Medical Cannabis in South Dakota Has Entered a Political Vulnerability Phase
By Jason Karimi | WeedPress
February 18, 2026
After passing the House 53–13 on February 17 and receiving its first reading in the Senate on February 18, HB 1065, which rolls back medical cannabis protections in South Dakota, has already done more than advance procedurally. It has exposed a political condition: lawmakers currently appear to view medical-cannabis restrictions as a low-risk move.
That is the real story.
When a bill like this clears committee, posts a strong House margin, and moves immediately into the Senate pipeline, it signals more than policy disagreement. It signals confidence — confidence that the votes are there, and confidence that the political cost will be limited.
South Dakota’s medical cannabis framework is therefore not just facing another legislative debate. It is entering a political vulnerability phase, where the durability of the program may depend less on public support in the abstract and more on whether supporters can impose consequences on lawmakers who keep tightening it.
This is not a fringe proposal. This is not “just committee chatter.” This is a House-passed bill moving into the Senate pipeline with momentum.
And that means South Dakota’s cannabis movement is now facing an existential question:
Can it impose political consequences on lawmakers who continue tightening the system?
HB 1065 Is a Signal of Legislative Confidence
The sequence matters.
HB 1065 moved through House Health and Human Services, then passed the House floor, and then advanced to the Senate the next day. Public tracking shows the committee vote and the House floor vote clearly, including the 53–13passage margin.
That is not how a bill moves when leadership thinks it is politically dangerous.
That is how a bill moves when lawmakers believe they have room.
Room from who? From the public. From advocates. From patients. From the people who say they support medical cannabis but have not yet translated that support into sustained political pressure.
The Committee Reality People Keep Missing
There is a basic rule of legislative process that too many people ignore:
Bills usually do not get voted out of committee unless the committee believes the bill can survive the full chamber process. This is not a claim about every lawmaker’s motives; it is a claim about the incentives the current vote margins reveal.
Committees are gatekeepers. They manage time, bandwidth, and floor traffic. They do not typically advance bills they think are obviously doomed, because doing so burns hearing time and political capital.
So when a bill like HB 1065 clears committee and then wins by 40 votes in the House, the issue is not just the text of this bill.
The issue is that the legislature currently sees medical cannabis restrictions as a low-risk move.
That should alarm anyone who cares about preserving the program.
The Movement’s Real Job Now
The South Dakota cannabis movement does not just need better arguments.
It needs to create incentives.
That means lawmakers must start believing that anti-patient votes carry actual consequences:
- district-level heat,
- organized constituent contact,
- donor friction,
- earned media scrutiny,
- and, where necessary, primary pressure.
Not outrage posts. Not one-day reactions. Not after-the-fact disappointment.
Sustained, organized consequences.
Because if lawmakers feel no cost, they will keep doing this.
And they will not stop at HB 1065.
Final Point
HB 1065’s House passage and immediate Senate referral are a political diagnostic, not just a bill update. The legislature has signaled confidence.
Now the movement has to decide whether it is a commentary class or a political force.
This is the existential test:
Can South Dakota’s cannabis movement impose enough incentives to stop lawmakers from legislating medical cannabis backward — one bill at a time?
The next question is not whether advocates are angry. It is whether the district map supports credible primary pressure where these votes were cast. WeedPress will publish a hand holding guide to explain the process of figuring out such a district map and then will publish such a map showing which districts are vulnerable.
Here’s the answer to the next question.
House Yea (53)
• Rep. Bobbi Andera
• Rep. Amber Arlint
• Rep. Julie Auch
• Rep. Aaron Aylward
• Rep. Jessica Bahmuller
• Rep. Jeff Bathke
• Rep. Heather Baxter
• Rep. Tim Czmowski
• Rep. Roger Degroot
• Rep. Mike Derby
• Rep. Steve Duffy
• Rep. Eric Emery
• Rep. Mary Fitzgerald
• Rep. Nicholas “Nick” Fosness
• Rep. Josephine Garcia
• Rep. Timothy “Tim” R. Goodwin
• Rep. Spencer Gosch
• Rep. Lana Greenfield
• Rep. Jim Halverson
• Rep. Jon Hansen
• Rep. Erin Healy
• Rep. Mellissa Heermann
• Rep. Leslie Heinemann
• Rep. John Hughes
• Rep. Jana Hunt
• Rep. Travis Ismay
• Rep. Greg Jamison
• Rep. Phil Jensen
• Rep. Dylan Jordan
• Rep. Terri Jorgenson
• Rep. Chris Kassin
• Rep. Tony Kayser
• Rep. Jack R. Kolbeck
• Rep. David Kull
• Rep. Trish Ladner
• Rep. Karla J. Lems
• Rep. Logan Manhart
• Rep. Curt Massie
• Rep. Elizabeth “Liz” May
• Rep. Scott Moore
• Rep. Will D. Mortenson
• Rep. Erik Muckey
• Rep. Tina L. Mulally
• Rep. Brian K. Mulder
• Rep. Kaley Nolz
• Rep. Al Novstrup
• Rep. Scott Odenbach
• Rep. Marty Overweg
• Rep. Drew Peterson
• Rep. Peri Pourier
• Rep. Tony Randolph
• Rep. Taylor Rae Rehfeldt
• Rep. Rebecca Reimer
House Nay (13)
• Rep. Timothy “Tim” Reisch
• Rep. Kathy Rice
• Rep. Matt Roby
• Rep. Kent Roe
• Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer
• Rep. Tesa Schwans
• Rep. William Shorma
• Rep. John Shubeck
• Rep. John Sjaarda
• Rep. Bethany Soye
• Rep. Mike Stevens
• Rep. Nicole Uhre-Balk
• Rep. Kevin Van Diepen
Absent (4)
• Rep. Tim Walburg
• Rep. Keri Weems
• Rep. Mike Weisgram
• Rep. Kadyn Wittman
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment