North Dakota Advances Two Kratom Bills Ahead of a September Special Session. One Regulates the Leaf; the Other Bans the Synthetics.

North Dakota currently prohibits kratom outright. An executive order signed by Governor Kelly Armstrong on August 3 declared a public health emergency and barred the sale, use and possession of all kratom and kratom products statewide, effective at 5 p.m. on August 5.

What the Legislature does next is a different question, and on Monday, August 17, it acquired a shape. A state kratom working group advanced two separate bill drafts to the special session Armstrong called for September 2. One would regulate natural leaf. The other would ban synthetic derivatives outright. Together they are the clearest legislative attempt yet to write the leaf-versus-concentrate distinction directly into state law.

The Emergency Posture

Armstrong announced the executive order jointly with Attorney General Drew Wrigley. The stated purpose was to limit fatal overdoses and address what the administration called an imminent public health threat from kratom, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.

"North Dakotans are overdosing and dying from a product you can buy off the shelf in a convenience store without any regulations or age requirement," Armstrong said in the announcement. Wrigley's statement went to marketing: "The addictive, dangerous, and potentially deadly nature of kratom cannot be ignored, nor can those risks be concealed by colorful packaging or marketing designed to make these products appear harmless or appealing." Senate Majority Leader David Hogue said kratom "is not a supplement; it is an opioid acting drug, sold with no consistent age check or dosage standard."

Those are the state's characterizations, quoted here as the officials made them and not adopted by this publication.

In parallel, the North Dakota Board of Pharmacy issued an emergency rule, signed by the governor, classifying 7-hydroxymitragynine as a Schedule I controlled substance under state law. That rule is valid for 180 days, which is what puts the matter in front of legislators on a clock. Armstrong's order asked the Legislature to convene September 2 to enact the 7-OH rule, place the kratom prohibition into statute, and settle enforcement authority.

The Two Drafts

The first draft, from Rep. Pat Heinert, R-Bismarck, addresses natural kratom. As reported by Valley News Live, it would bar sales to anyone under 21, impose labeling requirements including a warning that the product may be addictive, grant the attorney general regulatory authority over sales, and prohibit packaging that imitates candy or is otherwise marketed to children.

Heinert tied the packaging provision to the age provision directly. "Those things are all marketed towards the underage people," he said.

The second draft, from Sen. Michelle Axtman, R-Bismarck, is a prohibition rather than a regulatory scheme. It would ban synthetic kratom derivatives, naming 7-OH and reaching future derivatives, and classify them as Schedule I under state law. Its penalty structure is drawn to match the state's existing marijuana framework: a first use offense is an infraction and subsequent use offenses are misdemeanors, while possession escalates from an infraction on a first offense to a misdemeanor on a second and a felony on a third. Both drafts would take effect on filing with the secretary of state if enacted.

The working group did not reach consensus on the underlying question. Sen. Myrdal said plainly, "I would prefer a total ban because I don't see how good this is for anyone." Sen. Hogan described Heinert's proposal as a good starting point. Neither draft has been voted on; advancing to the special session means only that legislators will have both texts in front of them on September 2.

Why the Split Matters

The two-bill structure is the notable feature. It treats natural leaf and manufactured derivatives as separate regulatory objects with separate answers — leaf gets an age limit, a label and an enforcement authority; synthetics get Schedule I and a penalty ladder.

That is the same line the federal government has drawn, and in the same week that Massachusetts declined to draw it. The Justice Department, announcing the DEA's temporary scheduling of three 7-hydroxymitragynine-related substances, stated the federal action "is directed at deliberately manufactured and concentrated opioid products, not traditional botanical kratom." Massachusetts, by contrast, placed kratom in all forms into Schedule I under state law on August 13.

North Dakota's proposals would land closer to the federal posture than to the Massachusetts one — and closer than the state's own executive order, which reaches everything. Whether the Legislature adopts that split, replaces the emergency prohibition with it, or keeps a broader ban in place is the question September 2 will answer.

The Kratom Council will report the outcome of the special session.

Sources

1. North Dakota Office of the Governor — "Armstrong, Wrigley announce executive actions to ban unregulated drug kratom amid growing concerns" (August 3, 2026).
2. Valley News Live — "North Dakota Governor bans kratom statewide, declares public health emergency" (August 3, 2026).
3. Valley News Live — "Bills for kratom regulation, synthetic ban advance to North Dakota special session" (August 18, 2026).
4. The Kratom Council — "DEA Schedules Three 7-OH Analogs Effective Tomorrow. The 7-OH Threshold Order Itself Still Has Not Issued." (August 25, 2026).