Iowa City moves toward stricter public health measures with proposed kratom ban and tobacco retailer regulations

Iowa City is one step closer to a ban on kratom and curtailing the proliferation of tobacco-related sales, an issue council members say is integral to public health. On Oct. 1, the Iowa City Council passed first considerations for a rezoning ordinance aimed at discouraging tobacco sales oriented retail uses and a ban on kratom. “This ordinance limiting retailer density and proximity to youth and young adult-oriented places is definitely aligned with public health guidance to reduce density, because when more tobacco retailers are in a given area, residents’ health suffers, youth are more likely to start using nicotine products, those that are trying to quit have a harder time quitting,” said Susan Vileta, a health educator with Johnson County Public Health, during the public comment period. “And this also helps ensure retailers who aren't clustered in neighborhoods with a high percentage of lower income residents or residents of color, something the tobacco industry has sort of been known for doing.” Under the amendment for Title 14 Zoning Code (REZ24-0006), tobacco retailers would be prohibited from setting up shop within 500 feet of other outlets selling tobacco, K-12 schools and institutions of higher education, closely modeled after the city’s current separation distance requirements for drinking establishments. If the ordinance passes, existing tobacco retailers would be allowed to continue operating under a "grandfather" provision. However, they would lose this exemption if their permit is revoked, if it lapses for more than 60 days, if they cease selling tobacco products for 90 days – city attorney Eric Goers gave the example of remodeling work or change in ownership – or if they alter their business use. Mayor Bruce Teague expressed concern regarding the 90-day limit, pointing out that this timeframe may be too short, particularly for businesses that may temporarily close or pause sales due to renovations or financial challenges. “I don't think that is the right thing for (the) council to do, when someone may be renovating their space trying to figure out financial concerns,” he said. “We have some individuals that are minorities, that own some of these properties, and sometimes getting loans, as we know for minorities, [is] a challenge. That is the only thing that I'm requesting, is that the council would consider not 90 days, but one year.” Council member Josh Moe felt the extension would defeat the purpose of the council’s goal, promoting public health through the discouragement of tobacco retailers. “I guess the goal of this is to not take away license from people, but through attrition, hopefully reduce the clustering and reduce the quantity near schools,” he said. “I don't think we should be making it easier to maintain clustering and easier to be close to schools.” The motion to extend the ordinance's 90-day time limit to one year was approved in a 3-2 vote with councilors Moe and Harmsen casting the dissenting votes. Council members Laura Bergus and Andrew Dunn were not present. A first consideration approving the 500-foot buffer between tobacco retailers and schools passed unanimously.

Kratom ban sees mixed opinions

The proposed ban on kratom, an herbal substance that can act as a stimulant or sedative depending on the dosage, saw mixed opinions from the public and council members alike. Mac Haddow, senior fellow in public policy with the American Kratom Association, argued that bans prevent consumers from “safely manufactured and properly labeled” kratom products that help relieve chronic pain and called for local governments to advocate instead for responsible manufacturing. “We support regulations. We don’t support bans,” he said via Zoom, during public comment period, during which several more individuals expressed both support and opposition for the proposed ban. Council member Harmsen raised concerns about the lack of regulation and substantial research on kratom’s effects, calling these factors “a red flag.” The FDA does not approve kratom for medical use, nor is it regulated by the Controlled Substances Act. Mr. Harmsen also expressed concern about its marketing visibility to the public, especially in regards to children. “If I'm noticing them, that means every kid that walks by is noticing them,” he said. Council member Megan Alter disagreed with the ban, acknowledging some individuals use it recreationally but emphasizing anecdotes from people who claim it has helped with chronic pain. “There are people who have come out specifically talking about pain management and about mitigation – not cures, by no stretch,” she said, pointing out issues with the U.S. health care system that makes obtaining help and relief difficult for certain demographics. “If there is a small amount of people who are saying, ‘I don’t have a doctor, I don’t have a rehab to go to, but this is something that’s keeping me off of worse things,’ I’m good with that.”

Proposed ban elicits fraudulent emails

During the discussion, Mayor Teague and council member Moe mentioned receiving "almost 100 emails" opposing the proposed ban that were attributed to known Iowa City residents, but upon follow-up, these residents asserted they had not sent the emails. "I do not understand how we have so many emails (saying) 'do not ban kratom' from people that are in our community, and when we (follow up) with any of these individuals, they have no idea that this has been sent," said Mayor Teague. "We are getting almost a hundred emails now, and I don't know how real they are," said Mr. Moe, and council member Harmsen pointed out that all the emails are "the same." "We're used to getting copy-and-paste emails, but (with) those emails, you can call up those people and they actually sent that. But this is not the case here," said Mayor Teague, calling the situation a "red flag." The council voted in favor of the ban, 4-1, with council member Alter dissenting. The proposal needs to pass two more considerations before it becomes effective.