Committee Agenda
Committee: Senate Health and Human Services
Room: Room 412
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2026
Time: 7:45 AM-9:45 AM
Register electronically to testify: https://sdlegislature.gov/testify/301839
Senators Jensen (Kevin), Davis, Grove, Perry, Reed, Smith, and Voight
BILL HEARINGS
SB 181 cause the repeal of the medical cannabis chapter upon the federal re-
scheduling of cannabis (Introduced)
Introduced by: Senator Carley
SB 194 limit the potency of cannabis products sold at medical cannabis
dispensaries (Introduced)
Introduced by: Senator Carley
HB 1056 require that the Department of Social Services submit a federal
waiver request to exclude soft drinks from the supplemental nutrition
assistance program (Introduced)
Introduced by: Representative Rehfeldt
/s/ KEVIN D. JENSEN
Kevin D. Jensen, Chair
Weedpress Testimony in Opposition to SB 181 and SB 194: When Federal Law Is Misunderstood in State Policy
By Jason Karimi | WeedPress
South Dakota Senate Health and Human Services Committee
February 11, 2026
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee.
My name is Jason Karimi. I am here to testify in opposition to SB 181 and SB 194.
SB 181 would terminate South Dakota’s voter-enacted medical cannabis program 90 days after federal rescheduling. SB 194 would impose THC potency caps that restrict patient access to effective formulations.
I want to address the federal rescheduling premise directly.
Rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III does not automatically invalidate state medical cannabis programs. Federal scheduling changes federal criminal classification and research pathways. It does not mandate that states repeal their own regulatory frameworks enacted under state police powers.
The Controlled Substances Act itself contains mechanisms for federal-state regulatory coordination. Under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d), the Attorney General has authority to waive certain registration requirements by regulation where appropriate. That provision contemplates administrative flexibility within the federal system.
States are not required to assume conflict — they can engage.
In practice, engagement begins with formal written communication to relevant federal agencies — including the DEA, HHS, and FDA — outlining the state’s regulatory structure and requesting clarification or administrative accommodation where necessary.
Iowa provides a recent example of this approach. The State raised federal compliance questions and engaged federal authorities in writing regarding its program. Written correspondence from federal officials indicated that the existence of Iowa’s state-regulated medical cannabis program did not, in itself, jeopardize federal funding streams.
That model demonstrates that proactive engagement is available. It is not speculative. States can seek clarity, registration alignment, or administrative assurances rather than dismantling programs preemptively.
The Supreme Court has also recognized limits to federal intrusion into state medical determinations. In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Court held that the Controlled Substances Act does not grant the federal government broad authority to define general standards of medical practice within the states. While cannabis regulation involves additional complexity, the structural principle remains: states regulate medicine.
Similarly, in Grinspoon v. DEA, federal courts emphasized that scheduling decisions must be grounded in scientific and medical evidence.
SB 181 assumes that rescheduling creates an unavoidable legal conflict requiring repeal. That assumption overlooks both statutory flexibility within the CSA and the possibility of administrative engagement.
Instead of terminating legal protections for approximately 18,000 South Dakota patients, the Legislature could pursue clarification from federal authorities, explore registration pathways, and ensure regulatory alignment.
Regarding SB 194, imposing potency caps such as a 5% limit on oils or a 60% cap on liquid concentrates appears arbitrary absent evidence that those thresholds reflect clinical necessity. Patients with severe or treatment-resistant conditions may require higher potency formulations to minimize intake volume and improve dosing efficiency.
Public health concerns should be addressed through physician oversight, product testing, labeling standards, and data reporting — not blanket caps disconnected from individualized medical need.
Using federal uncertainty as a justification for repeal or rollback, without first pursuing available administrative pathways, risks being perceived as a policy choice rather than a legal necessity.
South Dakota voters enacted this program. If refinements are needed, they should be evidence-based and patient-centered.
I respectfully ask this committee to oppose SB 181 and SB 194. See page 9 of attached document, the Iowa recommendation of 2024, wherein the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board officially recommended that the state pursue federal engagement regarding its medical cannabis program, formally citing concerns about federal funding and institutional participation due to cannabis’s federal Schedule I status.
Thank you.
Written Statement in Opposition to SB 194
Chair and Members of the Committee,
I respectfully oppose SB 194, which would impose THC potency caps on medical cannabis products in South Dakota.
The bill proposes a 5% THC cap on oils and a 60% cap on liquid concentrates. While intended as a public health measure, these limits raise concerns about medical necessity and unintended consequences for patients.
Medical treatment is individualized. Patients using medical cannabis suffer from a range of serious conditions, and appropriate potency varies based on diagnosis, method of administration, tolerance, and physician guidance. For some patients, higher potency products allow smaller volumes to achieve symptom relief. Imposing fixed caps may require patients to consume larger quantities to reach therapeutic effect, potentially increasing cost and exposure.
If potency limits are to be adopted, they should be supported by clear scientific evidence demonstrating improved patient outcomes. To date, broad percentage caps have not been consistently shown to enhance safety within regulated medical programs. The primary risks associated with cannabis typically arise from unregulated markets, inaccurate labeling, or youth access — not from physician-certified adult patients purchasing tested products in licensed dispensaries.
Restricting potency within the regulated system may also drive some patients to seek alternatives outside that system, undermining product testing and oversight. South Dakota established a medical cannabis program to provide safe, regulated access. Significant new restrictions should be evaluated carefully to avoid weakening that framework.
Other states with medical cannabis programs have taken varied approaches to regulation. Before adopting strict caps, it would be prudent to examine evidence from comparable states and determine whether such limits meaningfully improve public health outcomes.
Public health considerations are important, but they must be balanced with patient access and clinical judgment. If concerns exist regarding dosing or misuse, enhanced labeling, education, and physician oversight may offer more targeted solutions than blanket potency ceilings.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to vote no on SB 194.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Alt version
Chair, members of the committee—
My name is Jason Karimi. I’m a medical cannabis patient and the publisher of WeedPress.org, a policy analysis site focused on statutory interpretation, administrative procedure, and publicly available records.
I’m here because I have a perspective that most people in this room don’t.
I am not a lobbyist.
I am not a license holder.
I am not seeking a contract.
I am not seeking market share.
I am a patient.
And from that vantage point, I need to say something clearly:
The way cannabis policy is being structured at the state level is unstable, conflicted, and fundamentally misaligned with patients.
The same insiders who built and benefit financially from this system often influence the rules that govern it. This creates structural conflicts of interest. Even if everyone involved believes they’re acting in good faith, the architecture itself incentivizes protecting market position over protecting patients.
That’s not a personal attack. That’s a design flaw.
When business advocates dominate the conversation, patient access becomes secondary to licensing battles, regulatory turf wars, and political strategy. Patients become a talking point rather than the center of policy design.
And here’s the deeper issue:
As long as state systems are built to function in tension with federal law instead of preparing for compliance and normalization, instability will continue. State programs are not illegal under federal law as they are exceptions to federal law; case law is clear the feds cannot overrule a state medical law; and 21 USC 822(d) was created by Congress for states to not ask but demand a letter from the Feds that state medical programs are immune from federal oversight; zero states have been sued by the federal government in 30 years of these programs existing.
We don’t need a movement built on gatekeeping access to power.
We need transparent, federally compliant, patient-first policy. Our state program is as is federally; lawmakers choosing not to use existing infrastructure to protect patients is only happening because the lobbyists claiming to speak for patients like me actually do not speak for themselves and their financial profits are their first priority while silencing patients to avoid dissent is their control mechanism in this state.
If the system depends on keeping cannabis in a legally gray zone to preserve insider advantages, then the system is not built for patients.
I object to any framework where:
Patients have no independent voice.
Lobbyists with financial interests are treated as neutral representatives.
Regulatory complexity becomes a barrier rather than a safeguard.
We don’t fix instability by defending it.
We fix it by acknowledging it.
I speak independently. My analysis is available publicly. I don’t ask patients to follow me. I ask policymakers to examine the architecture honestly.
If this committee truly wants durable policy, then center the patient—not the market, not the movement, not the insiders.
Patients deserve representation that isn’t financially entangled. And minority coalition lawmakers choosing not to use 21 USC 822(d) to engage their supposed concerns on public health and safety expose themselves as disingenuous grandstanders not trying to help make society safer through better regulations and federal involvement but are using people as pawns to impose an anti-social unsafe prohibition on people again that only exposes black market drug dealers and makes it likelier that untested and laced cannabis enters South Dakota.
____
Alt version 2
Chair and members of the committee—
My name is Jason Karimi. I’m a medical cannabis patient and publisher of WeedPress, a policy analysis publication focused on statutory interpretation and federal–state interaction.
For years, I warned activists that lawmakers would eventually point to federal law as justification to repeal or restrict state cannabis programs. I said: if you build a system without addressing federal law directly, federal law will be used against you.
That moment is here.
But what’s missing from today’s discussion is this: federal law is not a single blunt prohibition. It contains mechanisms and exemptions. State medical cannabis programs are lawful exemptions to federal law, and Congrrsss anticipating such a scenario already created a remedy: submission of a federal waiver request. I’m glad the committee is pursuing a federal waiver request bill in this hearing for soft drinks but here is the statute for medical cannabis federal waivers.
Specifically, 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) provides an exemption process under the Controlled Substances Act. Federal law anticipates regulated handling of controlled substances under lawful authorization. There is a process. There is a pathway.
HB 1056, the third item on this hearing agenda, acknowledges federal waiver concepts in other regulatory contexts. That’s important. Because if we recognize that waivers exist generally, then we must also recognize that cannabis policy does not exist in a vacuum.
The choice is not simply “ignore federal law” or “repeal state law.”
