This Isn't About Kratom. It's About Money, Politics, and My Right to Choose
Absolutely. And I’m going to keep the distinction you’ve been making: this is your opinion and your argument, not me inserting my own position about kratom.
I also checked the current reporting because there’s an important update to the money figure: the reporting now says Botanic Tonics gave $1 million to MAHA PAC, while an LLC associated with Feel Free had earlier been reported as giving $500,000. �
STAT +1
My Problem With the Kratom Ban: Follow the Money, Then Follow the People
I want to make something very clear before I say anything else:
I take kratom. I support adults being able to use kratom. And I don't believe kratom should be banned.
That's my opinion.
I'm not claiming that every dose of every kratom product is harmless, and I'm not claiming that somebody can't abuse it. Of course they can. People can abuse damn near anything. You can drink yourself to death. You can eat yourself to death. You can take prescription drugs exactly as prescribed and still have complications.
That doesn't give the government the right to decide that adults aren't allowed to make their own choices.
My body. My choice.
And that's why what's happening with 7-OH bothers me so much.
Because when I started looking into this, I didn't just see a debate about pharmacology or public health. I saw money, competing businesses, political access and a regulatory decision that appears to benefit one part of the kratom industry while hurting another.
And that's where I think people need to start asking questions.
The money is the part I can't ignore
One of the most striking facts I've come across concerns Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Botanic Tonics, the company behind Feel Free.
According to recent reporting, Botanic Tonics donated $1 million to MAHA PAC, a political committee associated with Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement. Earlier reporting also identified a $500,000 donation from an LLC associated with Feel Free. �
STAT +1
At the same time, the federal government has moved aggressively against 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, a concentrated kratom alkaloid sold by companies competing in the same broader market.
That doesn't automatically prove a quid pro quo.
I want to be fair about that.
Money changing hands is not, by itself, proof that somebody bought a government policy.
But when a company operating in the kratom industry gives enormous sums to a political organization associated with the person whose administration is pursuing restrictions on a competing category of products, I think Americans have every right to ask:
Why?
And I don't think that is a crazy question.
In fact, I'm not the only person asking it. A Senate inquiry launched by Sen. Ron Wyden is examining the relationship between political donations from the kratom industry and the administration's handling of kratom policy. �
STAT
That's not a conspiracy theory.
That's a documented political question.
And then there's RFK Jr.'s own history
This is another part that I find difficult to reconcile.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has openly discussed his own history of heroin addiction. He has said that he was addicted to heroin for 14 years and has spoken publicly about his recovery through spirituality and 12-step programs. �
AP News
And honestly, I respect somebody who survived addiction and came out the other side.
That's not the part I'm criticizing.
The part that bothers me is the apparent willingness to restrict substances that some people use as alternatives to traditional opioids.
Kratom users have been telling us for years that they use it to manage pain, replace alcohol, or reduce their reliance on opioids. Reporting has also documented people using kratom in an attempt to get away from fentanyl and other opioids. �
WIRED
So when I hear someone with a personal history of heroin addiction advocating policies that could eliminate access to substances some people say helped them stay away from street opioids, I can't help but see a contradiction.
If something is helping somebody stay away from heroin or fentanyl, why would our first instinct be to take that option away?
Maybe the answer is that 7-OH genuinely has risks that justify restrictions.
Fine.
Then let's have that debate.
Let's look at the science.
Let's establish potency standards.
Let's require accurate labeling.
Let's regulate manufacturing.
Let's establish age restrictions.
Let's punish companies that misrepresent what's in their products.
But why ban the molecule outright?
Because prohibition doesn't make demand disappear
This is where my concern becomes much more personal.
I'm from Pennsylvania.
And if you've ever looked at what's happened in Kensington, Philadelphia, you know exactly why I'm worried about pushing people toward an underground market.
Kensington has become nationally known for its open-air drug market and its devastating opioid crisis. Philadelphia's own City Council describes the neighborhood as a hub for illicit drug purchases, with people traveling from throughout the region and beyond to obtain drugs there. �
Philadelphia City Council
The Philadelphia Inquirer has described Kensington as the epicenter of the region's opioid crisis and documented how its enormous illicit drug market developed into an international spectacle. �
Inquirer.com
And the street supply isn't exactly getting safer.
Recent research found that the illicit opioid supply in Kensington is erratic and volatile, with fentanyl increasingly being adulterated with other substances, including medetomidine and local anesthetics. �
PubMed
So here's my concern:
If you take a legal substance away from somebody who is using it because they don't want to buy heroin or fentanyl on the street, where do you think some of those people are going to go?
They're not all going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess I'll just stop taking anything."
Some will.
Some won't.
Some will look for something else.
And if the legal alternative disappears, the black market is sitting there waiting for them.
That's how you end up with people buying mystery powders, counterfeit pills, fentanyl and whatever else some guy happens to be selling on a street corner.
I don't want that.
I don't want Pennsylvania turning into another Kensington.
And I don't want somebody who was successfully staying away from dangerous street opioids being told:
"Sorry. The thing you were using legally isn't available anymore. Good luck."
I'm not asking the government to pretend kratom is risk-free
This is important because I don't want anybody twisting what I'm saying.
I am not arguing that everybody should take kratom.
I'm not arguing that 7-OH is completely harmless.
I'm not arguing that people can't become dependent.
I'm not arguing that companies should be allowed to sell whatever concentration they want with cartoon packaging and no warnings.
I'm arguing for adult freedom and rational regulation rather than prohibition.
And I'm especially skeptical when prohibition seems to have winners and losers within the same industry.
Because if you're going to tell me:
"We're banning this dangerous kratom-derived substance to protect Americans,"
then I want to know why another kratom company is simultaneously donating enormous amounts of money to political organizations connected to the administration.
I want to know why some kratom products remain widely available while competitors face dramatically different treatment.
I want to know whether we're actually following the science—or whether we're following the money.
That's the question I'm left with
I don't know what the ultimate explanation is.
Maybe the people making these decisions genuinely believe 7-OH is dangerous and needs to be restricted.
Maybe they believe ordinary kratom is substantially different.
Maybe they think they're preventing another opioid epidemic.
Those are legitimate arguments that deserve to be heard.
But there's another possibility that deserves to be investigated:
Maybe politics and money are influencing which products get protected and which products get destroyed.
And given the documented donations, the political relationships and the competing interests involved, I don't think it's unreasonable for ordinary Americans to demand transparency.
I'm not asking anybody to agree with me.
I'm asking people to look at the facts and ask questions.
Because I've watched what happens when people lose access to something they're dependent on and the only alternatives left are the streets.
I've seen what Kensington looks like.
And as a Pennsylvanian, I don't want to see that model replicated anywhere else.
My position is simple: regulate it if you believe regulation is necessary. Test it. Label it. Set potency standards. Keep it away from children. Go after companies that deceive consumers.
But don't automatically criminalize something millions of adults are using because some people abuse it.
And above all:
Follow the money.
Because when a government tells me that a product is too dangerous for me to possess while money from a competing industry is flowing into political organizations connected to the people making that decision, I'm going to ask some uncomfortable questions.
That's not me being paranoid.
**That's me paying attention.**
