Irvine Moves to Ban Synthetic Kratom and Whippets 51%

By Angelina Hicks36%

7/29/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 225 hits. Analysis detected 1,728 faulty-reasoning hits from 968 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.1% and a BS Rank of 51% (13,813 of 28,095 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.80% of the article peer group.

Irvine could be the next city to ban the sale of whippets and kratom in town, potentially joining a growing number of Orange County cities cracking down on the substances. 
During their Tuesday night city council meeting officials voted 4-3 to tell staff to return with two ordinances that outline a local prohibition on the sale of whippets, also known as nitrous oxide, and synthetic kratom products. 
Councilmembers Betty Martinez Franco, James Mai and Mayor Larry Agran voted no. 
It was proposed by Councilmember Melinda Liu, who originally brought the move forward last fall, when both ideas failed due to lacking support from her colleagues. 
This time, she received enough support from the rest of the council on both points after arguing the city shouldn’t delay further on this issue. 
“I think it is bad governing to wait until something disastrous happens to act on it,” Liu said at the meeting. 
“Good governments should proactively protect the residents, and in my opinion, this is something that has been going on around the state. 
Similar ordinances have been adopted all around Orange County and it is time for Irvine to finally act on it, to protect our families and children.” 
Leaders are looking to ban the sale of both substances for people looking to use them to get high. 
Staff said the ordinances are expected to appear in front of the city council for consideration during a meeting in September. 
Kratom, a Southeast Asian plant, can be dried and used for either stimulant or sedative effects, depending on its dosage. 
The lower dose, found in its natural dried form, is used similarly to caffeine. 
However, when a minor component of the leaf, 7-hydroxymitragynine or 7-OH, is synthetically amplified, it can create opioid-like effects in the user. 
Advocates say the natural leaf is a good alternative to addictive prescription pain medication; in response, many local city officials have rolled out bans on just the synthetic form while other cities move to ban the substance entirely. 
Just last week, La Habra officials considered banning the two drugs as city council members directed staff to research potential ordinances. 
Irvine leaders are looking to prohibit the sale, distribution or possession of kratom production with more than 2% 7-OH. 
The sale of natural kratom will still be allowed to residents ages 21 and older. 
“We are a very privileged city to be a very safe and not see a lot of this happening,” Liu said, “but the consequences of this item is even worse because it is targeted to young children as young as middle school age in high concentration energy drinks that are accessible in any convenience store, and they can drink several of them at a time and get an opioid effect. 
Nitrous oxide  also known as whippets or “galaxy gas”  is an inhalant that can be produced to produce a high. 
Though it can be used recreationally, it’s also used as an anesthetic in medical procedures and for culinary purposes to make whipped cream. 
Irvine officials are moving to draft an ordinance that would prohibit the sale and distribution of whippets for recreational use, including fines up to $1,000, six months imprisonment and business license suspension. 
The ordinance is slated to outline exceptions for legitimate medical, culinary and vehicle-performance uses. 
“Nitrous oxide is sold everywhere, you can buy it on Amazon, you can buy it at gas stations, at convenience stores,” Liu said at the meeting. 
“We need to be proactively doing something to protect our residents. 
Just because it is not a rampant problem, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem at all.” 
The U.S. 
Drug Enforcement Administration this month also filed intent to temporarily place 7-OH as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, meaning the manufacture, distribution, sale and possession of 7-OH substances will face criminal, civil and administrative consequences subject to the Controlled Substances Act. 
The DEA says that 7-OH is a psychoactive substance with opioid-like effects and similar risks, adding that the “these substances pose an imminent threat to public safety given their effects are highly unpredictable.” 
The scheduling does not apply to botanical and whole-leaf kratom products that contain naturally occurring 7-OH below the specific threshold. 
Last year the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration also warned people not to inhale nitrous oxide products due to concerns of serious health problems like asphyxiation, blood clots, paralysis or death, adding that the habit “can lead to prolonged neurological effects, including spinal cord or brain damage, even after stopping use.” 
Three Irvine City Council members voted no against last night’s move to ban the substances locally because they said it’s not a problem in Irvine and police officers already have the tools they need to address the issue under state and federal laws. 
