The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecords

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 10272·119th Congress·Introduced Sep 3, 2026

End Gas Station Heroin Act

IntroducedCrime and Law EnforcementMajor
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5]
Committees
Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
Last action
Sep 3, 2026

Bottom line

The bill aims to proactively combat the illicit commercial supply of novel synthetic opioids, often marketed as 'gas station heroin,' by expanding federal scheduling and enforcement powers, while carefully distinguishing between synthetic and natural forms of certain compounds.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Controlled Substances Act to classify specific synthetic opioids, including synthetic 7-hydroxymitragynine and Mitragynine Pseudoindoxyl (above certain thresholds), as Schedule I controlled substances. It also establishes a new, broad enforcement mechanism against the commercial distribution of 'covered emerging synthetic opioids,' defined by their synthetic nature and potency relative to morphine, while explicitly exempting simple possession and naturally occurring kratom components within specified limits.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that this legislation is essential for public safety, providing federal law enforcement with the necessary tools to rapidly address the proliferation of dangerous synthetic opioids that currently evade existing drug scheduling laws. They contend it offers a flexible framework to target manufacturers and distributors of these substances, which pose severe health risks and exacerbate the opioid crisis, while carefully preserving access to legitimate, naturally occurring kratom products.

Opponents contend

Opponents might express concerns that the broad definition of 'covered emerging synthetic opioid' could lead to overreach, potentially criminalizing substances not intended for abuse or stifling legitimate scientific research. They may also argue that the bill's provisions, even with exemptions, could create undue burdens or unintended consequences for the kratom industry and its consumers, or that it represents an expansion of federal power without sufficient checks.

The bill is relatively concise, and its core provisions are clearly articulated, allowing an informed reader to understand its main impacts within a reasonable timeframe.

Section 1

Short Title: 'End Gas Station Heroin Act'

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section formally designates the short title of the legislation as the 'End Gas Station Heroin Act.' This title serves as a concise and publicly recognizable name for the bill, clearly signaling its primary objective to address the issue of dangerous synthetic opioids often sold in unregulated commercial settings.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupGeneral public, policymakers, mediaImpactProvides a common, easily recognizable name for the legislation, aiding public discourse and legislative tracking.MechanismScale

Supporters argue

Supporters would argue that a clear and evocative short title helps to galvanize public and political support for the bill's aims to combat dangerous synthetic drugs and raise awareness of the issue.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily for identification and communication.

Tradeoffs

None apparent for the short title itself.

Section 2

Scheduling of Synthetic 7-hydroxymitragynine and Mitragynine Pseudoindoxyl

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This section amends the Controlled Substances Act to classify synthetic 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, including their various chemical forms, as Schedule I controlled substances. A critical exemption is provided for these compounds when they occur naturally in the kratom plant or in finished kratom products, provided their combined concentration does not exceed 1 milligram per gram (for solids) or 1 milligram per milliliter (for liquids), and the combined amount does not exceed 1 part per 100 parts mitragynine by mass. However, any 7-OH or mitragynine pseudoindoxyl that is chemically synthesized, converted, concentrated, enriched, or isolated through manufacturing processes is explicitly excluded from this exemption.

Section 3

Expanded Enforcement Against Emerging Synthetic Opioids

prominently featuredhighly complex

This section establishes a new framework for federal enforcement against 'covered emerging synthetic opioids' by treating them as Schedule I controlled substances for purposes of prohibiting their knowing or intentional manufacture, importation, exportation, distribution, dispensing, or possession with intent to do so. A 'covered emerging synthetic opioid' is defined as a substance that is synthetically or semisynthetically produced, acts as an opioid receptor agonist with greater functional potency than morphine, is intended for human consumption, is not FDA-approved, and is not already scheduled. Crucially, the bill explicitly states that simple possession or personal use of these substances will not be subject to criminal or civil enforcement under this specific section.

FOUND

This subsection outlines several key exclusions from the definition of a 'covered emerging synthetic opioid.' These include FDA-approved drugs, substances not intended for human consumption, naturally occurring constituents of plants or fungi (unless intentionally concentrated or chemically converted), substances possessed solely for legitimate scientific, medical, forensic, analytical, or law-enforcement purposes, and substances otherwise exempted by the Attorney General through regulation.

Section 3(g)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the precise scope and limitations of a broad regulatory framework, ensuring that the new enforcement powers do not inadvertently capture legitimate activities. Its placement ensures it is read in context with the full definition.

Case for: Supporters argue these exclusions are vital to prevent the overreach of the new enforcement powers, ensuring that legitimate medical research, natural products, and non-abusable substances are not inadvertently criminalized. They demonstrate a careful attempt to narrow the bill's focus.

Case against: Critics might argue that some exclusions, particularly for 'naturally occurring constituents,' could still be ambiguous or exploited, or that the Attorney General's power to exempt substances through regulation introduces an element of executive discretion that could be politicized.

Estimated impact: Significantly narrows the scope of the broad enforcement provision, protecting various legitimate activities and industries from being swept into Schedule I prohibitions, thereby reducing potential unintended consequences.

FOUND

This subsection clarifies that enforcement under Section 3 is strictly limited to substances that are introduced or intended to be introduced into commercial distribution and are connected to prohibited conduct (manufacture, distribution, etc.). It explicitly states that the presence of the same substance outside commercial distribution, such as for authorized research, analytical testing, forensic examination, or other noncommercial purposes, shall not independently subject that substance or conduct to enforcement under this section.

Section 3(h)

Why it matters:This is a critical safeguard designed to prevent unintended consequences for non-commercial activities. Its placement ensures it is read in context of the full enforcement framework, emphasizing the bill's focus on illicit commercial trafficking.

Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a vital safeguard, ensuring that the bill's expanded enforcement powers are narrowly focused on the illicit commercial supply chain of dangerous synthetic opioids, rather than legitimate research, academic study, or other non-commercial uses.

Case against: Some might argue that this limitation could create loopholes or make enforcement more complex by requiring explicit proof of 'commercial intent' even for substances clearly identified as dangerous, potentially hindering rapid interdiction.

Estimated impact: Significantly restricts the application of the new enforcement powers, ensuring they target large-scale illicit operations and supply networks rather than individual possession or legitimate research and development activities.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
  • Implementation
  • Political analysis