Ohio drug policy and the case for letting legislators legislate

By Jon Kozesky
Guest columnist

The debate in Ohio’s fight over kratom and kratom’s derivatives like 7-hydroxymitragynine, commonly called 7-OH, seems simple enough: what is this substance, and do its risks outweigh potential benefits? But, there’s more to this fight: who should be making decisions on drug policy in Ohio? Is it the governor and an appointed board through emergency authority, or the Legislature, which operates in the open with debate and input from the voters? 

Late in 2025, the Board of Pharmacy recommended the state propose an emergency rule on kratom products, including 7-OH, claiming the products “have no accepted medical use” and “pose an imminent hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare.” In December , the Governor banned these products through executive order, citing deaths “in which kratom was present” between 2019 and 2024. 

Those concerns should be taken seriously. But, this is exactly why the legislature should lead. Emergency authority must not be a substitute for the legislative process that considers expert testimony, patient stories, and alternatives to outright prohibition. 

Emergency scheduling should not be the norm, especially when the proposed policies affect thousands of Ohioans who use kratom products to manage pain, anxiety, or as a harm-reduction tool to come off dangerous substances like opioids.

Legislators, even those who expressed support for the ban, agree more information is needed to make a long-term decision. In a recent press release, Rep. Sean Patrick Brennan said, “The volume of public input alone makes clear that more study, more testimony, and more thoughtful policymaking are needed.”

That is the core issue. An unelected board should not unilaterally make lasting policy while the legislature is actively considering the same question. There’s a better path forward: allowing Ohio’s General Assembly to do its job. 

Lawmakers can weigh the evidence in committees, public hearings, and floor debate. They can decide whether Ohio needs age restrictions, labeling rules, potency limits, testing standards, enforcement tools, or a ban.

Lawmakers have already been hearing testimony from parents, consumers, and experts, with some legislators, like Rep. Munira Somani, calling outright bans a mistake, instead advocating for tighter regulations. 

The rush to ban kratom and 7-OH fits a larger and troubling pattern in Ohio.

When Ohio voters approved Issue 2 in 2023, which legalized and regulated adult-use cannabis, they did so through a highly specific ballot initiative after a long, public debate. In the aftermath, Governor DeWine pushed lawmakers to adjust the voter-approved measure before it was implemented. In 2025, Issue 2 was heavily altered through Senate Bill 56, at the Governor’s behest, effectively reshaping a mandate already settled by voters at the ballot box.

The trend is problematic. The executive branch has grown comfortable intervening with both legislative process and voter-led proposals to ensure its agenda prevails. This goes against the idea of limited government, which tells us that legislature debates and sets policy while the executive branch carries out that policy. The more a governor uses agencies to set policy, the more we risk the state legislature becoming inconsequential.

This does not mean the governor is acting in bad faith. Governor DeWine cares about Ohioans and takes his duty to protect public health seriously. But the process, not just the intention, matters.

Families are properly concerned when kratom or 7-OH appear in toxicology reports, and reported dependence on the substances requires attention. However, the evidence is mixed, and a long-term state ban would stop any evidence gathering or scientific research on kratom and 7-OH. 

A better approach would treat kratom and 7-OH as substances to be studied, regulated, and properly enforced. International review boards, like those at the World Health Organization, have recognized the nuance of kratom policy and stopped short of recommending kratom and 7-OH for critical review. The legislature should follow suit with sustained research, dialogue, and testimony capturing this issue’s complexities in their entirety. 

History shows that not every controversial substance is a menace to society to be prohibited. Some have become valuable harm-reduction tools or possess therapeutic value. The benefits of these substances only come to light once researchers can fully study them. 

The governor’s approach, while it may be well intentioned, does not allow needed research or full public debate, short-circuiting the process Ohio needs. If the state is serious about limited government, scientific evidence, and public accountability, let the Legislature lead. 

Let committees hear the evidence. Let lawmakers write the rules. And, let the governor enforce the law rather than make it.

Jon Kozesky hails from Conneaut and currently resides in Cleveland. He has spent over 23 years working in Ohio politics and public policy, including two decades of experience with public health organizations, hospitals, tribal governments, and community partners on issues ranging from addiction recovery to patient access and federal policy.