"Lex Kratom" Heads to the Government: We Support Excise Duty, Higher VAT on Kratom, and a Rationally Regulated Market—But We Oppose Eliminating the Legal Market, Including Alternatives to Cigarettes

On September 14, 2026, the government will deliberate on the package of legislative changes known as "Lex Kratom"—a proposed amendment to nine interconnected laws. It will then proceed to the Chamber of Deputies as a government-sponsored bill. Compared to the July 2026 version—on which we issued a detailed position statement—a series of additional major bans have been added following the inter-ministerial comment procedure, based on Government Resolution No. 538 of August 24, 2026, and the findings of the "KORUND" enforcement operation. No further comment procedure or regulatory impact assessment will take place regarding these additions.

What We Support in the Proposal

Our position remains unchanged since July. Measures such as an excise duty on kratom tiered according to concentration, the reclassification of psychomodulatory substances to the standard VAT rate, a closed licensing chain, requirements for quality and hygiene, advertising restrictions, mandatory labeling and batch traceability, and proactive law enforcement against illegal sellers represent a rational continuation of the regulated market model that brought kratom out of the grey zone in late 2025. This regulation resulted in an immediate drop in sales to minors and an end to sales via vending machines. Raising the minimum age to 21, coupled with mandatory age verification, also aligns with harm reduction goals. The proposal rightly targets genuinely dangerous products as well: the ban on the enrichment of industrial hemp—the post-harvest addition of (semi-)synthetic cannabinoids to the plant—is a direct response to findings from Operation KORUND (which seized 22.6 kg of synthetic cannabinoids and found that 87% of samples contained dangerous synthetic substances).

The ban on remote sales turns the logic of harm reduction on its head.

The new ban on placing psychomodulating substances on the market via means of distance communication does not eliminate the online sale of kratom; instead, it eliminates only the legal, taxed, and regulated trade. Yet, age verification for remote sales occurs twice—once at the time of ordering and again upon delivery—making the process stricter than over-the-counter sales.

Consequently, the government’s proposal for a blanket ban actually weakens the protection of minors. Demand will almost certainly shift to unlicensed cross-border sellers operating without taxes or quality guarantees, or even to the darknet; the state will lose revenue from the tax currently being introduced, while health risks associated with unregulated products will rise. This illustrates that excessive regulation not only lacks rationality but invariably creates further unintended negative consequences. A less restrictive measure exists—regulated remote sales with dual age verification—which, under EU law, calls into question the admissibility of a blanket ban.

Jindřich Vobořil, Chairman of the think tank’s board of directors, adds: "We support higher VAT and excise taxes, as well as a rationally regulated market, and we are pleased that the state has chosen this path. However, at the last minute and without a standard review process, excessive blanket bans are being inserted into the legislation—measures that actually run counter to the logic of public health protection. This amounts to prohibition and will lead to the outcome we always see in such cases: a shift in demand to the illegal market, which is unregulated and creates opportunities for organized crime."

The ban on cannabis flower and CBD processing misses the real risk

Estimates indicate that up to 800,000 people in the Czech Republic use CBD in various forms, such as ointments, drops, lozenges, and so on. A significant portion of these users are seniors. In addition to banning the enrichment of products, the proposal introduces a blanket ban on the sale of industrial hemp products to private individuals and an absolute ban on processing cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid into other substances. Neither of these measures targets the dangerous synthetic cannabinoids that prompted the submission of this legislative package. These substances are not produced from cannabidiol—they are created via total synthesis from industrial precursors, specifically resorcinol derivatives and related compounds—so the ban on CBD processing does nothing to curb their production; instead, it merely destroys the legal use of a non-psychoactive raw material, thereby harming—above all—small Czech companies engaged in CBD production.

It is also true that synthetic cannabinoids can be applied to virtually any plant material, ranging from herbal blends to tea leaves or tobacco; Industrial hemp flower is not the essential vehicle for these substances. Therefore, banning its sale will not eliminate the vector for dangerous products; it will merely remove a non-intoxicating commodity from store shelves (the proposal retains the 1% THC limit) and shift demand elsewhere. Moreover, sweeping language regarding "cannabinoids and their derivatives" affects substances with absolutely no psychoactive effect—specifically CBD and CBG—and reverts to the logic of a previously rejected blanket ban on CBD, which conflicts with EU law (CJEU judgment in the *Kanavape* case, C‑663/18). The result is a significant blow to the legal hemp and CBD sector without providing any additional protection for public health.

An effective solution lies in addressing demand, not in banning a harmless raw material that is also perceived as a traditional herbal remedy. As we stated in our position paper of July 7, 2026, the solution involves not only bans but also replacing the illicit market with lower-risk substances. We therefore recommend that the solution include expanding the list of controlled psychomodulatory substances. Specific cannabinoids evaluated by the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Psychoactive Substances should be added to this list.

