'This actually will provide us with a new source of revenue.'
'The Kratom legislation pending in the General Assembly is different than last year's bill, so the Governor will carefully review the final bill that reaches his desk, if and when it does,' Olivia DaRocha, a spokesperson for McKee, said via email Thursday.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Gallo's bill was heard in committee on April 8 but has yet to be scheduled for a committee vote.
Among the 23 dissenting votes in the House were Republicans and progressive and moderate Democrats alike. Four representatives rose in opposition to the bill, with Rep. Michelle McGaw, a Portsmouth Democrat, reprising arguments she voiced during the bill's floor vote last year.
'I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone in this chamber that I have concerns about kratom being available on our streets, in local convenience stores, in gas stations,' McGaw told her colleagues.
Rep. Chris Paplauskas, a Cranston Republican, said legalizing kratom could strain the state's health care system even further — not to mention conflict with legislation the House passed in April.
'This body also recently voted in favor of harm reduction sites as a way to combat opioid addiction,' Paplauskas said. 'Expanding access to kratom, a substance that acts like an opioid, undermines those efforts and sends a conflicting message.'
Rep. Marie Hopkins, a Warwick Republican, offered a cautionary blast from the past.
'For those of you in the room who are as old as me, you might remember a little drug called ma huang, which was really popular in the '90s,' Hopkins said. 'We put it in all our energy drinks. You could buy it in any gas station.'
Ma huang is another name for ephedra, which is similar to kratom in that it contains multiple psychoactive alkaloids — including ephedrine, which is synthesized for over-the-counter decongestants like Sudafed and Primatene. Ephedrine, which is considered a regulatable drug and not a supplement, remains available in pharmacies under strict controls.
But parent compound ephedra was as ubiquitous as Hopkins described, sold on its own or mixed into weight loss and energy supplements. A number of deaths, including 30 in a five-year period among otherwise healthy military personnel, led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban ephedra in 2004.
'We don't need a repeat of that, and passing this bill will be a repeat of that,' Hopkins said.
Kennedy defended his bill. It's much longer compared to the previous effort, at 25 pages — a length at which industry advocates bristled during committee hearings in April, fearing Kennedy's redux departed too far from industry goals. It also incorporates input from the Rhode Island Department of Health and the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals.
He reiterated his belief in the drug's safety: 'The FDA dose-finding study concluded kratom is safe at all dose levels, and they really put a lot of kratom into people for that to be determined.'
The dose-finding study in 2024, however, did not convince the FDA to change its stance on the drug. The agency's website, updated in August, still reads: 'There are no drug products containing kratom or its two main chemical components that are legally on the market in the U.S. FDA has not approved any prescription or over-the-counter drug products containing kratom or its two main chemical components, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.'
Independent Rep. Jon Brien of Woonsocket pointed out a contradiction between the chamber's decisions when it comes to drug use. He offered the example of the flavored vape ban that passed as part of last year's budget.
'We shut down actual existing businesses in the state of Rhode Island because they were selling grape-flavored, banana-flavored, frutti-tutti-flavored vapes. But we did that because we said, 'The children, we got to save the children.''
Brien said he felt 'terrible' about opposing Kennedy's measure on his first day back, but he pushed forward.
'What message are we sending?' Brien asked. 'We just constantly send these inconsistent messages from this room. You can't vape tutti-frutti, but you could buy some kratom at the gas station and get out in your car and take it right away.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' heads for showdown with Senate parliamentarian
House-passed legislation to enact President Trump's agenda is headed for a showdown with the Senate parliamentarian as Democrats plan to challenge key elements of it, including a proposal to make Trump's expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent. Senate Democrats are warning ahead of the fight that if Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) makes an end run around the parliamentarian to make Trump's tax cuts permanent, it would seriously undermine the filibuster and open the door to Democrats rewriting Senate rules in the future. Senate Republicans argue that it's up to Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to set the budgetary baseline for the bill. They say it's not up to the parliamentarian to determine whether extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts should be scored as adding to the deficit. If Graham determines that extending Trump's tax cuts should be judged as an extension of current policy and therefore is budget neutral, it would allow Republicans to make the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, which is a top priority of Thune and Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). Democrats expect Senate Republicans to do just that, most likely by putting the question to a vote in the Senate, which Republicans control with 53 seats. That's what Thune did before the Memorial Day recess to set a new Senate precedent to allow Republicans to repeal California's electric vehicle (EV) mandate under the Congressional Review Act. Democrats will attempt to force the parliamentarian to rule that making the Trump tax cuts permanent would add to federal deficits beyond 2034 — beyond the 10-year budget window — and therefore violate the Senate's Byrd Rule. Such a ruling, if upheld on the Senate floor, would blow up Thune and Crapo's plan to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. They would have to add language to sunset those tax cuts to allow the bill to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote. Democrats are warning that another effort to circumvent the parliamentarian would open the door to a rewriting of the filibuster rule when their party recaptures control of Washington. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee who will co-lead the effort to challenge provisions in the Republican bill, said that filibuster reform is needed to stop circumventions of the parliamentarian. 'Part of my argument was if we don't go to something like the talking filibuster where it's public and takes effort [to block legislation], then there are going to be end runs around the filibuster and this is exactly, exactly what happened,' Merkley said after Senate Republicans ignored the parliamentarian and established a new precedent with a partisan vote to allow California's EV mandate to be overturned under the Congressional Review Act. Merkley has long advocated for requiring senators to actively hold the floor to block a bill. Under current Senate rules, lawmakers typically filibuster a bill simply by raising an objection. They don't need to occupy the floor to stop legislation. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for eliminating the Senate filibuster for legislation, said Senate Republicans blew a hole in the filibuster rule when they circumvented the parliamentarian by voting to set a new precedent to expand the Congressional Review Act. 'It's clear that the Republicans can no longer say that they're opposed to getting rid of the filibuster because they just got rid of the filibuster when it suited them,' she said. 'We need a set of rules that apply across the board, and that's true whether you have Democrats in the majority or Republicans in the majority. 'Yes, it is time for filibuster reform,' she said. Democratic aides say they suspect Thune's decision before the Memorial Day recess to put a major procedural question up for a Senate vote was a dress rehearsal for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Democrats say they plan to challenge the GOP plan to score the extension of Trump's expiring tax cuts as a matter of current policy during meetings with the Senate parliamentarian. Any item that fails to pass muster under the so-called Byrd Bath would be subject to a point-of-order objection on the floor, which could hold up the whole bill. A senior Senate Democratic aide said Merkley's staff argued to the parliamentarian in April that scoring the extension of Trump's tax cuts as a matter of current policy instead of current law would violate Senate precedent, as well as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The Democrats came away from those presentations hopeful that the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, would rule in their favor that Republicans could not score the extension of the 2017 tax cuts as budget-neutral. 'They felt that they were well received and had strong arguments in particular because there's a section in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings that defines baseline, and there are reasons for consistency with the Byrd Rule,' the Democratic aide said. Republicans were scheduled to argue their side of the case but then canceled the meeting, indefinitely postponing a ruling from the parliamentarian. 'The Republicans were scheduled to argue but then withdrew from that at the last minute, having convinced themselves that they had the authority' to set a current-policy baseline 'by empowering the chair of the Budget Committee,' the aide said. Democrats say that decision to postpone a verdict from the parliamentarian in April sets up a procedural showdown this summer that could wipe out the Republican plan to make Trump's tax cuts permanent. Under current law, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is due to expire at the end of 2025. Therefore, using a current-law baseline would score an extension of those expiring tax cuts as adding significantly to federal deficits beyond 2035. That would require Senate Republicans to come up with trillions of dollars in new spending cuts to offset the cost of making the tax cuts permanent. Thune could opt to again circumvent the parliamentarian by having the Senate vote on whether the Republican Budget chair gets to set the baseline. But Democrats warn that would strike another blow against the Senate filibuster and hasten its future abolition. 'We have to let the dust settle and see who still recognizes the importance of the filibuster. There are a bunch of Democrats who would probably vote to get rid of the filibuster,' said Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.). Asked if Democrats would eliminate the filibuster once they regain power, the Colorado senator predicted: 'That temptation will be there.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. fires ‘opening salvo' on vaccine status quo
Public health experts say Robert F. Kennedy Jr is exactly who they thought he was. The Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary — who is also the nation's most well-known vaccine skeptic — is remaking the agency in his image, casting doubt on the benefits of vaccines, and erecting new barriers that will make it harder for people who want shots to get them, like requiring new vaccines to be tested against placebos. During his confirmation hearings and other recent congressional testimony, Kennedy sought to distance himself from the anti-vaccine movement. He argued he is simply seeking good data about vaccine safety. He assured lawmakers he would not take away anyone's vaccines and specifically pledged to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that he would not make any changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine advisory panel. While testifying at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on May 14, Kennedy said his views on vaccines were 'irrelevant.' 'I don't want to seem like I'm being evasive, but I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me,' he told lawmakers, after being asked whether he would vaccinate his own children today against measles. Yet in the past week, Kennedy made an end run around the traditional process to change the recommendations about who should get a COVID-19 vaccine. He threatened to bar government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals, and his office revoked hundreds of millions of dollars pledged to mRNA vaccine maker Moderna to develop, test and purchase shots for pandemic flu. Kennedy has been critical of mRNA vaccines, and HHS said the funding was canceled because of concerns about the safety of 'under-tested' mRNA technology. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said the public should take Kennedy at his word. 'He's right. We shouldn't trust him,' Benjamin said. 'He's unbridled. He's out of control, and so I am fearful that he will do more to undermine vaccine access and quality in the United States.' Kennedy has a long history of opposition to vaccines. He petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021 to revoke the emergency use authorizations of the COVID-19 vaccines and threatened to sue the agency if it authorized COVID vaccines for children. His latest moves to change the COVID vaccine recommendations on healthy children and pregnant women are raising serious concerns about the potential to pull back on even more vaccines. 'What I see is COVID has provided this natural starting point … to sort of have that opening salvo in a bigger, longer-term effort to reconstruct, undermine vaccine policy,' said Richard Hughes IV, an attorney at Epstein Becker Green and former vice president of public policy at Moderna. The decision to change COVID vaccine policy was announced in a 58-second video clip shared on the social media site X. 'I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC-recommended immunization schedule,' Kennedy said. Days after Kennedy's pronouncement, the CDC issued new guidance that removed the recommendation for pregnant women to get a COVID shot but kept the vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule. The agency changed the recommendation from its previous wording of 'should' to say healthy children 'may' get the COVID vaccine after consulting with a health provider, an apparent contradiction to Kennedy's plan. Despite the new wording, the changes buck the traditional method of making new vaccine recommendations. The FDA decides whether to approve or authorize a vaccine, and the CDC's independent vaccine advisory panel convenes in an open public meeting to decide questions like who should get it, when and how often. It then sends recommendations to the CDC director, who can endorse or reject the recommendations. The director nearly always defers to the panel. The HHS secretary isn't typically involved in vaccine decisions, but there currently isn't an acting CDC director. 'We're seeing a total side-stepping of the nation's leading public health agency,' said Richard Besser, a former acting director of the CDC and president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Besser said doctors rely on the recommendations of federal health experts, which are supposed to be based on the best available science and evidence. But doctors can't be assured that's the case anymore, he said. Both Hughes and Benjamin said other changes to HHS vaccine policy are likely to be more nuanced and subtle than the agency's actions on COVID. 'I would have said a couple months ago, obviously measles, obviously polio, those are childhood vaccines [that could be changed]. … But I think it's going to be a little more subtle [than banning a shot]. It's going to be a little more slow,' Hughes said. In April, the CDC's vaccine advisers met after a two-month delay to vote on recommendations for chikungunya vaccines, meningitis vaccines and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines. About a month later, Kennedy personally signed off on recommendations for the chikungunya shot. He has not acted on the other recommendations from the panel's April meeting, including the use of a new meningitis vaccine and an expansion of RSV vaccines to high-risk adults ages 50-59. The vaccine panel isn't scheduled to vote on COVID vaccine recommendations until late June. Experts said it'll be important to listen to what the panel members say, and whether they feel they have the freedom to discuss HHS's recent actions. 'You've got a committee of advisers who were cut out of the loop. How are they going to handle that in a public forum?' Benjamin said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kennedy's autism crusade ignores history, including his own family's
In the telling of President Trump and his Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., autism in the U.S. has exploded in the past decades with seemingly no explanation. These claims skip over a mountain of data and touch on the country's dark history around treating people with neurological and developmental differences, including within Kennedy's own illustrious family. 'We are indeed diagnosing autism more than ever before in history. I mean, that's just a fact,' Andy Shih, chief science officer at the nonprofit Autism Speaks, told The Hill. While Kennedy insists external factors like vaccines must be to blame, experts instead believe the trend is a reflection of an improved understanding of neurodivergence within the medical community. 'We think that the increases are due to the fact that there's greater awareness that there are tools now that allow us to screen systematically with children at certain ages, certain stages of development,' Shih said. Autism, like many diagnoses, does not exist in a vacuum. Its perception and detection have changed drastically within the last century, with much of that change occurring throughout Kennedy's lifetime. The exact cause of autism is unknown, but the current scientific consensus is that it's a complex amalgamation of genetic predispositions and environmental factors. 'We used to compare autism to what we call complex disorders or complex diseases like heart disease and lung disease, where there's certainly a genetic predisposition, but environment influences certainly affect outcome,' Shih said. 'Now we look at autism not as a medical condition, but part of the richness of human variation.' Kennedy vowed to find the cause of autism by September of this year, suggesting that 'environmental toxins' in food and medicine are the likely culprits. Since autism was first diagnosed, numerous causes have been suggested, several of which have been discredited. In the mid-20th century, Austrian American psychologist Bruno Bettelheim proposed that emotionally distant parenting by so-called refrigerator mothers was the cause of autism, and he called for removing diagnosed children from their parents. Kennedy has long put his support behind the theory that vaccines could cause autism, but analyses, including those conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have found no link between immunizations and autism spectrum disorder. Kennedy's stated goal for finding the cause of autism is to prevent it from occurring. During an April press conference, he said children with autism will go on to be burdens on their families and society. 'These are kids who will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted,' Kennedy said. 'Autism destroys families,' he added. As to whether autism can be prevented, it's unclear. And some experts question the necessity, and ethics, of such an endeavor. 'Is it environmental exposure? Is it maternal or paternal age? We don't know the answers to that,' said Nicole Clark, CEO and co-founder of the Adult and Pediatric Institute. 'We absolutely should be funding scientific research to try to get to the bottom of that. But the comments that he makes of 'we should prevent autism.' Those comments get very close to eugenics.' Clark is also the mother of children with autism. 'Those comments start to weed into anyone that is different should be prevented,' she added. According to the CDC, 1 in 31 children and 1 in 45 adults in the U.S. have autism. This is a stark difference from just a few decades ago, when roughly 1 in 150 children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. But autism as a diagnosis is a historically recent development. The first person considered to be diagnosed with autism, an American banker named Donald Triplett, died in 2023 at the age of 89. He was diagnosed in 1943, 11 years before Kennedy was born. Autism was first added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a psychiatric disorder connected to schizophrenia in 1968. It wasn't until 1980 that the DSM was updated to reflect autism as a developmental diagnosis separate from schizophrenia. The standards and criteria for diagnosing autism have also broadened over the years. But increased diagnoses don't necessarily mean increased occurrence. 'We can see a couple things that indicate that what's going on is that our ability to recognize and diagnose autism is improving, rather than that the actual rate of autism occurring in the population is going up,' said Zoe Gross, director of advocacy at Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Diagnosis substitution is a phenomenon in which the labeling of one condition is replaced by another over time as knowledge and understanding change. Applying our current day understanding of autism spectrum disorder reveals broad areas for potential diagnosis substitution. 'We see that as we learn more about autism, people who clearly show the traits of autism but would in the past have been given just a diagnosis of intellectual disability, now have an autism diagnosis,' Gross explains. Another factor contributing to increased diagnoses is that many people with autism spectrum disorder may appear to have no intellectual disability. 'Rates of autism without intellectual disability, that is increasing faster than diagnoses of autism with intellectual disability, which shows that if that group that would have been missed in the past that is making up the larger portion of the increase in diagnoses,' said Gross. A report from 2023 that reviewed information from 2000 to 2016 found that 26.7 percent of children with autism spectrum disorder had profound autism. But there is nuance within that group, too. 'When they did that study, they defined profound autism as having a measured IQ below 50, or being nonspeaking, or being mostly nonspeaking. So, any of those three things, or any combination of those three things, you would get put in that category,' said Gross. Despite being lumped together, many people with autism spectrum disorder who are nonverbal or mostly nonverbal are capable of productive activities, which Gross notes can include writing poetry. Gross noted that when Kennedy was growing up, 'the diagnosis of autism wasn't even in the DSM.' According to Gross, to be diagnosed with autism in the '40s and '50s, when Kennedy was growing up, was 'very rare,' as only a few clinicians would have been able to identify it. Kennedy has claimed that he's never seen someone of his generation with 'full-blown autism,' which could be partly explained by how many of these individuals were hidden away from wider society. Up until the mid-20th century, a large proportion of children perceived to be mentally or neurologically disabled were put in institutions where they were often subjected to extreme neglect. Institutionalization reached its peak in the '50s and '60s. 'If you look at statistics about the disabilities and needs of people who are in institutions around the time when they started to close in the '60s and '70s, you'll see that many of those people had exactly those kinds of disabilities and needs that Secretary Kennedy describes,' said Gross. 'Families would be told … 'You should forget all about them, try to have another child and move on with your life,'' Gross added. 'So, a very kind of coldhearted approach to society's responsibility to care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.' Beginning in the '60s, parents began moving away from institutionalization, choosing instead to keep their children at home. The Kennedys were early adopters of this choice, at least in the beginning. Rosemary Kennedy, born in 1918, was the eldest daughter of Joseph and Rose Kennedy and aunt to the current Health secretary. Developmental delays were observed early on in Rosemary's life; she was slower to walk and speak than her brothers and had difficulty concentrating. She is also remembered as having had a bright personality in her youth. It's unclear if Rosemary had autism or another developmental disorder. But with these traits, the Kennedys would have been advised to institutionalize Rosemary. 'But Rose Kennedy, their mother and that would be Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s grandmother, didn't believe in that, and she thought the best place for Rosemary was at home,' historian Kate Clifford Larson, author of the book 'Rosemary: The Hidden Kennedy Daughter,' told The Hill. 'So, they diverged from what was going on in general in the public at the time.' Joe Kennedy, who Larson describes as 'nervous and afraid,' consented to having Rosemary lobotomized in her early 20s, rendering her incapacitated and institutionalized for the rest of her life. She died in 2005. According to Larson, this choice to raise Rosemary along with her other siblings, and her subsequent disappearance from their lives, had a profound impact on the entire family, including RFK Jr.'s father, the senior Robert F. Kennedy. 'He was 14, 13 when she was lobotomized, so he was cognizant, whereas Ted was a little bit younger. So, they were all affected, and they missed her, because it was a very, very tight family,' said Larson. 'Bobby missed her, too, and like his brother, Jack, once they got power in the government, they started making changes.' Rosemary's sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver went on to found the Special Olympics, the largest sports organization for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Eunice's son, Anthony Shriver, founded the group Best Buddies International, which connects people with intellectual and developmental disabilities with friends and mentors. 'Bobby Jr., he was part of that. He saw his family do all these things all those years,' said Larson. 'He visited those horrific institutions as a teenager and young man. He saw how horrible they were. And so, for him today to say that those things didn't exist, that autism and these other illnesses did not exist before vaccines, is crazy.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
