Arizona's small businesses could become collateral damage in 7-OH fight

Renée J. Johnson

Submitted photo/Association for Enterprise Opportunity

While much of the public debate has centered on whether 7-OH products should remain available, the more important question may be whether policymakers are properly distinguishing between naturally occurring 7-OH and a growing number of fully synthetic compounds that are increasingly entering the marketplace. Failure to make that distinction could have serious consequences, not only for consumers, but also for Arizona's small businesses.”

OPINION — Just weeks ago, I wrote about the growing pressures facing Arizona's small businesses and the importance of predictable, thoughtful regulation. Since then, a significant development has emerged that deserves attention from policymakers, business owners and consumers alike.

The national conversation surrounding 7-hydroxymitragynine, a naturally occurring alkaloid found in the kratom plant, is rapidly evolving.

Recent comments from President Donald Trump suggesting the administration is exploring pathways for the approval and regulation of natural 7-OH products signal an important shift in the federal dialogue. The conversation appears to be moving away from prohibition and toward regulation, consumer protection and product differentiation.

While much of the public debate has centered on whether 7-OH products should remain available, the more important question may be whether policymakers are properly distinguishing between naturally occurring 7-OH and a growing number of fully synthetic compounds that are increasingly entering the marketplace.

Failure to make that distinction could have serious consequences, not only for consumers, but also for Arizona's small businesses.

State's entrepreneurial economy directly affected

Arizona is home to more than 650,000 small businesses, many of which operate on thin margins and face increasing economic pressures from inflation, labor costs, healthcare expenses and regulatory compliance requirements.

Many of the retailers currently selling kratom and 7-OH products are not large corporations. They are independently owned convenience stores, smoke shops, wellness retailers and neighborhood businesses operated by entrepreneurs who employ local residents and contribute to their communities.

Across Arizona, many of these businesses are owned by immigrants, veterans, minority entrepreneurs and families who have invested their savings into building a business. They are retailers, not manufacturers. Yet they often bear the greatest risk when regulations change abruptly.

When states enact broad bans or fail to clearly distinguish between natural and synthetic products, small businesses frequently become the first casualties. Inventory becomes unsellable overnight. Revenue disappears. Employees lose hours. Local businesses absorb financial losses with little warning or transition time.

The impact extends far beyond a single product category. Healthcare Access and Consumer Choice Another important aspect of this debate is the growing affordability crisis facing consumers.

Arizona families, like many Americans, continue to experience rising healthcare costs, higher prescription-drug prices and reduced access to care in certain communities. The situation has become even more challenging as independent pharmacies continue to disappear nationwide, leaving many consumers with fewer options for obtaining medications and healthcare support.

For some consumers, kratom and natural 7-OH products have become part of their personal wellness routines. Others report using these products as part of pain-management strategies or to reduce dependence on more harmful substances. While additional research is warranted, many consumers believe these products provide an alternative option when traditional healthcare solutions are inaccessible or unaffordable.

The public policy question should not simply be whether products exist. The question should be whether consumers have access to safe, tested, regulated products rather than being pushed toward unregulated alternatives.

Real risk may be synthetic products

Perhaps the most concerning development is the emergence of fully synthetic kratom-related compounds entering the marketplace.

While natural 7-OH is derived from the kratom plant and exists naturally within it, newer compounds are being developed through laboratory processes and may possess significantly greater potency than naturally occurring alkaloids.

Public health experts and policymakers should be focused on ensuring that regulations target products that present the greatest potential risk.

Unfortunately, broad bans can often create unintended consequences.

History has shown that when regulated products disappear, markets rarely vanish. Instead, they evolve. Consumers often seek alternatives, and manufacturers develop new compounds that may be less studied, less transparent, and more difficult to regulate.

This creates a cycle where regulators are constantly reacting to new synthetic products rather than establishing clear frameworks that protect consumers while preserving access to lower-risk alternatives.

Arizona has opportunity to lead

Arizona has historically embraced a balanced approach to economic growth and entrepreneurship. State leaders have recognized that effective regulation and business growth are not mutually exclusive goals. The same philosophy should guide policymakers in this debate.

Rather than pursuing broad prohibitions, Arizona can establish thoughtful guardrails that protect consumers while supporting responsible businesses. Those safeguards could include product testing requirements, age-verification standards, manufacturing transparency, accurate labeling, quality controls, and enforcement mechanisms targeting synthetic compounds that lack adequate safety data.

Such an approach would provide certainty for businesses, protections for consumers and accountability for manufacturers.

Most importantly, it would allow Arizona to avoid repeating policy mistakes seen elsewhere, where bans have often created confusion, encouraged underground markets, and shifted demand toward less regulated alternatives.

A better path forward

The conversation surrounding natural 7-OH is no longer simply about a single product. It is increasingly about how policymakers approach consumer protection, healthcare access, harm reduction, and small business sustainability.

Arizona's entrepreneurs should not become collateral damage in a regulatory debate that fails to distinguish between natural products and emerging synthetic compounds.

As federal policymakers continue to examine the issue, Arizona has an opportunity to lead with a balanced, evidence-based approach that prioritizes public safety while recognizing the realities facing consumers and small businesses alike.

The goal should not be prohibition for prohibition's sake. The goal should be smart regulation that protects the public, supports responsible businesses, and prevents more dangerous alternatives from filling the void.

Renée J. Johnson is vice president of strategic partnerships and ecosystems at the Association for Enterprise Opportunity, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.