America has a pain problem

For mothers, the instinct to protect is hard-wired. We protect our children from danger, from bad influences, and from policies that sound good on paper but fail families in real life. But protection is not the same thing as prohibition, and confusing the two has tragically cost American families before.

Today, the United States faces a crisis few policymakers want to name plainly: America has a pain problem.

Chronic pain affects nearly one in four adults, according to data from the National Health Interview Survey (CDC Data Brief No. 518). These are not abstractions. They are parents trying to work full-time jobs, raise children, attend school events, and keep their households running while managing daily physical suffering. For years, the system offered them a cruel dilemma: take powerful prescription opioids or live in chronic pain.

We know how that story ends.

The opioid epidemic did not begin because Americans were reckless. It started because policymakers and pharmaceutical companies normalized dependence as “treatment.” When that system collapsed, it left millions without safe alternatives. When prescription access tightened, the demand did not disappear. Illicit fentanyl rushed to fill the void and families across the country are still burying loved ones because of that failure.

Yet today, we are watching history repeat itself.

Instead of addressing pain responsibly, lawmakers are once again defaulting to prohibition, this time targeting alternative pain-management options that many adults rely on to function. Rather than asking how to regulate responsibly, the debate has become whether to ban first and think later.

That approach ignores a fundamental truth: pain does not vanish when policymakers outlaw options. It goes underground.

Conservatives have long understood that government works best when it sets clear guardrails rather than pretending problems disappear through bans. Regulation is not permissiveness; it is accountability. It allows consumers to make informed decisions while keeping bad actors out of the market.

This principle is especially relevant in current debates over naturally derived pain alternatives, including certain kratom-based products such as 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). For many Americans managing chronic pain, options like these have served as lower-risk alternatives to opioids, offering relief without the level of respiratory depression or sedation associated with traditional narcotics. Millions of adults have used products such as 7-OH, with no documented fatalities related to the product by itself,  which is a stark contrast when compared to prescription opioids and illicit fentanyl. (Marwood Group Report, 2025; FDA adverse event data)

Yet instead of bringing these products into a clear regulatory framework, some lawmakers are taking a piecemeal approach, banning certain products while leaving other, more dangerous and untested, products on the market without oversight. (Florida Senate Bill 432).

That decision would not protect families. It would endanger them.

A responsible regulatory approach would accomplish what prohibition never can.

First, it would ensure product safety.

Today’s legal gray area allows both reputable manufacturers and irresponsible actors to coexist. Regulation would require testing, accurate labeling, age restrictions, and manufacturing standards, protections that parents expect. A ban, by contrast, would drive production overseas and into black markets where no standards exist, as seen with illicit THC cartridges that hospitalized teenagers nationwide (NPR investigation).

Second, regulation would keep law enforcement focused on real threats.

Parents want resources directed toward stopping fentanyl traffickers, not criminalizing adults who seek lower-risk pain management options. Every hour spent enforcing bans on relatively low-risk substances is an hour not spent protecting children from lethal drugs flooding our communities.

Third, regulation draws a bright line between adult access and child protection.

Parents do not believe that substances intended for adult use, whether it be alcohol, prescription medications, or pain-management products, should be accessible to children. That isn’t controversial. It’s common sense.

The real question is not whether children should be exposed to these products. They shouldn’t be. The question is whether lawmakers choose a framework that actually enforces accountability. Fortunately, Florida lawmakers are recognizing this need and addressing it through House Bill 1205.

We already understand this principle. Alcohol is legal for adults, tightly regulated, age-restricted, and illegal to sell to minors. When children gain access, failure is not the existence of alcohol itself, but the breakdown of enforcement and accountability. Prohibition has never been the answer. It has been clearer rules and real consequences.

The same standard should apply here.

Mothers don’t want vague promises of protection. They want rules that work. Regulation allows adults to make informed decisions while drawing firm, enforceable boundaries around children. Prohibition erases those boundaries altogether.

Conservatives rightly champion personal responsibility, limited government, and family stability. Those values demand policies rooted in reality, not reflexive prohibition. We have seen where bans lead. We cannot afford to repeat the same mistakes under a different name.

America’s pain problem requires compassion, common sense, and responsible regulation, not another cycle of unintended harm.

___

Emily Stack is the senior director of policy at Moms for America and the executive director at Moms for America Action.