Statement regarding the “Lex Kratom” bill

Prague, September 13, 2026

The regulation of psychoactive and addictive substances is a key public health and safety issue, and it is positive that the government is consistently addressing it. The Institute for Rational Addiction Policy has previously acknowledged that certain measures are correct: introducing an excise tax on kratom and raising the VAT are steps in the right direction, as is the effort to find solutions for truly dangerous synthetic cannabinoids—a phenomenon we have been grappling with for over a decade and which, despite existing bans, continues to see new molecules entering the market. At its meeting on September 14, 2026, the government is set to discuss the "Lex Kratom" package—a proposal to amend several interconnected laws that builds on this approach by moving kratom out of the grey market and into a regulated, taxed market (featuring a licensed supply chain, quality and traceability standards, and age verification). However, in its current form, the proposal contains fundamental flaws alongside these positive steps, which we highlight in this statement.

The proposal is unfinished and internally inconsistent.

Compared to the July 2026 version, the text now includes—following the inter-ministerial review process—a number of additional blanket bans that often conflict with one another and with the stated objectives. Measures presented as safeguards for health and minors appear, in some respects, to achieve the exact opposite effect; they miss the actual risks (synthetic cannabinoids and the demand for them) while penalizing non-intoxicating, legal commodities.

Vaguely worded provision threatens a ban on the production and sale of nicotine pouches

The proposal contains a provision that could be interpreted as a blanket ban on both the production and sale of nicotine pouches—a product that serves as a significant substitute for smoking and has contributed to reducing smoking rates to approximately 5% in countries where it is legally available (e.g., Sweden). Notably, this measure is unrelated to the police operation "KORUND," which targeted the illegal sale of synthetic cannabinoids on the streets of Prague; it remains unclear at whose instigation or in whose interest this provision was included in the proposal in its current wording.

It contains proposals that pose significant risks to public health and public budgets

Blanket bans (specifically, bans on the remote sale of psychomodulatory substances, the sale of industrial hemp, and cannabinoids in general) do not eliminate the illegal supply but rather destroy the legal, taxed, and regulated market. Demand will shift to unlicensed and cross-border sellers operating without taxes or quality guarantees, or potentially to the darknet. Consequences include jeopardizing the collection of the newly introduced tax, undermining consumer and youth protection, and creating new security risks associated with the growth of the illegal market and opportunities for organized crime.

Standard procedures were bypassed, and the state's only expert body appears to have been ignored

No comment procedure or regulatory impact assessment (RIA) was conducted regarding the added bans. We have reasonable grounds to believe that the Addiction Policy Department of the Ministry of Health (formerly the Anti-Drug Policy Department of the Government Office)—the only state body possessing the relevant professional expertise in this field—was bypassed during the drafting process. This situation also highlights the risks associated with the recent transfer of this agenda to a ministry that appears more receptive to the arguments of specific interest groups.

Recommendations to the Government of the Czech Republic:

• Return the "Lex Kratom" proposal for revision – specifically to be reworked by the Addiction Policy Department of the Ministry of Health—while retaining its beneficial elements (excise duty, higher VAT, quality and traceability standards, age verification, and a ban on enriching industrial hemp) and removing blanket bans that would destroy the legal market.
• Incorporate the professional expertise of the Ministry of Health’s Addiction Policy Department into the revision process and ensure a proper comment procedure and Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) are conducted.
• Base decisions strictly on professional expertise rather than politics. Decisions regarding public health protection and risk reduction for individuals and society must be grounded in scientific knowledge and empirical data, not political mandates.
• Avoid making decisions under pressure from interest groups. Regulation must not serve as a tool for competitive rivalry among manufacturers; its sole criterion should be the benefit to public health and risk reduction.

We stand ready to provide the Government and the Ministry of Health with our cooperation and a detailed expert analysis of the individual provisions.