Comment from Peagler, Ashley, HHS-OASH-2026-0232, HHS-OASH-2026-0232-0001, 2026-13608

To Whom It May Concern, My name is Ashley, and I am from Charleston, South Carolina. I am a college graduate, a mother to a special needs child, and an active community volunteer who has spent years helping support families and youth in my community. Through my volunteer work, I have had the privilege of positively impacting the lives of thousands of children and their families. I take pride in being a responsible citizen, a caregiver, and someone who believes in making thoughtful, evidence-based decisions. I also live with chronic pain resulting from old injuries and hereditary conditions. After exhausting conventional treatment options, I found meaningful relief through the responsible use of Kratom-derived 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). It has allowed me to function, care for my family, remain active in my community, and maintain a quality of life that had previously been out of reach. I respectfully urge the Department of Health and Human Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration to reject the proposed temporary scheduling threshold for 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and instead pursue a science-based regulatory approach that protects public safety while preserving consumer access. 7-OH is a naturally occurring alkaloid found in the Kratom leaf. It is not a novel synthetic drug. For many individuals, access to Kratom-derived compounds has been life-changing, particularly for those who have been failed by conventional pain management and substance use treatment systems. Consumers across the country rely on 7-OH to manage chronic pain, improve their quality of life, reduce reliance on prescription opioids, and as a harm reduction tool. Many have also used it to leave fentanyl, heroin, alcohol, and other more dangerous substances behind. At a time when millions of Americans continue to struggle with chronic pain, substance use disorder, and limited access to affordable healthcare, removing another potential tool is not sound public policy. That is precisely what the DEA's proposed Schedule I placement would accomplish. Based on the available evidence, 7-OH does not belong in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Serious adverse events involving 7-OH alone appear to be uncommon, there have been no confirmed overdose deaths attributed solely to 7-OH, and researchers continue to investigate its potential medical benefits. Placing these products into Schedule I would also make future scientific research significantly more difficult at exactly the time when more research—not less—is needed to better understand 7-OH and its potential role in public health. I support reasonable regulation, quality standards, accurate labeling, age restrictions, manufacturing oversight, and consumer protections for 7-OH and other Kratom products. However, the proposed threshold of 0.050%, or approximately 1 milligram per article, is simply too low. It would effectively eliminate the overwhelming majority of products currently available to responsible adult consumers. That is not regulation. It is prohibition. History has repeatedly shown that prohibition does not eliminate demand. Instead, it drives consumers into unregulated markets, increases the likelihood of unsafe or adulterated products, and criminalizes ordinary Americans who are simply trying to improve their quality of life. The people who will bear the greatest burden are parents, veterans, caregivers, workers, and individuals who turned to 7-OH only after traditional pain treatment options proved ineffective, inaccessible, or unaffordable. Any regulatory threshold should reflect how these products are actually used by responsible adults and should be based on sound scientific evidence and real-world consumer data—not an arbitrary limit that effectively bans an entire category of products without adequately considering the consequences. As someone who depends on 7-OH to manage legitimate chronic pain while remaining an engaged parent, volunteer, and productive member of society, I respectfully ask that my experience—and the experiences of countless others—be considered alongside the available scientific evidence. I respectfully urge the Drug Enforcement Administration to reject the proposed threshold and instead adopt a practical, evidence-based regulatory framework that protects consumers, supports continued scientific research, ensures product quality and transparency, and preserves legal access for responsible adults. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of these comments. Ashley Charleston, SC