There is broad agreement that some guardrails around kratom/7-OH are needed, but there is disagreement about what those regulations should be.

The context:

In July, DEA proposed temporarily designating 7-OH above a certain threshold as Schedule I, allowing natural kratom products to continue without regulation. DEA has not yet finalized that law but has moved three less common kratom-related synthetics into Schedule I.
Pressure for action on all types of kratom is mounting after two students at the University of Mississippi died this month, with kratom products found on the scene, though authorities have not claimed that kratom contributed to either death.
Without federal regulation in place, states and localities have begun to issue their own emergency bans on 7-OH and/or kratom, while others have enacted some form of regulations/restrictions.

The details: Addiction experts note that classifying 7-OH as a Schedule I drug is not a perfect solution.

It leaves people who are dependent on it at risk of withdrawal if they can no longer access the products and criminal penalties if they do continue using it.
It starts a game of whack-a-mole with synthetic derivatives that would not keep up with the changes.
It would make it more difficult to conduct needed scientific research.
Scheduling does not address the underlying conditions causing people to use kratom/7-OH.

But: Other approaches, such as a more rigorously regulated marketplace, may be difficult to accomplish.

Around two dozen states have enacted some version of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act, which has been heavily promoted by the American Kratom Association industry group.
The laws typically include age limits, but other measures vary by state, and critics say these laws usually do not go far enough and can even provide more protection to the kratom manufacturers and sellers than consumers.
But stringent laws cost money, with states needing independent labs to test products, the authority to seize noncompliant ones, and staff to execute.
In states without well-regulated marketplaces, temporarily scheduling kratom may offer the government more time to consider how it might create one.
Utah and West Virginia are some of the examples of a well-regulated kratom marketplace. In Utah, only specialty tobacco retail locations with a specific license can sell it, and consumers can reference a public list of registered products, which must be tested for safety and quality by accredited, third-party labs. The state allows sale of only pure leaf kratom. Both states have instituted taxes on the products to pay for enforcement and implementation of the rules.

The main point: There is major risk in having kratom and highly concentrated products widely available and easily accessible, particularly to young people. Properly regulating kratom can help minimize harm.