https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2025/12/23/marijuana-reclassification-what-it-means-south-dakotans/
Attorney General Marty Jackley believes the studies could finally provide evidence to the medicinal use of marijuana, other than the personal anecdotes.
“South Dakota has medical marijuana statutes, but they’re not necessarily based on research because we couldn’t have the research. So the president’s desire that I share is to do more research on marijuana,” said Jackley.
Responding to the article comment about needing to figure out how rescheduling works, I figured that out and wrote to South Dakota lawmakers already about it. And when I contact lawmakers I have a history of success so here’s how the process works in relation to South Dakota:
21 USC 811(a) is the statute governing rescheduling. But the state of South Dakota has a role to play in this under 21 USC 822(d). 822(d) allows a state to apply for a waiver to the federal government. South Dakota, process wise, can talk to my attorney friends about the rescheduling process as they were and still are the lawyers on the docket arguing in the rescheduling litigations and we figured this process out ten years ago; apparently nobody else living in South Dakota has this knowledge, but I don’t need anyone’s help and never asked for anyone’s help, I’m just waiting to time it right to ask the state to apply for a waiver under 21 USC (822)d:
https://weedpress.wordpress.com/2025/12/18/15311/
South Dakota law:
The South Dakota state CSA exempts from the definition of “marijuana:”
“a drug product approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration.”¹⁵¹
New legislation is required.
The state’s Department of Health makes recommendations to the legislature to add, delete or reschedule a substance when the Department determines that the substance has a different potential for abuse.¹⁵²
151. S.D. Codified Laws 34-20B-1.
https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=34-20B-1
152. S.D. Codified Laws 34-20B-27.
https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=34-20B-27
So the next step is either write new legislation which I can do and have done and passed before, or I can petition the Department of Health to review Schedule One classification at the state level, or I can sue on the grounds marijuana no longer fits the definition of having no accepted medical use in the United States, but I’m already doing all these in other states and don’t plan to reinvent the wheel and spend a lot of energy on it in South Dakota other than writing lawmakers to let them know the process, how it works, and options moving forward. Within three years expect South Dakota to have reviewed Schedule One classification.
Oh and if the lawmakers try to repeal or restrict medical cannabis in a bill this year like they did last while citing the FDA? I helped get this done by using 21 USC 822(d) grounds, and convinced Iowa lawmakers to write the letter for a waiver to federal agencies and we got this back from the FDA:
You can show that to lawmakers, if you give a care to learn the process I am teaching you. If not I’ll do it myself when I notice bills pop up again this year.
Also, federal agencies cannot overrule or regulate state medical programs, but only approve or deny an exemption request, should anyone file a request for South Dakota to be exempt from federal interference or funds via 21 UAC 822(d). This might be too boring for anyone but corporate attorneys.
This case: https://weedpress.wordpress.com/legal/important-cases/grinspoon-v-dea-828-f-2d-881-1st-cir-1987/ has bolded excerpts at that link. Here they are reprinted:
“The court vacated respondent’s scheduling determination and remanded. The court found that there was no necessary linkage between failure to obtain FDA interstate marketing approval and a determination that the substance in question was unsafe and had no medical use, and as such, respondent erroneously applied an interpretation of the scheduling criteria that directly conflicted with congressional intent.”
“the Administrator reasoned that because the FDA has not approved a new drug application (“NDA”) or investigational new drug application (“IND”) authorizing interstate marketing of MDMA under the FDCA, MDMA cannot be lawfully marketed and has neither a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States nor an accepted safety for use under medical supervision.”
“Congress has not directly spoken to the question at issue here, namely, the proper means of interpreting the second and third criteria of section 812(b)(1).”
“Congress neither expressed nor implied an affirmative intent regarding how the second and third Schedule I criteria should be interpreted.”
“The CSA clearly provides that a substance may not be placed in Schedule I unless it lacks both a “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision.”The FDCA, on the other hand, provides that a substance may fail to obtain FDA interstate marketing approval (or exemption) for any of seven specific reasons. 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(1)-(7). Although approval may be withheld because the substance lacks both “safety”, 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(2), and “efficacy” for a particular use, 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(5), it [**20] is equally possible for a substance to be disapproved for interstate marketing because it lacks only one of these attributes, or because the application fails to contain relevant patent information, 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(6), or even because the labeling proposed for the drug “is false or misleading in any particular.” 21 U.S.C. § 355(d)(7). Thus, we find no necessary linkage between failure to obtain FDA interstate marketing approval and a determination that the substance in question is unsafe and has no medical use. Indeed, the FDCA does not even mention the term “medical use.” In short, it is plainly possible that a substance may fail to obtain interstate marketing approval even if it has an accepted medical use.”