Martinez Franco said she has not seen evidence that kratom or nitrous oxide are currently creating a significant or growing problem in Irvine. 
“Before adopting new local ordinances, I believe we should determine whether there is a demonstrated need within our community,” she said. 
“I have a great trust in the Irvine Police Department and its ability to identify emerging public health concerns and respond appropriately under existing law.” 
Mai added that there’s no need to duplicate state and federal laws. 
Liu  who proposed the bans  displayed data during the meeting from the city’s police chief that showed there were 31 arrests involving nitrous oxide in Irvine in 2024, 27 in 2025 and 30 so far in 2026. 
“I do not understand the hesitation, to be very honest, in a city that is rated to be a great place to raise families, and we really care about children,” Liu said. 
“We really care about families, we care about our young people. 
What are we waiting for?” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Angelina Hicks: 1.9%Voice of OC: 3.4%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.9%Voice of OC: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Angelina Hicks: 2.2%Voice of OC: 2.2%Availability Heuristic12.5%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.2%Voice of OC: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Angelina Hicks: 1.0%Voice of OC: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 2.5%Angelina Hicks: 4.1%Voice of OC: 5.4%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 3.3%Angelina Hicks: 1.9%Voice of OC: 1.4%Loss Aversion3.3%This article: 6.6%Angelina Hicks: 1.2%Voice of OC: 1.0%Status Quo Bias6.6%This article: 2.7%Angelina Hicks: 0.2%Voice of OC: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 1.4%Voice of OC: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Angelina Hicks: 1.1%Voice of OC: 1.3%Pessimism Bias9.9%This article: 22.4%Angelina Hicks: 6.7%Voice of OC: 6.4%Negativity Bias22.4%This article: 7.2%Angelina Hicks: 3.5%Voice of OC: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.3%Voice of OC: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.1%Voice of OC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Angelina Hicks: 0.3%Voice of OC: 0.7%In-Group Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Angelina Hicks: 0.9%Voice of OC: 1.2%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Angelina Hicks: 0.4%Voice of OC: 0.7%Recency Bias6.2%This article: 2.6%Angelina Hicks: 0.1%Voice of OC: 0.2%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 2.4%Angelina Hicks: 0.1%Voice of OC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.4%This article: 3.3%Angelina Hicks: 1.1%Voice of OC: 0.8%Ad Hominem3.3%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.1%Voice of OC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%Angelina Hicks: 3.4%Voice of OC: 2.7%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 3.4%Angelina Hicks: 1.2%Voice of OC: 1.6%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.2%Voice of OC: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.4%Angelina Hicks: 0.2%Voice of OC: 0.1%Circular Reasoning4.4%This article: 11.9%Angelina Hicks: 2.8%Voice of OC: 3.5%Hasty Generalization11.9%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.2%Voice of OC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.8%Angelina Hicks: 1.3%Voice of OC: 0.7%Bandwagon5.8%This article: 23.2%Angelina Hicks: 6.2%Voice of OC: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion23.2%This article: 5.3%Angelina Hicks: 0.7%Voice of OC: 0.8%Begging the Question5.3%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.3%Voice of OC: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.1%Voice of OC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.6%Angelina Hicks: 0.5%Voice of OC: 0.8%Burden of Proof6.6%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.1%Voice of OC: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.0%Angelina Hicks: 1.3%Voice of OC: 2.4%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.8%Voice of OC: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.3%Voice of OC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 1.0%Voice of OC: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.7%Voice of OC: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 1.4%Voice of OC: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.3%Angelina Hicks: 0.6%Voice of OC: 0.9%Indoctrination2.3%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 0.0%Voice of OC: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Angelina Hicks: 1.8%Voice of OC: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

968 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers45%attributed speech534writer words
Selected voice

Melinda Liu

100%flagged-word coverage
279 attributed words64% of attributed speech58% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination+7.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Melinda Liu: 7.9%7.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.