Michigan kratom consumers: SB 1181 is something you should be paying attention to, and now is the time to start contacting legislators.

The bill is in the Michigan Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee, which means this is an important point in the process for consumers to make their voices heard.

But I want to suggest something beyond simply saying, “Everybody email the Senate.”

Please do not just write one canned message, put 15 senators' email addresses on it, hit send, and consider the job finished.

Those mass emails can very easily become another tally of people who are “for” or “against” something.

If you want a legislator or their staff to actually spend some time with what you are saying, take a little more time yourself.

Write to senators individually.

That does not mean you need to contact every member of the Michigan Senate.

Focus your effort where it makes sense.

If you live in Michigan, start with your own state senator.

Then I would concentrate heavily on the members of the Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee, because that is where this legislation currently sits:

Jeremy Moss, Chair
Dayna Polehanki, Majority Vice Chair
Sean McCann
Paul Wojno
Sylvia Santana
Kevin Hertel
Sam Singh
Chedrick Greene
Roger Hauck, Minority Vice Chair
Michael Webber
Dan Lauwers
Joseph Bellino Jr.

Write a separate email or letter to each senator you decide to contact.

Address that senator by name.

Explain who you are.

Explain why you are contacting them.

Then tell your story.

You can certainly reuse the basic facts of your story, but spend five minutes tailoring each message instead of copying exactly the same email to twelve people.

That little bit of additional effort can make the difference between something that looks like part of an organized email campaign and something that looks like what it actually is: a constituent or Michigan resident asking an elected official to understand an issue that affects real people.

Your experience can also help determine who else you contact

Look at the other Senate committees and think about where your personal or professional experience intersects with this issue.

For example, if you are a veteran, consider contacting senators who serve on Veterans and Emergency Services or the Military, Veterans, State Police appropriations subcommittee.

If your experience involves health care, recovery, pain management, public health, or treatment, you might have something meaningful to say to senators serving on Health Policy.

If your concerns involve labeling, deceptive marketing, product standards, or consumer transparency, there may be senators serving on committees dealing with consumer protection who would benefit from hearing that perspective.

The point is not to spam every senator whose email address you can find.

Be strategic.

Your own senator.

The senators actually considering SB 1181 in Regulatory Affairs.

Then perhaps a few additional senators where you have a legitimate connection to the work of their committee.

And tell them what you actually use

This is especially important right now.

“Kratom” has become an increasingly inadequate word for describing everything being sold under that label.

Someone drinking traditional leaf tea is not necessarily consuming the same type of product as someone taking leaf powder.

Neither is necessarily comparable to a concentrated extract.

And those products should not automatically be treated as interchangeable with concentrated 7-OH products, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl products, or other isolated, concentrated, converted, or manufactured alkaloid products appearing in the marketplace.

Tell legislators what you actually use.

If you use plain leaf, say that.

If you make tea, explain that.

If you use an extract, explain what kind.

If kratom has played a role in your life, tell your own story rather than making sweeping medical claims for everyone else.

And if you support regulation, tell them what that means to you.

I personally support things such as age restrictions, independent testing, manufacturing standards, accurate labeling, transparency about alkaloid content, and enforcement against adulterated or deceptively marketed products.

I also believe regulation needs to recognize that these products are not all identical simply because somebody puts the word “kratom” on the package.

You may agree with all of that, some of it, or none of it.

Tell legislators what YOU think.

This takes more time. That is the point.

Writing twelve individual emails takes longer than sending one email to twelve addresses.

Writing your senator separately takes longer.

Finding the members of a committee that intersects with your own experience takes longer.

Telling your actual story takes longer than copying somebody else's talking points.

Do it anyway.

Legislators receive form letters and organized campaigns constantly.

Give them something different.

Give them a Michigan constituent, veteran, caregiver, health care worker, small business owner, researcher, recovery advocate, consumer, parent, or ordinary citizen explaining:

This is who I am.

This is what I actually use.

This is how this issue affects me.

This is what concerns me about SB 1181.

And this is what I would like you to consider.

Whether you support the bill, oppose it, or believe it needs substantial changes, read it yourself and make your own position known.

Don't assume someone else will tell your story for you.

One senator. One email. One real person telling a real story.