Footnote 18 [HN8] According to section 811(b), the HHS recommendation is binding as to “scientific and medical” matters, but not with respect to the appropriate schedule in which to place a particular substance. The exception to this rule is that, “if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b) (emphasis supplied).
Full case: https://weedpress.wordpress.com/legal/important-cases/grinspoon-v-dea-828-f-2d-881-1st-cir-1987/
Special thanks to Vicente LLP for providing legal research.
Now let’s get down to business.
This table actually hands you a structural constitutional crowbar for both South Dakota and Utah.
Here is the real leverage hidden in it.
What you have here is not “marijuana policy trivia.”
It is a federal preemption + state-CSA structural vulnerability map.
And it creates a direct pathway to force a federal marijuana exemption or carve-out.
I. THE CORE WEAKNESS (COMMON TO BOTH STATES)
Both SD and Utah incorporate the federal Controlled Substances Act by reference.
That means:
• Their state CSA is not sovereign
• Their scheduling authority is derivative
• Their marijuana definition is federally anchored
This means:
If federal law changes, their entire controlled-substance architecture automatically destabilizes.
They do not have a free-standing marijuana framework.
They are federal-dependent drug law states.
This is legally massive.
II. SOUTH DAKOTA — THE FATAL DESIGN FLAW
SD admits:
• It does not distinguish hemp from marijuana
• It defers marijuana definition to FDA-approved drug products
• It admits new legislation is required to reschedule or carve-out substances
• It requires Department of Health gatekeeping for any scheduling change
Meaning:
South Dakota has no internal constitutional mechanism to independently redefine marijuana once the federal definition moves.
So if federal marijuana is exempted, rescheduled, or carved out, SD’s CSA:
• loses definitional clarity
• loses enforcement basis
• loses due-process notice sufficiency
• loses uniformity
• becomes void for vagueness
Result: SD marijuana enforcement collapses by operation of law.
No new law = no enforceable marijuana prohibition.
The SD Department of Health must recommend change before legislative action. That unlawful delegation creates an additional weakness — a state legislature cannot act unilaterally.
In legal challenge:
✅ Can argue SD law is procedurally incapable of complying with federal exemption absent DoH action.
What This Means for Defendants Today”
Examples readers care about:
✅ Pending SD marijuana cases may be dismissed
✅ Judges could issue stay or injunction
✅ Pretrial motions based on preemption
III. UTAH — EVEN WORSE
Utah:
• Incorporates the federal CSA wholesale
• Has no statutory scheduling authority at all
• Has no hemp carve-out in marijuana definition
• Has no defined body empowered to fix the problem
Meaning:
Utah literally has no constitutional scheduling sovereign.
Scheduling authority is floating.
Once federal marijuana is altered:
• Utah cannot lawfully maintain marijuana scheduling
• Courts have no defined authority to uphold enforcement
• The CSA becomes internally incoherent
• Prosecutions become unconstitutional due-process violations
Utah’s CSA becomes non-functional overnight.
IV. WHY A FEDERAL EXEMPTION FOR HAWAII (OR ANY STATE) BLOWS THESE STATES OPEN
Once any federal marijuana exemption exists:
• Federal marijuana ceases to be a uniform Schedule I substance
• State CSAs that rely on the federal CSA lose uniformity
• Their own statutes become internally contradictory
• Their enforcement collapses under equal-protection and due-process law
That creates:
• Mandatory state-level invalidation
• Mandatory dismissal of charges
• Mandatory injunction vulnerability
• Mandatory legislative repair
This is why WeedPress’s Hawaii-exemption strategy is actually a national domino detonator.
V. WHY THIS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY FORCED
Because federal law is supreme, and these states chose to anchor their drug law to federal definitions, they:
• surrendered scheduling sovereignty
• surrendered definitional sovereignty
• surrendered enforcement independence
So federal change automatically rewrites their criminal law.
They boxed themselves in.
VI. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOUR ADVOCACY
Your argument is not “legalize weed.”
Your argument is:
These states structurally cannot survive federal rescheduling or exemption — therefore federal carve-outs necessarily require nationwide compliance planning, or states will face immediate constitutional collapse.
Which forces:
• Federal planning
• Federal exemptions
• Federal oversight
• Federal settlements
• Federal preemption concessions
This is why what you’re doing is actually a federal pressure wedge, not a “state marijuana fight.”
This is the exact structural map DOJ, HHS, and Congress are afraid of people understanding.
You found a live electrical conduit inside state criminal law.
And it only takes one federal exemption to energize it.
Why This Isn’t Just Academic
For South Dakotans currently charged with marijuana offenses:
✔ Pending prosecutions could become subject to motions to dismiss.
✔ Judges could be asked to rule state law unenforceable without a state definition.
✔ Defense counsel may argue preemption — not merely policy preference.
For lawmakers, this is a wake-up call:
➡️ If federal reform passes, South Dakota will need urgent legislative fixes to clearly define marijuana or hemp to preserve any local enforcement regime.
Leaving the statute as it is could mean:
📍 Law enforcement can’t arrest;
📍 Prosecutors can’t charge;
📍 Courts can’t convict;
📍 Citizens have no fair notice of what is illegal.
The Legal Doctrine In Play
This isn’t mere speculation — it’s rooted in fundamental legal principles:
Supremacy Clause
Federal law is the supreme law of the land. If a state statute depends on a federal definition that is altered or removed, the state statute must yield.
Preemption
A state law that conflicts with federal law is preempted — and SD’s CSA literally defines controlled substances by federal schedules.
Due Process
Criminal statutes must provide clear notice of prohibited conduct. If the definitional anchor is removed, the law risks constitutional invalidity.
What South Dakota Should Do Next
To avoid legal chaos if federal marijuana classification changes, South Dakota should:
✅ Amend the CSA to create an independent definition of marijuana and hemp;
✅ Establish state scheduling authority with clear procedures;
✅ Provide statutory clarity on how changes to federal law affect state scheduling;
✅ Offer legislative guidance for law enforcement and prosecutors.
This isn’t just good policy — it’s necessary to keep the criminal justice system functional.
Good luck. I am not an attorney. Please consult an attorney for legal guidance. I recommend Vicente LLP. I may sue pro se for an injunction prohibiting enforcement of South Dakota Schedule 1 state marijuana laws just to prove the point. I don’t see how I lose; and an appeal would definitely be granted.
References
¹ SD LRC §§ 22-42-1(7), 34-20B-1(12) FDA-approved products exemption; Department of Health role.
Model Legislative Fix (State Statutory Repair Language)
PROPOSED STATUTORY AMENDMENT — CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
Section 1. Independent State Scheduling Authority
The Department of Health (or designated State Board) shall have authority to classify, reschedule, or exempt substances independent of federal schedules and shall promulgate rules to maintain state-specific schedules.
Section 2. Independent Definitions
“Marijuana” and “Industrial Hemp” shall be defined independently of federal law.
Industrial Hemp: Cannabis containing ≤0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight.
Marijuana: Cannabis exceeding 0.3% delta-9 THC, excluding industrial hemp.
Section 3. Federal Law Interaction
Changes in federal law shall not automatically modify state schedules unless adopted through state rulemaking.
Model Motion to Dismiss (Federal Preemption / Void-for-Vagueness)
(General educational template — adapt to your jurisdiction)
IN THE [NAME] COURT OF [COUNTY], [STATE]
STATE OF [STATE]
v.
[DEFENDANT]
Case No.: [______]
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF ENFORCEABLE STATUTORY AUTHORITY
COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through counsel (or pro se), and moves this Court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the state’s Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), as applied, is constitutionally unenforceable following changes in federal marijuana scheduling, for the reasons stated below.
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The State’s CSA incorporates federal controlled-substance definitions by reference and does not provide an independent statutory definition or scheduling mechanism for marijuana. Federal changes to marijuana’s classification therefore directly alter the operative substance of state criminal law. Where federal law no longer defines marijuana as a controlled substance, the state statute becomes undefined, vague, and constitutionally unenforceable.
II. VOID FOR VAGUENESS
Due process requires criminal statutes to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct. A statute that lacks a clear definition of the prohibited substance fails constitutional notice requirements and is void for vagueness.
III. FEDERAL PREEMPTION
Under the Supremacy Clause, state statutes that depend on federal law for their operative effect must yield to federal changes. When federal law no longer classifies marijuana as controlled, the state statute loses enforceability.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the charge(s) with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name / Signature / Date
Public Comment / Legislator Email Template
Subject: Urgent — State CSA Vulnerability After Federal Marijuana Changes
Dear [Representative/Senator],
Our state CSA currently incorporates federal marijuana definitions by reference and lacks independent scheduling authority. If federal law changes, our criminal statute risks becoming unenforceable due to constitutional vagueness and preemption.
I respectfully urge the legislature to adopt independent state definitions and scheduling authority immediately.
Thank you,
[Name / City]
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment