Local Politics
  1. Home
  2. US
  3. New Hampshire
  4. Manchester
  5. Issues

Kratom Sales Ban Ordinance

At a glance

  • What: An ordinance amendment from Aldermen Thomas and Barry that would ban the substance known as kratom in Manchester.
  • Where it stands: On October 6 the Committee on Public Safety, Health & Traffic amended the ordinance to remove the "use" and "possession" language and sent it to the Committee on Bills on Second Reading. A motion to send it to the full Board that night failed 3 to 1. The committee report goes on the Board's consent agenda on October 20.
  • Next: October 20 Board meeting; Thomas could call the Alcohol, Other Drugs & Youth Services committee that night. State bills are pending.

Committee debate (October 6, 2026)

  • Barry and Thomas asked for approval of an ordinance banning kratom. Barry said it was meant for the Alcohol, Other Drugs and Youth Services committee but was sent to Public Safety because Thomas could not attend in time; the goal was to reach the full Board that night.
  • Barry said Solicitor Solicitor Rice was confident the draft was strong enough, that Nashua bars sales and possession under 21, and that Franklin bans sale and possession outright. Barry wanted it off shelves even if stores got a 30 day window to return stock, and said most emails opposing the ban came from outside New Hampshire. Barry cited a Hope for New Hampshire Recovery client spending $300 a day on kratom and said Chief Chief Marr favors a ban.
  • Vincent (chair) said there was "no question that this needs to be off our streets" but wanted the Clerk, Police, Health Department and Solicitor to vet the ordinance rather than pass a blanket measure.
  • Trisciani warned of a "culture of unintended consequences": producers could rebrand or change recipes, people who rely on the plain herbal form would be criminalized for possession, and Goffstown deferred to the state. Trisciani would accept an age limit (18 or 21) like Nashua.
  • Goonan said no one wants kratom sold as it is, but enforcement was the concern; Goonan supported passing it with about 120 days for department heads to design enforcement.
  • Director Thomas (Health Director) said natural and synthetic kratom both exist, there is no test for it so police could not validate possession, and an age limit would be a cleaner first step. City overdose data show no overdoses or deaths correlated with kratom, but Doorways and Hope for NH Recovery report more patients using it. The school district saw no big increase. Director Thomas stressed the burden on the City Clerk's office and police.
  • Davis (Hope for NH Recovery) reported more kratom related relapses and said it should be banned.
  • Dexter was concerned that "use" and "possession" would create work when people can buy elsewhere and bring it in. Solicitor Solicitor Rice said those words can be removed.
  • Vote: on Dexter's motion (seconded by Goonan) the ordinance was amended to remove use and possession and, as amended, to pass and go to Bills on Second Reading for technical review. Barry's motion to expedite the report to the full Board that night failed: Barry, Dexter and Goonan yea, Vincent nay. City Clerk Normand said the report will be on the October 20 consent agenda with a recommendation to refer to Bills.

Public comment at the Board (October 6, 2026)

  • Against a blanket ban (for regulation): Mercier (offered a retail compliance checklist and safety data), Smith (uses whole leaf for neuroborreliosis and recovery; opposes gas station sales and concentrated extracts), Rainer (decade of use; wants 21-plus and heavy regulation) and Neslusan (said the state Kratom Consumer Protection Act would protect the leaf while restricting extracts).
  • For a ban: Hartner, a family physician, described emergency department cases of acute psychosis with no reversal agent, said the FDA warns kratom is not safe, and noted 21 states ban or restrict it; Hartner offered a published article for the record.

Full Board discussion (October 6, 2026)

  • Kantor said she received many emails, asked why the item went to Public Safety rather than the Alcohol and Drug committee, said she could not decide without hearing more, asked who would enforce, and called for a roundtable with community users.
  • Mayor Ruais said the routing was "purely a scheduling issue"; the item returns on consent October 20, then goes to Bills on Second Reading. Barry and Mayor Ruais noted a conference on unregulated intoxicants at SNHU on October 7.

Sources

Log

2026-10-06 - Board of Mayor and Aldermen

Public comment for and against a ban (four speakers opposed a blanket ban but supported action on synthetics and concentrated extracts; a family physician urged a ban); a symposium on unregulated intoxicants was announced for October 7; the item returns on the October 20 consent agenda; Kantor questioned the committee routing. The ordinance itself was in Public Safety committee earlier that evening, which amended it and sent it to Bills on Second Reading (see 2026-10-06 - Committee on Public Safety, Health and Traffic).