Tinley Park board tables vote on ordinance to ban sale of kratom and similar synthetic products after hours of testimony

Tinley Park — The Village Board on May 21 delayed action on a proposed ordinance that would prohibit businesses from manufacturing, selling, giving away or distributing products containing kratom or novel synthetic psychoactive drugs, after lengthy public comment and trustee discussion.

Trustee Brady introduced Ordinance D‑29, described in the agenda as establishing a new code section to prohibit kratom and similar products from being sold within village limits. Staff clarified during discussion that the draft ordinance targets business licensing and sales; it does not criminalize personal possession, which remains governed by state law. Trustee Brady said the draft “specifically states a no business license by the Village of Tinley Park shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale, giveaway, deliver or distribute any products that contain katom [sic] or a novel psychoactive or novel synthetic drug,” and several trustees clarified on the record that possession was not the ordinance’s subject.

The public comment period drew numerous business owners, customers and advocacy representatives who urged the board not to adopt a ban without further study or regulation. Ken Sip, a Tinley Park store owner, said the product helps some customers manage pain and addiction, asserting, “I will die on that hill katom is not addictive” and urging trustees to reconsider a ban. Ryan Burough, identified as executive director of the American Kratom Association, said his group had supplied research to the board and argued the FDA’s own scientific work had not established kratom as uniformly dangerous; he asked the board to delay a decision pending state-level developments and more review.

Several speakers offered personal testimonials about using kratom as an alternative to opioids or to manage chronic pain and insomnia. One business owner said 96% of their customers were over 30 and included veterans, teachers and health professionals; another speaker said kratom had helped them stop opioid use. Those speakers also urged a regulatory or certification approach rather than an outright ban.

Trustees voiced competing concerns in response. Some members said the product is widely available and largely unregulated, noting it can appear in “vape” pens and convenience-store shelves and worry about youth access. Trustee Sullivan said he was concerned about the number of outlets selling unregulated products and expressed the need for additional study; Trustee Shaw and Trustee Mueller raised questions about enforcement and whether the village is the appropriate regulator of the product itself. Trustee Brady and others said the ordinance as drafted focused on business licensing rather than criminalizing users.

After board discussion, a superseding motion to table the ordinance to the June 18 meeting and to designate Dan, the community development director, as a single point of contact for submitted information passed by roll call 4–2 (Trustee Mueller and Trustee Shaw voted no). The motion sets a schedule for additional materials to be channeled to staff for compilation and review.

The immediate outcome is procedural: the board did not adopt the ordinance tonight and directed staff to collect and summarize evidence, stakeholder suggestions and possible regulatory alternatives for trustees to consider. The board requested factual material — regulatory frameworks, testing and labeling standards, and public‑health analyses — be funneled through the appointed staff contact before the June 18 meeting.