It takes longer.

I think that is exactly why it matters.

• Michigan Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee — membership, meeting information, and committee contacts: Regulatory Affairs Committee Michigan Senate
• Michigan Senate Full Committee Directory — useful for finding committees that overlap with your personal experience, such as Veterans and Emergency Services, Health Policy, or Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection: 2025–2026 Senate Committees
• Michigan Senate homepage / Find Your Senator — useful for Michigan residents who do not know who represents them: Michigan Senate — Find Your Senator

I've seen a screenshot of the video making the rounds on the 7-OH subreddit, and the clip has also been shared on the AKA's X (Twitter) and Facebook accounts. It seems to be causing some confusion about my position, so I just wanted to clarify things directly.

I was invited to speak a couple months ago at an event attended by congressional staff, industry representatives, and kratom advocates speaking along side very influential folks. The American Kratom Association later created and posted clips from that event, but I had no role in producing, editing, or deciding how those clips were used.

My position has been consistent for years: I oppose prohibition and my speech should make that clear. I've never supported banning kratom or any other substance, and I've consistently argued that prohibition creates more problems by driving people toward unregulated markets. I support evidence-based regulation, consumer protections, and harm reduction—not prohibition. The videos state the same and I encourage you watch the video completely before jumping to conclusions.

Being featured in a video posted by the AKA doesn't mean I work for them, represent them, or agree with every position they take. I don't. I was simply one of several invited speakers sharing my perspective. I just wanted to clear that up so nobody mistakes a clip that is consistent with my views posted by someone else as a change in my own views. The video was my view. I do not support prohibtion. Full stop.

-Andrew

https://www.vaoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-08/VA%20OIG%20Fraud%20Press%20Release.pdf

This press release from the VA Office of Inspector General showed up in my work email today, and I have to admit my first reaction was skepticism. Every time one of these fraud cases makes headlines, it tends to reinforce the public perception that VA fraud is widespread. But after working with veterans and the VA system, I've learned to read beyond the headline. Were these one-off cases? An organized scheme? How much was actually lost compared to the billions in legitimate benefits paid every year?

Don't get me wrong—anyone defrauding veterans' programs should be prosecuted. Every dollar stolen is a dollar that isn't available for veterans who genuinely earned these benefits. But it's also worth remembering that these cases make the news precisely because they're being investigated and caught. I'll be interested to see the full details before drawing broader conclusions.

Thoughts?

If Democrats want to win big in the midterms, they need to stop assuming voters will connect the dots and start making every issue personal.

Most Americans don't spend hours on Reddit, X, or cable news. They aren't following every court case, every scandal, or every constitutional debate. They vote based on what affects them when they open their wallet, pay rent, visit the doctor, or buy groceries.

Polling consistently shows that the issues people care most about are healthcare costs, inflation, housing, and the overall economy. Those concerns outweigh almost everything else for many voters.

Instead of saying, "Republicans want to cut Medicaid," explain what that means: "Your rural hospital could close. Your nursing home could lose funding. Your parents may wait longer for care. Your veteran neighbor could lose services." Instead of talking about SNAP in abstract budget terms, explain what happens to a family when their grocery bill goes up another $100 a month.

The same applies to taxes, housing, education, and veterans' benefits. Make every policy about someone's real life, not about Washington.

That doesn't mean ignoring concerns about democracy, corruption, or ethics. Those issues matter. But for many persuadable voters, they're secondary to the question they ask every election: "Will my life be better or worse over the next two years?"

If Democrats can answer that question in clear, practical terms—and repeat it relentlessly—they won't just energize their base. They'll reach the independent and low-information voters who often decide elections.

Over the last few years, we've seen a pattern emerge on the major social media platforms. Some groups of grieving parents have become closely aligned with class-action attorneys and what many advocates describe as astroturf organizations—groups that appear to be grassroots movements but are backed or coordinated by organizations with broader political or financial objectives.

For that reason, I've intentionally avoided engaging with these groups online. It's not because I don't have sympathy for parents who have lost a child—every loss is tragic—but because arguing with them on social media accomplishes very little while often helping amplify their message.