The availability of a regulated, taxed, and quality-controlled alternative would divert demand away from the unregulated synthetic cannabinoids currently sold in convenience stores and vending machines without any oversight, while simultaneously broadening the excise tax base. Furthermore, we repeatedly propose increasing access to medical cannabis—including the dispensing of smaller quantities of low-THC cannabis without a doctor's prescription. By combining regulatory measures with market substitution, we can reduce the demand for dangerous synthetic substances while generating greater revenue for public budgets and the funding of prevention and treatment—making this a mutually beneficial step.

Nicotine pouches: a hidden technical ban and a ticking time bomb

The ban stipulating that a nicotine pouch must not contain "other substances with a proven toxic effect"—combined with a new definition of nicotine that references poison regulations—implies that the law itself classifies nicotine as a toxic substance. Consequently, under a literal interpretation, a pouch that inherently contains nicotine contains a prohibited substance. Without an explicit exemption for nicotine, there is a risk of a de facto blanket ban on tobacco-free nicotine pouches from the moment the law takes effect. Notably, this provision is formally based on points 5 and 6 of the KORUND working group report rather than on specific findings from inspections of nicotine pouches; this makes it all the more important that the measure undergo proper expert discussion rather than being automatically incorporated into the law.

A second aspect involves the international status of nicotine: if the UN accedes to the initiative launched by Palau in June 2026 and reclassifies nicotine (with a vote scheduled for March 2028), the ban on "listed psychoactive substances" contained in the same provision would automatically extend to pouches and vapes containing pure nicotine—thereby targeting lower-risk smoking alternatives, such as those that helped Sweden reduce its smoking rate to approximately 5%. Yet, the ban is intended to target foreign additives, not nicotine itself.

Shifting regulation to the statute and the oversight regarding 7-hydroxymitragynine

The original 2025 framework deliberately assigned technical and safety parameters to a decree, which can be amended within a matter of months; The "Lex Kratom" proposal shifts regulations into a statute—a legislative process that takes a year or more to amend. For a group of substances not slated for regulation until late 2025, the speed of the regulatory response is itself a crucial safety factor. Yet, the proposal merely elevates requirements regarding labeling, ingredient lists, and storage instructions from a decree to a statute without offering any new consumer protections. Meanwhile, it completely overlooks the single most urgent measure—lowering limits for 7-hydroxymitragynine, a step agreed upon by the Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Psychoactive Substances—even though this could be implemented quickly via decree and we have repeatedly drawn the government's attention to it.

As Jana Michailidu, Director of the specialized center, summarizes: "The priorities are inverted. Parameters subject to ongoing change—which were intentionally placed in a decree—are being shifted into the statute, whereas the proposal fails to address the truly urgent need to lower 7-hydroxymitragynine limits. Furthermore, the ban on online shops actually weakens the protection of minors by eliminating a channel where age verification occurs twice."

Procedural Objection

Introducing such sweeping bans that affect the entire legal market—without a proper comment period or a regulatory impact assessment—undermines the proportionality and predictability of the regulation. When standard expert review is bypassed, the only remaining avenue for remedy is an amendment proposed in the Chamber of Deputies.

Recommendations

We recommend that the government and Members of Parliament consider the following during the legislative process:

• Removing the ban on the remote sale of psychomodulatory substances and maintaining regulated distance sales with age verification at both the time of ordering and delivery;
• Removing the blanket ban on the sale of industrial hemp to private individuals and narrowing the ban on CBD processing; the actual risk stems from synthetic cannabinoids and the demand for them, not from the non-intoxicating raw material;
• Adding one of the cannabinoids tested by the National Institute of Public Health to the list of psychomodulatory substances as a regulated alternative to new synthetic substances with often unknown health risks, and earmarking a portion of tax revenue for prevention, monitoring, and treatment;
• Narrowing the bans on cannabinoids to substances with proven psychoactive effects and exempting CBD and CBG;
• Providing an explicit exemption for nicotine and its salts regarding the regulation of nicotine pouch content;
• Retaining technical and safety parameters for psychomodulatory substances in a decree;
• Expeditiously lowering limits for 7-hydroxymitragynine via a decree;
• Earmarking a portion of tax revenue for prevention, monitoring, and treatment, and considering the inclusion of a safer, evaluated cannabinoid on the list of psychomodulatory substances.

Conclusion

In its taxation and quality-related aspects, the "Lex Kratom" bill affirms the regulated market model that we have long advocated. However, a blanket ban on online sales, a ban on the sale of industrial hemp (going beyond the prohibition on enrichment), and sweeping bans on cannabinoids and substances in nicotine pouches simultaneously undermine the sector and shift demand to the illicit market. Yet, all major concerns can be addressed through targeted adjustments that maintain prohibitions aimed at genuine risks without destroying a legal, rationally regulated market.

This follows the position statement issued by the Rational Addiction Policy think tank on July 7, 2026. https://rationalpolicy.eu/aktuality/lex-kratom-podporujeme-pokracovani-modelu-regulovaneho-trhu-ale-varujeme-pred-jeho-oslabenim-zakazem-legalnich-e-shopu-a-dalsimi-barierami-pro-mensi-subjekty/