Science, not stigma, should guide Florida’s 7-OH policy

As a neuroscientist, I’m trained to follow the evidence even when it’s inconvenient. As a community advocate in the Tampa Bay region, I’m trained to listen to people whose lives are affected by policy decisions made far from where the consequences are felt.

Right now, Florida’s approach to 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, misses the mark.

I am a translational neuroscientist focused on understanding how substances interact with the human genome and affect long-term neurological and psychiatric outcomes. I founded North Carolina’s first university-based opioid overdose response and education chapter and served as president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Wake Forest, where I earned my Master of Science in Biomedical Research.

That background matters because the current rhetoric around 7-OH is not grounded in science. Calling it “legal morphine” may make for an alarming headline, but there is no credible evidence to support that comparison.

7-OH is not a synthetic street drug. It is a naturally occurring alkaloid found in the kratom plant and an active metabolite of kratom, meaning it is also produced naturally in the body after consuming traditional kratom. Consuming 7-OH directly simply allows the body to skip a metabolic step. That’s not radical pharmacology, it’s basic biochemistry.

More importantly, the safety data does not justify an outright ban. There have been zero documented deaths from 7-OH alone. None. If Florida policymakers are truly committed to evidence-based public health, that fact alone should give them pause before criminalizing a substance that some people use to manage chronic pain without opioids and others use to reduce, or eliminate, far more dangerous drug use.

If 7-OH is helping people reduce or eliminate opioid use, we should not remove that option simply because it doesn’t fit a prohibition-first narrative.

Bans do not eliminate demand. They only push products into unregulated, illicit markets where contamination, mislabeling, and falsified certificates of analysis become far more likely. Ironically, banning 7-OH in the name of safety would make the market less safe, not more.

Science tells us that regulation works better than prohibition. Thoughtful guardrails such as age restrictions, product testing, transparent labeling, and third-party verification will protect consumers while keeping substances out of the hands of children and bad actors. Regulation also enables researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to track real-world outcomes rather than relying on estimates from the sidelines.

If we regulate kratom and 7-OH responsibly, we can shut down bad actors and keep products in a transparent, accountable marketplace rather than driving them underground.

As someone committed to improving scientific communication and connecting researchers with policymakers, I find it deeply troubling when policy moves faster than the evidence. Florida has an opportunity to lead by choosing regulation over fear, and the science does not support an outright ban on 7-OH. The community impact argues against it. And pushing this market underground will only make Florida less safe. It’s time we regulate 7-OH, not erase it.

___

Brooke Sanders, MS, is a neuroscientist working with Students for Sensible Drug Policy and is a Pinellas County resident.