Is Kratom Legal? Its Status Under International Drug Law
Introduction
Is kratom legal? There is no single worldwide answer. Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa), mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) are not currently scheduled under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. That absence of international control does not make kratom universally lawful. The UN drug-control treaties allow states to adopt stricter domestic measures, and national laws differ significantly in their treatment of possession, sale, production, importation, and related activities (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1971; UNODC, 2025).
The World Health Organization has examined kratom within the international scheduling system, but its conclusions are sometimes overstated. In 2021, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence conducted a pre-review of kratom, mitragynine, and 7-OH. The Committee found insufficient evidence at that stage to recommend a critical review and retained the substances under surveillance (WHO, 2021). WHO materials continued to list them under surveillance in 2025. A pre-review does not amount to approval, a finding of safety, or a permanent decision against international control; it is a preliminary assessment of whether the evidence warrants a full critical review (WHO, 2025).
The legal distinction between botanical kratom and newer kratom-related products has become particularly important in the United States. In July 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration initiated temporary scheduling proceedings concerning 7-OH above a specified concentration threshold, while distinguishing the proposal from traditional botanical kratom containing lower naturally occurring levels of the compound. In August 2026, federal authorities separately placed mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in Schedule I on a temporary basis. Those actions concern particular compounds and product forms and do not amount to a general federal prohibition on botanical kratom (DEA, 2026; US Department of Justice, 2026).
In September 2026, two University of Mississippi students died in separate incidents, and investigators reported finding packaged kratom during both investigations. The presence of kratom did not establish that it caused either death. Authorities stated that there was no confirmed evidence connecting the two cases and no confirmed information showing that kratom, or another substance, contributed to either death while the investigations were continuing (Mississippi Today, 2026).
The resulting legal position cannot be reduced to a simple global label of “legal” or “illegal.” International scheduling, domestic controlled-substance legislation, medicines regulation, food and supplement law, customs rules, and restrictions on sale or supply can each produce different legal consequences. The answer may also change according to the product involved: botanical kratom, concentrated extracts, enhanced 7-OH preparations, and related manufactured compounds are not necessarily treated alike. Any reliable assessment of kratom’s legal status must identify the jurisdiction, the specific substance or product, and the activity being regulated.
1. Is Kratom Legal? The Short Answer
Kratom is neither universally legal nor universally prohibited. Its status depends on the jurisdiction, the substance or product involved, and the conduct being regulated. Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa), mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine are not presently controlled under the principal United Nations drug conventions, but national governments remain free to impose their own restrictions (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1971; UNODC, 2025).
For that reason, statements that kratom is simply “legal” or “illegal” can be misleading. A country may treat possession differently from sale, importation, cultivation, or commercial distribution. Extracts and concentrated alkaloid products may also be regulated differently from traditional botanical material.
International non-scheduling answers only one part of the legal question. It determines whether the treaty controls applicable to internationally scheduled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are triggered. It does not determine the legality of kratom under domestic law.
2. Kratom Under the UN Drug Conventions
The international drug-control system rests principally on three treaties: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol; the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971; and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. The first two establish the principal international schedules, while the 1988 Convention focuses on illicit trafficking, international cooperation, and controls over specified precursor chemicals (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1971; United Nations, 1988).
Kratom, mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine are not presently listed in the schedules of the 1961 or 1971 Conventions. UNODC continues to identify these substances as outside international control. Their psychoactive properties alone do not bring them within the treaty controls that apply to substances formally placed in the relevant schedules (UNODC, 2025).
The 1988 Convention does not create a separate international prohibition on kratom. Article 1 defines a “narcotic drug” by reference to substances controlled under the 1961 Convention and a “psychotropic substance” by reference to those controlled under the 1971 Convention. Its separate precursor-control regime applies to substances listed in Tables I and II and does not convert an otherwise unscheduled psychoactive plant into a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance for treaty purposes (United Nations, 1988).
Non-scheduling nevertheless establishes only the international baseline. Article 39 of the 1961 Convention permits parties to adopt measures stricter than those required by the Convention when they consider such measures necessary or desirable for public health or welfare. Article 23 of the 1971 Convention contains a comparable provision. States may consequently prohibit or regulate kratom even though the international drug-control treaties do not require them to schedule it (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1971).