There is a third option: pursue lawful exemption mechanisms, federal alignment, and regulatory clarity instead of retreat.
Repeal creates instability for patients.
Ignoring federal structure creates vulnerability.
Engaging the exemption process creates durability.
If this body believes federal law is an obstacle, then use the tools within federal law to address it.
Don’t abandon patients because of federal complexity.
Navigate it. Since ignorance of federal law lead to this latest repeal attempt, not the first attempt, by lawmakers, lawmakers should create a task force to investigate legal complexities to avoid litigation if this latest attempt to repeal patient access succeeds.
Patients deserve stability, not policy whiplash.
Furthermore if this rescheduling goes through schedule one will be null and void in South Dakota as South Dakota controlled substance laws are derivative and originate with and follow the lead of federal scheduling. Lawmakers task force should focus on legislation to protect state sovereignty and fix schedule one before marijuana laws are not enforceable in South Dakota once the federal government removes schedule one. defense attorneys will be advised to review my motion to dismiss marijuana charges for failure to follow schedule one removal at the federal level available for free at my policy blog weedpress.org.
Thank you.
_____
South Dakota Legislative Research Council
Your request to provide remote testimony has been
approved.
Please verify the device you’ll be using has audio and video capabilities and that you’re connected to a reliable Internet connection. Click the Join the meeting now link to join the meeting via Microsoft Teams. When joining as a guest, please sign in using your first and last name. If you’re experiencing poor audio quality or connectivity issues, please join the meeting by phone calling +1 605-789-3815,,728202982#. When joined by phone, you’ll mute and unmute your phone by using *6.
Upon joining the meeting, you may be placed in a virtual lobby. You will be admitted into the meeting as it gets underway. Be sure your mic is muted when you are not speaking.
________________________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/26581426884561?p=h922DpmyjIK0Nuklm5
Meeting ID: 265 814 268 845 61
Passcode: aS66o4Uv
Dial in by phone
+1 605-789-3815,,728202982# United States, Sioux Falls
Phone conference ID: 728 202 982#
For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN
________________________________________________________________________________
South Dakota
Legislative Research Council
500 East Capitol Avenue | Pierre, SD 57501
© 2026 – SD Legislative Research Council
LRC Homepage | SD Homepage | Press Releases | LRC Staff | Contact Us |Disclaimer
Update: both bills killed. For the second bill I said:
One size fits all approaches take nuance and options from the doctor patient relationship. Cannabis medicine is an exemption to standard pharmaceuticals. Plant medicine is different biologically. It balances the body into homeostasis as opposed to pharmaceuticals. Plants that help both constipation and diarrhea are an example of homeostasis. Pharmaceuticals need multiple harmful versions with severe side effects for pain patients that doctors supervising individuals should be determining dosage levels. For lawmakers to ask for one size fits all blanket restrictions on private doctor scientific determinations while claiming to represent patients might be why the public records show the MMOC board has very limited input from the public as the board is see by many patients to disingenuously misrepresent patient views such as on today’s claim we as patients universally are in unity that rescheduling is good. Many argue against rescheduling claiming it will be used to outlaw state businesses for a corporate takeover by big pharma profiteers. Thank you for denying the prior nonsensical bill this bill like the last insults and dehumanizes patients and doctors privacy and the will of the voters thank you.
Also the reason thc potency rose after the 80s was government doing what this bill does: increasing enforcement against cannabis. This drove the plant to the underground. As the 1992 book “The Economics of Prohibition” logically deduces, written by Mark Thornton, black markets increase potency of drugs to make them easier to smuggle as higher potency means less product volume. Gallons of beer is harder to smuggle than bottles of moonshine. So this bill would return power to the unregulated black market while government would take away power to effectively regulate products patients demand. Let doctors and patients decide doses. Government must be cautious trying to practice medicine and over step. Safe guard in place exist already for doctor supervision of patient dosing. No reports have been made of patients abusing south Dakota’s medical cannabis program and this bill is an insult to patients. Anyone supporting this bill cannot claim to speak on the many various perspectives and concerns patients have, and it’s no wonder patients don’t feel safe publicly speaking to the MMOC board when this is the way patients get treated and dehumanized publicly. This bill is a shameful exercise is government overreach and disrespecting voters and vulnerable patients with real needs for those products. If outlawed they will find them on the black market and cause new problems for public safety we don’t need and don’t appreciate.
Misrepresenting patient support for rescheduling or pushing the argument patients are abusing medicines and need them restricted hurts. Making sick people come beg for their life every year is despicable. Stop this minority coalition of disingenuous lawmakers arguing narrow views that exceed the scope of government jurisdiction into the practice of experimental medical programs and get a task force legislated so the arguments made at these committees aren’t so nonsensically scripted to sound totally fine or agreeable when they’re not acceptable and bring into question the value of an MMOC board that doesn’t make patients welcome but scares them every year with new threats of treating them as less thans or second class citizens. These are our grandparents families and loved ones. Stop picking on everyone.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment