My Written Comments to South Dakota Health: Put the Numbers in the Rulemaking Record

September 10, 2026
Whitney Brunner
Medical Cannabis Program Administrator
South Dakota Department of Health
600 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501
MCQuestions@state.sd.us

Re: Written comments on proposed amendments to S.D. Admin. R. art. 44:90
Public hearing September 23, 2026; written comments due October 3, 2026

Dear Ms. Brunner:

Please place this letter and the attached exhibits in the official written-comment record for the proposed amendments to S.D. Admin. R. art. 44:90, and transmit them with the packet required by SDCL 1-26-4 to the Interim Rules Review Committee.

I am a South Dakota qualifying patient and the publisher of WeedPress. These comments are limited to this rulemaking. They ask the Department to put its own published figures in the same finding of fact, and to state on the record how the packet treats those figures under the Administrative Procedures Act.

The Department’s September 2, 2026 program data report 19,821 approved patient cards, 620 caregivers, and 211 providers. The Department’s August 27, 2026 establishment listing shows 108 licensed establishments: 62 dispensaries, 31 cultivation facilities, 14 product manufacturing facilities, and 1 testing facility. The Department’s SFY 2023 annual report identified 139 certified establishments. 

Homegrow authorization rose from 61 licenses in FY2025 to 715 in FY2026, as the Department reported to the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee.

Those four facts belong in one place. Patient demand is up. The licensed commercial base is down. Non-storefront supply is up. This packet rewrites operating, security, testing, packaging, recordkeeping, and enforcement rules for that market. The hearing should not treat those facts as background color.

I request five statements in the record.

First. The Department should state, as a finding drawn from its own publications, that approved patient cards stood at 19,821 as of the September 2, 2026 release and that licensed establishments stood at 108 on the August 27, 2026 list, compared with 139 certified establishments in SFY 2023. If later monthly data change those figures before October 14, the Department should update the finding rather than leave the packet tied to an older market.

Second. The Department should identify which proposed amendments, if any, respond to the April 2026 federal placement of marijuana in Schedule III, and which are ordinary inspection, definition, or cleanup amendments. This hearing is not a proceeding under SDCL 34-20B-27. Nothing in this comment asks the Department to decide that statute here. The record should simply say what this packet is and what it is not.

Third. The Department should address economic effect under SDCL 1-26-4.11. That statute requires a regulatory impact analysis for proposed permanent rules, including compliance costs, secondary or indirect costs, opportunity costs, and impact on small business. The Department should identify how the proposed amendments affect small businesses within the meaning of SDCL 1-26-2.1, including the establishments remaining on the August 27 list. The Department should state whether the analysis models the present market of 108 licensed establishments or an earlier, larger market. If the analysis does not examine the contraction from 139 to 108, the Department should supplement it before the Interim Rules Review Committee meets on October 14. SDCL 1-26-4.2 is the fiscal note for state and local government, not a substitute for establishment-level costs.

Fourth. The Department should state whether any proposed change to chapter 44:90:12, including S.D. Admin. R. 44:90:12:11, alters the existing schedule of fines, the categories of violation, or the lookback used to assess them. Section 44:90:12:11 is already in force. The question for this packet is whether the proposed amendment changes the existing schedule of fines, the categories of violation, or the lookback used to assess them.

Fifth. The Department should state whether this packet regulates, or is intended to regulate, registered homegrow activity, and if so under which proposed sections. Applying commercial-room inspection language to a 715-license homegrow population is a different policy choice than applying it to 108 licensed establishments. The record should say which choice is being made.

I am not asking the Department to halt necessary safety rules. I am asking it to write the packet against the market it is actually regulating.

Attached:

Exhibit A. Jason Karimi, South Dakota Is Rewriting 38 Medical Cannabis Rules This Month. The Clock Is Already Running, WeedPress (Sept. 9, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/09/09/south-dakota-is-rewriting-38-medical-cannabis-rules-this-month-the-clock-is-already-running/

Exhibit B. South Dakota Department of Health, Medical Cannabis Data (Sept. 2, 2026 release), https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis/med-cannabis-data/

Exhibit C. South Dakota Department of Health, Medical Cannabis Establishments List (Aug. 27, 2026 listing), https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis/med-cannabis-establishments/establishments-list/, with a one-page tally of 62 dispensaries / 31 cultivation facilities / 14 product manufacturing facilities / 1 testing facility.

Exhibit D. South Dakota Department of Health, Medical Cannabis Annual Report, SFY 2023 (139 certified establishments), https://doh.sd.gov/media/dlenc2n1/sfy-2023-medical-cannabis-annual-report.pdf

Please confirm receipt of this comment for the official record.

Respectfully submitted,

Jason Karimi

Qualifying patient / publisher, WeedPress
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
[phone]
[email