2.1 How International Drug Scheduling Works
International scheduling separates scientific assessment from intergovernmental decision-making. The World Health Organization evaluates the medical and scientific evidence through its Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. Under the treaty system, that assessment informs recommendations concerning whether a substance should be brought under international control and, where appropriate, the level of control that should apply (WHO, 2010).
The process can begin with a pre-review, which determines whether the available information warrants a more comprehensive critical review. A critical review may then provide the basis for a WHO scheduling recommendation. These stages are procedurally distinct: examination by the ECDD does not itself change a substance's international legal status (WHO, 2010).
The Commission on Narcotic Drugs takes scheduling decisions under the applicable convention. Its authority is not identical under the 1961 and 1971 treaties, and WHO does not independently impose a worldwide prohibition. A CND scheduling decision may also be reviewed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council at the request of a State Party in accordance with the relevant treaty procedure; ECOSOC may confirm, alter, or reverse the decision. International control thus results from the institutional processes established by the conventions, combining WHO's medical and scientific assessment with intergovernmental decision-making (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1971).
3. The WHO Review of Kratom
Kratom, mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine were considered by the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence at its forty-fourth meeting in October 2021. The procedure was a pre-review rather than a critical review leading to a recommendation for international scheduling (WHO, 2021).
The Committee concluded that the evidence did not justify a critical review of kratom at that stage. It reached the same conclusion regarding mitragynine and 7-OH, although one member did not join the conclusion concerning those two alkaloids. The Committee recommended that kratom, mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine remain under WHO surveillance (WHO, 2021).
That outcome did not amount to an endorsement of kratom or a finding that it was safe. Under the ECDD procedure, a pre-review determines whether the information available warrants a full critical review. The 2021 decision meant that the threshold for moving to that next stage was not met on the evidence then before the Committee (WHO, 2010; WHO, 2021).
WHO continued to list kratom, mitragynine, and 7-OH under surveillance in its 2025 materials. Kratom was not the subject of a new review at the forty-eighth ECDD meeting in 2025, and it does not appear among the substances scheduled for review on the provisional agenda for the forty-ninth meeting in 2026 (WHO, 2025; WHO, 2026). As of September 2026, the international position remains one of non-scheduling combined with continued institutional monitoring.
4. Legal Status Beyond Controlled-Substance Law
Controlled-substance scheduling does not determine every legal question surrounding kratom. A product may fall outside a narcotics schedule while remaining subject to medicines legislation, food law, dietary-supplement regulation, customs controls, consumer-protection rules, licensing requirements, or restrictions on particular forms of sale. These regimes regulate different activities and can produce different legal outcomes for the same underlying plant.
The United States illustrates this distinction. DEA does not presently treat traditional botanical kratom as a federally controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. That status is separate from the Food and Drug Administration's authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and does not establish that kratom products may lawfully be marketed for any purpose (DEA, 2024; DEA, 2026).
FDA states that no prescription or over-the-counter drug containing kratom or its known alkaloids has been approved for lawful marketing in the United States. The agency also takes the position that kratom-containing dietary supplements are adulterated under federal law and that kratom may not lawfully be added to conventional foods under its current food-additive determination (FDA, n.d.).
Import controls provide another example. FDA's 2026 Import Alert 54-15 instructs agency field personnel that specified dietary supplements and bulk dietary ingredients containing Mitragyna speciosa may be detained without physical examination when the conditions identified in the alert are met. The alert functions as enforcement guidance rather than as an independent source of binding law (FDA, 2026).
Therapeutic claims create a separate regulatory issue. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, an article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease falls within the statutory definition of a drug. Kratom products promoted with such claims may consequently be regulated as drugs irrespective of whether kratom itself is scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)).
The legal status of kratom must consequently be assessed by reference to the particular activity and regulatory regime involved. Possession may be treated differently from supply, importation may be restricted even where domestic possession is not, and concentrated or manufactured products may be subject to rules that do not apply in the same way to botanical material. This distinction becomes especially important when comparing national laws and when assessing newer products containing elevated concentrations of 7-OH.
5. Why Kratom Laws Differ Across Countries
Kratom's absence from the international drug schedules does not require states to adopt the same domestic policy. Article 39 of the 1961 Single Convention and Article 23 of the 1971 Convention expressly preserve the ability of parties to impose controls stricter than those required internationally. National governments can therefore regulate kratom even though the treaties do not require them to place the plant or its principal alkaloids under narcotics or psychotropic-drug controls (United Nations, 1961, art. 39; United Nations, 1971, art. 23).
The resulting approaches are structurally different. Some jurisdictions rely on controlled-drug schedules, others regulate kratom through broad psychoactive-substance legislation, and Thailand has moved from narcotics control to legislation specifically addressing the plant. Federal systems can add another layer because national law does not necessarily resolve the position under state, territorial, or other subnational law.
For this reason, “kratom legality by country” cannot reliably be reduced to a permanent list of legal and illegal jurisdictions. Possession may be permitted while importation or commercial supply is restricted; botanical material may be treated differently from concentrated extracts; and product rules may apply independently of controlled-substance legislation. Legal status also changes as legislatures and regulators amend their frameworks.
5.1 United States: Federal, State, and Product Law
The statement that kratom is legal in the United States is incomplete. Traditional botanical kratom is not subject to a general federal prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act. That federal scheduling position does not determine whether particular kratom products may lawfully be manufactured, imported, marketed, or sold under other federal legislation (DEA, 2025; DEA, 2026a).
DEA and FDA exercise different statutory functions. DEA administers federal controlled-substance scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act, while FDA regulates drugs, foods, dietary supplements, and related products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A substance can remain outside the federal controlled-drug schedules while products containing it are restricted under food or drug law. FDA's current position on kratom products is an example of that distinction.
State law creates further variation. Florida's 2026 statutes, for example, contain a Kratom Consumer Protection Act that makes it unlawful to sell, deliver, barter, furnish, or give a kratom product to a person under 21 years of age (Florida Statutes, 2026, § 500.92). Other states may regulate kratom differently, so federal non-scheduling does not produce identical rules throughout the country.
The relevant U.S. question is consequently more specific than whether kratom is “federally legal.” Controlled-substance status, FDA product regulation, state restrictions, and any applicable local requirements can operate simultaneously. The product itself can also alter the answer, particularly where concentrated or modified alkaloids are involved.
5.2 Thailand: From Narcotics Control to Regulation
Thailand provides a different model. Kratom was removed from the country's Category 5 narcotics list with effect from 24 August 2021. The Kratom Plant Act B.E. 2565, which entered into force on 27 August 2022, subsequently established a dedicated legal framework governing the plant rather than restoring the former narcotics prohibition (Thailand, 2022; ONCB, 2022).
The Act permits cultivation, possession, and consumption of kratom without the former narcotics authorization regime, but commercial activity remains regulated. Sales are restricted to protect specified groups, including persons under 18, pregnant women, and breastfeeding women. The legislation also regulates sale locations and methods and requires legal compliance when kratom is incorporated into separately regulated products such as foods, medicines, herbal products, or cosmetics (Thailand, 2022, ss. 24–25).
Importation and exportation remain subject to a separate regime. Section 10 of the Act requires authorization for the import or export of kratom leaves and notification for individual shipments, subject to statutory exceptions. Implementing measures adopted in 2025 regulate the licensing and notification process, while additional 2025 rules prescribe prohibited places and methods of sale (Thailand, 2022, s. 10; ONCB, 2025).
Thailand's experience demonstrates why legalization and deregulation are not synonymous. Removing kratom from narcotics control changed the basic legal status of the plant, but commercial distribution, cross-border movement, sales to protected groups, and particular kratom products continue to be governed by legislation.
5.3 United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia
The United Kingdom does not regulate kratom principally by naming it in a kratom-specific drug schedule. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 establishes a general regime for substances capable of producing a psychoactive effect where they fall within the statutory definition and are not exempt. The Act creates offenses relating to production, supply or offering to supply, possession with intent to supply, and importation or exportation for human consumption where the required statutory elements are present (Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, ss. 2–8).
Ordinary possession is treated differently. The Act does not create a general offense of simple possession for personal use outside the situations it specifically identifies. Possession in a custodial institution is separately criminalized under section 9, while possession with intent to supply falls under section 7. Importation and exportation can also constitute offenses where the substance is intended for the importer's own psychoactive use, illustrating why domestic possession and cross-border movement cannot be treated as the same legal question (Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, ss. 7–9).
There is likewise no single European rule governing kratom. National systems can adopt different classifications and regulatory models. Czechia, for example, brought kratom and kratom extract within its category of psychomodulatory substances through Government Regulation No. 456/2025, effective from 12 November 2025. Their production, importation, distribution, marketing, storage, and other specified commercial activities are subject to a licensing and product-regulation framework rather than a simple unrestricted market (Czech Republic, 2025). Further restrictions were proposed by the Czech government in September 2026, but those proposals do not themselves alter the law currently in force (Government of the Czech Republic, 2026).
Australia adopts a more restrictive model. The Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard—June 2026) Instrument lists both Mitragyna speciosa and mitragynine in Schedule 9. That schedule is reserved for substances whose manufacture, possession, supply, or use should generally be prohibited except for approved medical, scientific, teaching, training, or analytical purposes. A May 2026 regulatory decision declined an application to move kratom to a less restrictive schedule, leaving the Schedule 9 classification intact (Poisons Standard, 2026; TGA, 2026).
The Poisons Standard provides the national scheduling classification, but its implementation can vary under state and territory law. Australia thus shows how stringent domestic control can coexist with the absence of international scheduling, while the UK and Czech approaches demonstrate different ways of regulating the same broad category of psychoactive products.
6. The Current U.S. Legal Status of 7-OH
7-Hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, requires separate treatment from botanical kratom. It is naturally associated with Mitragyna speciosa at comparatively low levels, while commercial products can contain substantially elevated concentrations produced through extraction, processing, or conversion of mitragynine. DEA has relied on that distinction when framing its 2026 federal action (DEA, 2026a).
On 6 July 2026, DEA published a notice of intent to place 7-OH above specified thresholds temporarily in Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. § 811(h). For botanical Mitragyna speciosa, the notice specifies a threshold of more than 0.050 percent 7-OH by dry weight and sets separate criteria for other covered forms. The notice expressly contemplates a later temporary scheduling order; it does not itself place above-threshold 7-OH into Schedule I (DEA, 2026a).
The Department of Health and Human Services separately sought information concerning the proposed threshold. The comment period was later extended until 10 September 2026. HHS made clear that the proceeding concerned the threshold for temporary scheduling rather than permanent scheduling or the broader legal status of kratom-derived products (HHS, 2026).
A different legal position now applies to mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16. DEA issued a temporary scheduling order effective 26 August 2026 placing those three substances in Schedule I. The order remains effective until 26 August 2028 unless extended in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act or superseded through permanent scheduling proceedings (DEA, 2026b).
As of 23 September 2026, DEA's published action concerning above-threshold 7-OH remains at the notice-of-intent stage; no corresponding temporary scheduling order has been published. The distinction is legally significant. Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 are presently subject to federal Schedule I controls, while above-threshold 7-OH is the subject of a separate pending temporary-scheduling process.
6.1 Will Kratom Be Banned in 2026?
As of 23 September 2026, there is no blanket federal prohibition placing traditional botanical kratom in Schedule I. The July DEA proceeding concerns 7-OH above specified thresholds and expressly distinguishes botanical material containing lower naturally occurring levels from the products covered by the proposed temporary control (DEA, 2026a).
The procedural stages cannot be treated as equivalent. A notice of intent announces DEA's proposed use of temporary scheduling authority; a temporary scheduling order brings the identified substance within Schedule I for the statutory period; and permanent scheduling follows a separate process under the Controlled Substances Act. A proposal or notice therefore does not have the same legal effect as an operative scheduling order.
Congress is also considering legislation concerning particular kratom-related compounds. The End Gas Station Heroin Act was introduced in the Senate as S. 5383 on 8 August 2026 and in the House as H.R. 10272 on 3 September 2026. The bills would amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to synthetic 7-OH and specified related compounds, including mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16. Both measures remain introduced legislation and are not enacted federal law (US Congress, 2026a; US Congress, 2026b).
The present federal position is therefore compound-specific rather than a general kratom ban. Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 are temporarily controlled in Schedule I; above-threshold 7-OH remains subject to the pending DEA temporary-scheduling process; and traditional botanical kratom has not been federally placed in Schedule I by those actions.
7. Traveling With Kratom Across Borders
There is no universal answer to whether it is illegal to travel with kratom. International non-scheduling means that the UN drug conventions do not impose a uniform prohibition on carrying kratom across borders, but it does not create a right to import, export, or transit with the plant. National border and customs laws remain controlling.
The United Kingdom illustrates the difference between domestic possession and importation. Under section 8 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, importing or exporting a substance that meets the Act's definition can constitute an offense where the statutory mental elements are satisfied. The official explanatory materials make clear that the provision can extend to importation for the individual's own psychoactive consumption, even though ordinary possession outside a custodial institution is not generally criminalized by the Act (Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, ss. 8–9).
Thailand also regulates cross-border movement separately from ordinary domestic possession. The Kratom Plant Act generally requires authorization for the import and export of kratom leaves and notification of shipments, while providing a limited statutory exception for international travelers carrying quantities for personal consumption or treatment as defined by the applicable rules. The detailed import and export procedures are governed by implementing measures adopted in 2025 (Thailand, 2022, s. 10; ONCB, 2025).
Australia imposes distinct border controls. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations list mitragynine and plants or plant parts of Mitragyna speciosa among controlled imports. The Australian Office of Drug Control currently identifies mitragynine as requiring an import licence and an import permit (Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, sch. 4; Australian Office of Drug Control, 2026).
Travelers must therefore distinguish the law governing possession from the law governing entry across a border. The destination, any transit jurisdiction, the composition of the product, and the activity involved can all affect legality. Botanical leaf, extracts, concentrated 7-OH products, and manufactured related compounds cannot safely be assumed to receive identical legal treatment merely because they are associated with kratom.
Also read
Conclusion
Kratom is not presently subject to a uniform international prohibition under the principal UN drug-control conventions. Mitragyna speciosa, mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine remain outside the relevant international schedules, but states retain authority to impose domestic restrictions on possession, sale, supply, production, importation, exportation, and commercial products containing them.
The legal distinction between botanical kratom and newer concentrated or manufactured compounds has become increasingly important. U.S. measures adopted in 2026 already place mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 temporarily in Schedule I, while a separate federal process concerning above-threshold 7-OH remains pending. Those developments do not amount to a blanket federal prohibition on traditional botanical kratom.
The answer to “is kratom legal” ultimately depends on domestic law. International non-scheduling establishes that there is no uniform treaty-based kratom prohibition; actual legality depends on the jurisdiction, the substance or product involved, and whether the relevant activity is possession, sale, supply, manufacture, importation, exportation, or another regulated use.
References
Australian Government, Office of Drug Control (2026) ‘Mitragynine’ [online]. Available at: Office of Drug Control — Mitragynine (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Controlled Substances Act 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 811, as amended [online]. Available at: U.S. Code — 21 U.S.C. § 811 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth), Compilation No. 147, as in force on 13 July 2026 [online]. Available at: Federal Register of Legislation — Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Czech Republic (2025) Nařízení vlády č. 456/2025 Sb., o seznamu psychomodulačních látek, adopted 3 September 2025, published 11 November 2025, effective 12 November 2025 [online]. Available at: e-Sbírka — Regulation No. 456/2025 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Department of Health and Human Services (2026) ‘Temporary Placement of 7-Hydroxymitragynine Above a Specified Threshold in Schedule I; Extension of Comment Period’, Federal Register, 91, p. 55104, 26 August [online]. Available at: GovInfo — Federal Register notice (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Drug Enforcement Administration (2024) Drugs of Abuse: A DEA Resource Guide, 2024 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration [online]. Available at: DEA — Drugs of Abuse 2024 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Drug Enforcement Administration (2025) ‘Kratom’, Drug Fact Sheet, 22 January [online]. Available at: DEA — Kratom (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Drug Enforcement Administration (2026a) ‘Schedules of Controlled Substance: Temporary Placement of 7-Hydroxymitragynine Above a Specified Threshold in Schedule I’, Federal Register, 91, pp. 40917–40924, 6 July [online]. Available at: GovInfo — DEA 7-OH notice of intent (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Drug Enforcement Administration (2026b) ‘Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Mitragynine Pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in Schedule I’, Federal Register, 91, pp. 54948–54956, 26 August [online]. Available at: GovInfo — DEA temporary scheduling order (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 1938, 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1), as amended [online]. Available at: U.S. Code — 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Florida Statutes (2026) § 500.92, ‘Florida Kratom Consumer Protection Act’ [online]. Available at: Florida Senate — § 500.92 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Goldberg, M. (2026) ‘Oxford police investigate 2 university student deaths, warn against using kratom’, Mississippi Today, 22 September [online]. Available at: Mississippi Today — Oxford police investigate 2 university student deaths (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Government of the Czech Republic (2026) ‘Vláda Andreje Babiše navrhuje zásadně zpřísnit pravidla pro prodej kratomu’, 14 September [online]. Available at: Government of the Czech Republic — kratom regulation proposal (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Office of the Narcotics Control Board (2022) Thailand Narcotics Control Annual Report 2022 [online]. Available at: ASEAN-NARCO — Thailand Narcotics Control Annual Report 2022 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Office of the Narcotics Control Board (2025) ‘Current legislation: announcements relating to the Kratom Plant Act B.E. 2565 (2022)’ [online]. Available at: ONCB — current legislation (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (1972) adopted 25 March 1972, entered into force 8 August 1975, 976 UNTS 3 [online]. Available at: United Nations Treaty Collection — 1972 Protocol (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (UK), c. 2, Royal Assent 28 January 2016 [online]. Available at: UK Legislation — Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Psychoactive Substances Act 2016: Explanatory Notes (2016) [online]. Available at: UK Legislation — Explanatory Notes (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Thailand (2022) Kratom Plant Act B.E. 2565 (2022), effective 27 August 2022 [online]. Available at: Office of the Narcotics Control Board — Kratom Plant Act (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Therapeutic Goods Administration (2026) ‘Notice of final decisions to amend (or not amend) the current Poisons Standard – ACCS #40, Joint ACMS-ACCS #39’, 25 May [online]. Available at: TGA — final scheduling decisions (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard—June 2026) Instrument 2026 (Cth), F2026L00633, made 27 May 2026, registered and effective 28 May 2026 [online]. Available at: Federal Register of Legislation — Poisons Standard June 2026 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United Nations (1961) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, adopted 30 March 1961, entered into force 13 December 1964, 520 UNTS 151 [online]. Available at: United Nations Treaty Collection — Single Convention 1961 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United Nations (1971) Convention on Psychotropic Substances, adopted 21 February 1971, entered into force 16 August 1976, 1019 UNTS 175 [online]. Available at: United Nations Treaty Collection — Convention on Psychotropic Substances (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United Nations (1988) United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted 20 December 1988, entered into force 11 November 1990, 1582 UNTS 95 [online]. Available at: United Nations Treaty Collection — 1988 Convention (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2025) ‘Emergence of potent kratom-related products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine and/or mitragynine pseudoindoxyl’, 29 August [online]. Available at: UNODC — kratom-related products (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United States Congress (2026a) End Gas Station Heroin Act, H.R. 10272, 119th Congress, 2nd Session, introduced in the House of Representatives 3 September 2026 [online]. Available at: GovInfo — H.R. 10272 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United States Congress (2026b) End Gas Station Heroin Act, S. 5383, 119th Congress, 2nd Session, introduced in the Senate 8 August 2026 [online]. Available at: GovInfo — S. 5383 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United States Department of Justice (2026) ‘Justice Department Announces Emergency Scheduling of Three Potent Opioid Compounds’, 25 August [online]. Available at: U.S. Department of Justice — emergency scheduling announcement (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United States Food and Drug Administration (n.d.) ‘FDA and Kratom’ [online]. Available at: FDA — FDA and Kratom (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
United States Food and Drug Administration (2026) ‘Import Alert 54-15: Detention Without Physical Examination of Dietary Supplements and Bulk Dietary Ingredients That Are or Contain Mitragyna speciosa or Kratom’, 17 August [online]. Available at: FDA — Import Alert 54-15 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
World Health Organization (2010) Guidance on the WHO Review of Psychoactive Substances for International Control. Geneva: World Health Organization [online]. Available at: WHO — Guidance on the review of psychoactive substances (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
World Health Organization (2021) Annex I: 44th WHO ECDD Summary Assessments, Findings and Recommendations, 11–15 October 2021 [online]. Available at: WHO — 44th ECDD recommendations (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
World Health Organization (2025) List of Substances under Surveillance 2024, updated 24 March 2025 [online]. Available at: WHO — List of Substances under Surveillance 2024 (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
World Health Organization (2026) ‘49th Expert Committee on Drug Dependence documents’ [online]. Available at: WHO — 49th ECDD documents (Accessed: 23 September 2026).
