South Dakota still lists tetrahydrocannabinol in Schedule I. The same Department of Health that runs the medical cannabis program is also charged with applying the Schedule I test in SDCL 34-20B-11. That test requires, among other things, “no accepted medical use in the United States.”
Federal recognition of accepted medical use for state-licensed medical cannabis products, and South Dakota’s own licensed program under chapter 34-20G, make that statutory fit a live question. The Legislature—not the Department—would have to change the schedule. The Department does have a duty under SDCL 34-20B-27 to recommend addition, deletion, or rescheduling when it determines a substance has a different potential for abuse. It also has a duty under SDCL 1-26-15 and ARSD 44:62:01 to answer a petition asking how those statutes apply.
In February 2026 I filed a petition on this issue. Today I am filing a narrower second petition in the form required by ARSD 44:62:01:01. It asks two questions: whether the listed substances still meet all three Schedule I criteria, and whether a “no” answer triggers the Department’s recommendation duty to the Legislature.
The petition is below in full. The Department has sixty days after receipt to issue a written ruling and mail it. If it does not, the next step is the circuit court under SDCL chapter 1-26—not a press conference.
South Dakota Department of Health
Petition for Declaratory Ruling
Pursuant to the provisions of SDCL 1-26-15, Jason Robert Karimi, a registered South Dakota medical cannabis patient and publisher of WeedPress, of [street address], Sioux Falls, South Dakota, does hereby petition the South Dakota Department of Health to issue a declaratory ruling in regard to the following:
1. The statute or rule in question is:
SDCL 34-20B-11:
“To be included within Schedule I, a substance shall have:
(1) A high potential for abuse;
(2) No accepted medical use in the United States; and
(3) A lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.”
SDCL 34-20B-14 provides in relevant part:
“Hallucinogenic substances included in Schedule I.
Any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, is included in Schedule I, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of the salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
. . .
(10) Hashish and hash oil;
. . .
(20) Tetrahydrocannabinol, except that which occurs in industrial hemp as defined in § 38-35-1; in a drug product approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration; or marijuana in its natural and unaltered state; including any compound, except nabilone or compounds listed under a different schedule, structurally derived from 6,6Ν dimethyl-benzo[c]chromene by substitution at the 3-position with either alkyl (C3 to C8), methyl cycloalkyl, or adamantyl groups, whether or not the compound is further modified in any of the following ways:
(a) By partial to complete saturation of the C-ring; or
(b) By substitution at the 1-position with a hydroxyl or methoxy group; or
(c) By substitution at the 9-position with a hydroxyl, methyl, or methylhydoxyl group; or
(d) By modification of the possible 3-alkyl group with a 1,1Ν dimethyl moiety, a 1,1Ν cyclic moiety, an internal methylene group, an internal acetylene group, or a terminal halide, cyano, azido, or dimethylcarboxamido group.”
SDCL 34-20B-1 defines “marijuana.”
SDCL 34-20B-27:
“The department shall make recommendations to the Legislature that a substance be added, deleted, or rescheduled when the department determines that such substance has a different potential for abuse.”
SDCL chapter 34-20G, which authorizes a state medical cannabis program administered by the Department of Health.
ARSD 44:62:01:01 and 44:62:01:02, which govern this petition.
2. The facts and circumstances which give rise to the issue to be answered by the department are:
Petitioner is a qualifying patient under South Dakota’s medical cannabis laws and is subject to the classification of marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinol under SDCL chapter 34-20B.
The Department of Health administers the medical cannabis program under SDCL chapter 34-20G and also has duties under SDCL chapter 34-20B, including the duty in SDCL 34-20B-27 to recommend addition, deletion, or rescheduling when it determines that a substance has a different potential for abuse.
Federal authorities have recognized accepted medical use for state-licensed medical cannabis products and have placed those products in Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act. South Dakota continues, at the same time, to operate a licensed medical cannabis program while hashish, hash oil, and tetrahydrocannabinol remain listed in Schedule I of SDCL 34-20B-14, subject to the exceptions stated in subsection (20).
Schedule I status under SDCL 34-20B-11 requires, among other things, that the substance have “no accepted medical use in the United States.” That criterion cannot be reconciled, without a departmental explanation, with (a) federal recognition of accepted medical use for licensed medical cannabis products and (b) the Department’s own administration of a medical cannabis program.
SDCL 34-20B-14(20) excepts “marijuana in its natural and unaltered state” from the tetrahydrocannabinol listing. Many products dispensed in the medical program are not marijuana in its natural and unaltered state. Patients and the Department therefore need a ruling on whether hashish, hash oil, and tetrahydrocannabinol as listed in SDCL 34-20B-14(10) and (20) still meet the three statutory criteria in SDCL 34-20B-11.
In February 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Mandatory Scheduling Review of Cannabis with the Department. A copy is attached. The Department has not issued a written declaratory ruling resolving whether those listed substances continue to meet the criteria in SDCL 34-20B-11.
Patients, licensees, and the public remain without an official departmental interpretation of whether continued Schedule I placement of those substances is consistent with SDCL 34-20B-11 after those federal and state developments. That uncertainty affects Petitioner’s legal status as a patient and the Department’s scheduling-recommendation duty under SDCL 34-20B-27.
This petition does not ask the Department to amend the statutes. Only the Legislature can add, delete, or reschedule a substance. It asks the Department to apply the statutes it already administers.
3. The precise issue to be answered by the department is:
Do hashish, hash oil, and tetrahydrocannabinol, as listed in SDCL 34-20B-14(10) and (20), currently satisfy all three criteria for Schedule I placement in SDCL 34-20B-11, including the requirement of “no accepted medical use in the United States,” in light of federal recognition of accepted medical use for state-licensed medical cannabis products and the Department’s administration of SDCL chapter 34-20G?
If the Department concludes that one or more of those substances no longer meets one or more of those criteria, does SDCL 34-20B-27 require the Department to recommend to the Legislature that the substance be deleted from Schedule I or rescheduled?
Petitioner requests a written ruling under ARSD 44:62:01:02 within sixty days after receipt of this petition, or within sixty days after receipt of any further information the Department requests.
Dated at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, this ________ day of August, 2026.
Jason Karimi
Petitioner
[mailing address]
[telephone]
[email]
Attachments:
A. February 2026 Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Mandatory Scheduling Review of Cannabis
B. Federal rescheduling / Schedule III document relied upon
Mail certified. Email the PDF the same day. Keep the green card. Calendar day 60 from their receipt.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment