Bernadette Phillips of Lewes is living with a disability and previously struggled with opioid dependence. She now advocates for alternative approaches to pain management.
Imagine getting out of bed, making coffee and heading to work like you do every day. Now, imagine doing that with chronic pain that spikes when you stand, tightens when you move and lingers long enough to make it hard to focus on even simple tasks.
Now, imagine you find something, almost by chance, that actually works. For me, and many others in Delaware, that was a kratom-derived product containing 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH. Kratom is a plant, and 7-OH is one of its natural compounds. It lets me stand, work, focus and get through the day without the side effects that come with prescription opioids.
How would you feel if lawmakers took that solution away, without bothering to show any evidence for why?
That’s exactly what House Bill 332 would do. The bill sets a 2% limit on 7-OH content in kratom products. Products like the one I use exceed that threshold, so retailers in Delaware would no longer be able to sell them. It would sideline people in pain and make our lives worse. The bill would hurt people like me, without providing any benefits to our state by removing products we rely on from the shelves.
For people who don’t use these products, a ban might seem like a minor issue. For chronic pain patients, it isn’t. When an option that helps us get through the day could disappear from store shelves, it’s a terrifying and frustrating feeling.
Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. adults live with chronic pain, and if Delaware reflects national trends, that means roughly 200,000 adults here may be living with pain that affects their daily lives, including more than 70,000 whose pain frequently limits life or work. Research on kratom consumers also shows that pain relief is a major reason people use these products.
Some lawmakers, however, have treated 7-OH as if it constitutes an epidemic. They have argued that 7-OH is dangerous for Delaware. But there has been no clear showing of a public health crisis or a pattern of harm in Delaware that would justify removing them from the market. Most serious cases involve multiple substances, often including opioids, which are dangerous on their own.
Additionally, legislators have not told us why the bill sets a 2% threshold for 7-OH. Why should this be the legal cutoff in Delaware? There has been no public explanation of what evidence supports that number nor how it connects to a meaningful change in risk.
If lawmakers are going to remove something people rely on, they should be able to show clear evidence and explain why less restrictive options are not enough. If they cannot do that, we should explore other options that don’t force chronic pain patients to bear the consequences.
There are obvious alternatives that would address real concerns without taking options away. If we need more information, the responsible step is to fund studies. If we are concerned about bad actors in the market, we can require standards on the products. And, if we want to make sure kids cannot buy 7-OH, we can enforce age limits. Several of these ideas are included in HB 332. A clean bill that proposes them, without including a ban, would help ensure a safer marketplace without taking options away from people in pain.
You don’t have to like 7-OH, and you don’t have to use it. You don’t even have to like that other people use it. But a lot of us in Delaware do rely on these products to lessen chronic pain that often makes it difficult to live our lives the way most people take for granted. Our needs matter, too.
Even if you don’t have chronic pain, this issue affects you. When lawmakers restrict products based on uncertainty rather than evidence, it won’t stop here. The next time, it may be something you depend on.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