Social media algorithms are designed to reward engagement, not accuracy. Every comment, quote post, reply, argument, or share tells the platform that a post is generating interest. As a result, the algorithm is more likely to recommend that content to additional users. Even when your intention is to debunk misinformation or expose inconsistencies, your engagement can inadvertently increase the visibility of the very content you're trying to counter.

Unfortunately, we've also begun to see this escalate beyond online debates. Some of these astroturf organizations have reportedly taken screenshots of advocates' social media posts out of context and sent them to employers in an attempt to damage their careers. In at least one well-known case within the kratom advocacy community, an advocate's family was subjected to a report to Child Protective Services, creating significant legal expenses and personal hardship. Whether these tactics ultimately succeed is almost beside the point—they consume time, money, and emotional energy that could otherwise be spent advocating for sensible kratom policy.

There is simply very little to gain from engaging these groups directly or indirectly on social media. It rarely changes minds, but it frequently increases the reach of their content while exposing advocates to unnecessary personal and professional risks. If your goal is to keep kratom legal, your efforts are generally better spent educating legislators, regulators, researchers, journalists, and members of the public who are genuinely open to evidence-based discussion.

Finally, if you are not completely public about your kratom use or your advocacy with your employer, family, or professional network, think carefully before engaging in public arguments online. Once something is posted, it can be screenshot, taken out of context, and circulated indefinitely. Protect yourself, stay focused on effective advocacy, and don't allow those looking for attention or conflict to dictate where your time and energy are spent.

Really good to see that the DOD is still working hard to provide closure for families in this way.

Trying to see if there are any existing gaming groups/clubs here in Bay County that is whole or in part military veterans. Reason this is being asked is to see if there are groups to partner with and help them expand their reach or look in to creating it if need be. Most know the veteran community keeps experiencing a high number of suicides and a lot of mental/physical health issues that just getting out of their homes and out to events help them/us feel connected. If anyone has any suggestions I'm all ears. Already reached out to several gaming stores here in the county asking the same but don't want to leave any stones unturned.

So tonight the wife and I drove down to Lansing Michigan to sit in on a live town hall/community diacussion Senator Singh holds monthly. If you arent aware of who he is, Senator Singh is the #2 on the Michigan Senate committee for Government Operations and very senior for the majority party. This is the committee that currently has the Kratom prohibition bill for consideration. I asked about Kratom and he talked Kratom. Very supportive of keeping raw kratom legal but better regulated, for sure concerned about semi-synthetic and synthetic products more and more popping up and thinks the regulation for that likely needs to look different than raw product but doesnt seem at all supportive of prohibition. As this keeps developing Ill update what I find out but for now Michigan looks fairly safe at the moment.

Looking at pursing a certification for my job and know the GI Bill will reimburse for test costs and some prep classes. Will they reimburse for courses/tests that aren't already being approved or does the certification body have to get approval for their certification before anyone can be reimbursed?

Spoke to a veteran trying to pursue adaptive sports for his health, was a competetive road cyclist pre military service, serious limits on what he can do now due to injuries/disabilities but has been to a few adaptive sports clinics for cycling and has had a lot of success with a recumbent trike/bike. Was told several times at these clinics that the VA can provide him access to a decent recumbent trike style cycle and he needed to speak to his primary care team to get a referel to the Recreation & Rehabilitation program where they could help him access this. Veteran contacted primary care doctor who said "I dont know anything about that program" but instead of trying to help find out if this is a thing or how to get veteran involvdd offered "a fitness coach" knowing the veteran has serious limits to traditional exercise due to injuries. Is there any other direction the veteran can turn for these programs as the primary care doctor seems sort of indifferent to his request?

While it's believed that around 4 in 10 veterans have clearly service-connected disabilities/injuries/illnesses only around 3 in 10 ever file for benefits and even less in some states like here in Michigan where its closer to 2 in 10. If this applies to you what's kept you from filing for benefits?

We've heard here in our county that our office hours aren't conducive to working veterans, so we are looking at expanding our office hours to some weekends. We've heard that we are too busy to answer the phone (which some days is very true), so we added an administrative clerk so we are able to take as many calls as possible, so people are being heard and someone is contacting them when voice mails are left.

What can State/County VSOs do to assist you better in your pursuit of VA benefits? I'd love to know and I suspect it's something other VSOs may be trying to figure out.