South Dakota Testimony in Opposition to SB 181 and SB 194: When Federal Law Is Misunderstood in State Policy

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 Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board formally 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.