Drugs, synthetic analogs, and regulation

Earlier today, we posted the #2 post of 2025, which was about the emergence of a synthetic analog to nicotine.

it’s interesting to me that we start with tobacco, move to nicotine vape, then on to the nicotine pouch, and eventually drift to synthetic nicotine analogs. 

And all along we see a consistent theme of:

• harmful (and unknown) ingredients,
• marketing to children and youth,
• avoiding regulation via innovation, and
• what amounts to a long-term population-sized experiment. 

This brought to mind a podcast episode I’d recently heard about models for regulating kratom.

…there are effectively only two policy choices. One is scheduling kratom, or banning it, which both Louisiana and Connecticut passed this year. The other is the industry-favored KCPA, which was passed by Rhode Island this year. While the KCPA is better than no regulation at all, these customer protection acts are, in my view, insufficient and primarily result in toothless self-regulation.

So why is the KCPA not the solution? 

This is what is included in the Utah KCPA, the first state to pass such a law in 2019:

• Requires kratom products to be registered with the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
• Mandates labeling that discloses alkaloid content
• Prohibits synthetic kratom alkaloids and synthetic derivatives
• Caps 7-OH at no more than 2 percent of total alkaloids
• Prohibits adulteration with controlled substances or harmful additives
• Bans the sale of kratom to individuals under 18
• Establishes criminal penalties for violations, including misdemeanors
• Allows consumers to bring civil lawsuits for damages
• Authorizes the state to issue fines, seize, and destroy unregistered products
• Directs the Department to create rules and testing standards, without dedicated enforcement funding

Two things stuck out to me.

First, the industry is trying to design its own regulation model with the Kratom Consumer Protection Act. This is aided by the relative cultural ignorance about the substance. We’re only beginning to hear stories (pro and con) about the impact of kratom on people’s lives. As those narratives take root, they will shape the regulatory environment. It seems like the industry knows this and would like to get its model adopted before the substance enters widespread public consciousness.

Second, the emergence of analogs has created challenges for regulation and the existing business landscape. This blog has previously discussed this issue that “safe supply” models to regulate and reduce harm will inevitably run into issues with innovation (inside or outside the licit industry) changing the risk profile of a drug. This leaves us with the choice between establishing prohibitions on innovation or living with constant updates to the “safe supply” model.