(Editor's Note: The following opinion column does not constitute medical advice on the part of Newsmax.)
The opioid epidemic ravaged our country, and it's finally beginning to show signs of receding.
Opioid-related deaths continue to decline, and that's the case in nearly every state nationally. Unfortunately, when it comes to drug policy, Washington's ivory tower elites continue to push policies that hurt everyday Americans while pretending to "protect" us
The FDA's crusade against 7-OH, a natural derivative used by thousands as a safe alternative to opioids, is the latest proof that our federal health agencies are driven more by political optics than science or compassion.
Washington prides itself on evidence-based policymaking and interagency coordination, yet the current push to restrict 7‑OH suggests a triumph of optics over outcomes.
The latest FDA effort to move 7‑OH toward prohibition elevates fear over data, risking unintended harm at a time when overdose trends demand pragmatic harm reduction, not symbolic bans.
The FDA’s mandate is to protect public health, but its approach to 7‑OH looks more like "schedule first, analyze later."
By seeking to restrict a compound with minimal documented adverse events, especially compared to fentanyl-driven mortality, federal actors risk repeating past missteps where prohibition displaced, rather than reduced, risk.
The national context is stark: 107,941 Americans died from overdoses in 2022, with synthetic opioids driving the crisis — a reality that still shapes federal dashboards and policy priorities across agencies in the capital region.
While provisional data show national declines in 2023 and 2024, fentanyl remains the predominant threat, and blanket bans of natural alternatives will push consumers toward more dangerous, illicit street drugs.
Congress has seen this movie before.
In 2016, when the DEA moved to ban kratom's constituents, bipartisan pushback from both chambers forced a rethink, precisely because lawmakers feared escalation to heroin and fentanyl if lower-risk options disappeared.
That episode underscores a durable Capitol Hill principle: prohibition without public input and clear, peer-reviewed evidence can worsen public health outcomes.
There is a middle path. Rather than an outright ban, federal agencies could implement a 21+ standard, mandate accurate labeling, and enforce quality controls to prevent adulteration that aligns with harm reduction best practices already reflected in other HHS-supported overdose strategies.
Such guardrails can reduce misuse while preserving a regulated alternative for adults managing pain or tapering off more dangerous opioids.
A Beltway approach should focus on the principal driver of mortality, the prime example being illicit fentanyl, while avoiding policies that inadvertently expand its market share.
Prioritizing targeted enforcement against counterfeit pills and trafficking, alongside regulated, age-gated access to lower-risk alternatives like 7-OH, better aligns with current overdose data trends and the lessons of prior congressional oversight.
The bottom line?
A blanket 7‑OH ban is a high-visibility, low-yield move which risks pushing people toward far deadlier substances.
Federal leadership should emphasize calibrated regulation and fentanyl interdiction, not prohibitions that substitute political theater for measurable public health gains.
Charlie Kolean has worked as a senior policy adviser for state legislators, multinational corporations, and think tanks. Mr. Kolean has been involved in politics for over a decade as an activist, candidate, political consultant, and party leader. He was a bundler on the Trump Finance Victory Committee, and is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants. Read more of his reports — Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.