The Legislative Research Council posted the packet for the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee’s October 13 meeting in Room 362 of the State Capitol. Among the materials are Official Opinion 26-06 from Attorney General Marty Jackley, a 72-page presentation from Americans for Safe Access, three handouts from patient Aaron B. Cooper, and the Department of Health’s response to prior committee questions.¹ Marijuana Moment reported the opinion the same day.² The Department of Health also spoke and gave presentations during the meeting, continuing the program-data updates it supplied in August.³ WeedPress published twenty-six questions ahead of the October 13 meeting identifying federal–state seams on caregivers, patient transfers, Schedule I criteria, DEA registration, home cultivation, and state certification.⁴
Attorney General Opinion 26-06
Opinion 26-06 answers the question posed by Vice Chair John Carley, Chair Josephine Garcia, Senator Lauren Nelson, and Representative Bobbi Andera: what specific impact the federal reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III will have on South Dakota’s existing medical-marijuana program.⁵ The answer is that the impact will likely be negligible because current DEA rules permit state medical-marijuana facilities to continue operating with proper federal and state registration.⁶
The opinion states that under 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(1), an existing manufacturer, distributor, or dispensary operating under a valid state license may now do so in compliance with federal law if it registers with the DEA.⁷ It finds no preemption: Congress has not expressly preempted state action, has not totally occupied the field, and South Dakota’s medical-marijuana law does not conflict with the federal scheduling.⁸ The opinion compares the situation to the 2018 Farm Bill’s treatment of hemp, which contained a no-preemption clause.⁹
The strongest passage in the opinion is the one that keeps the state schedule independent of the federal order:
“If South Dakota were to choose to reschedule marijuana to a Schedule III controlled substance, then the general rules regarding Schedule III substances would apply to marijuana as with any other Schedule III substance. But this action would have to be taken by either the Legislature or the voters, independent from the rescheduling of marijuana federally. The Department of Health is statutorily tasked with making recommendations to the Legislature as to where particular substances should be placed on the Schedule. SDCL § 34-20B-18. The Attorney General is not the entity statutorily designated to make determinations on abuse and dependence risks for particular substances.”¹⁰
That conclusion addresses whether federal rescheduling, by itself, requires South Dakota to discontinue its chapter 34-20G medical program. It does not separately resolve whether tetrahydrocannabinols continue to satisfy the Schedule I criteria in SDCL § 34-20B-11. Those are separate inquiries. WeedPress has a pending petition with the Department of Health asking whether the Department is required to review—or elects to review—South Dakota’s Schedule I treatment of tetrahydrocannabinol under those criteria now that federal law treats qualifying medical marijuana as having accepted medical use and has placed that product in Schedule III. WeedPress directed that request to the Department of Health, whose statutory responsibilities include making scheduling recommendations under SDCL § 34-20B-18.¹¹
The requesting members submitted six potential options for future action. The opinion states that none of those options is excluded by current federal or state law and that the choice among them is a policy determination for the Legislature or the voters.¹² The six options themselves are not identified in the posted materials reviewed as of the time of publication.¹³ WeedPress has reached out to the committee to ask for those six policy options.¹⁴
Marijuana Moment Coverage
Marijuana Moment summarized the opinion and noted that some lawmakers had previously considered legislation that would have repealed the medical program ninety days after the Attorney General certified a federal Schedule III change.¹⁵ That bill did not pass.¹⁶ The outlet also recorded the August statement from program administrator Whitney Brunner that the state had “more questions than answers” on federal guidance.¹⁷
Americans for Safe Access Presentation
The packet includes a document titled “Americans for Safe Access -Medical Cannabis Presentation.”¹⁸ It is listed as a 72-page attachment. The LRC page does not include a textual summary of its contents beyond the title. The presence of the full presentation on the hearing-documents page makes the material part of the public record for the meeting.¹⁹
Aaron B. Cooper Handouts
Aaron B. Cooper of Mitchell submitted three handouts. Handout 3, filed under the 1:00 p.m. public-comment block, identifies him as a qualifying patient and a person in long-term recovery from other substances.²⁰ He states that Initiated Measure 26 directed the committee to evaluate whether qualifying patients in all areas of the state can obtain timely access to high-quality medical cannabis, and that access remains constrained by geography and the current product and testing framework.²¹ Cooper states that some patients have reduced their reliance on opioids through medical cannabis and argues that the committee should consider those experiences alongside concerns about access and testing.²² He observes that federal rescheduling will interact with the existing structure under SDCL chapter 34-20G and that the committee is positioned to identify state-level adjustments that protect patient continuity.²³
Jim Sheehan Questions
Jim Sheehan, who filed a handout for the August 17 meeting, submitted questions that remain part of the committee’s public record.²⁴ His materials continue to appear in the posted packet alongside the October 13 documents.²⁵
Department of Health Materials
The packet also contains the Department of Health’s response to prior MMOC questions, a heat map, and patient data by county.²⁶ These documents continue the pattern of the August 17 meeting, in which the Department supplied program overview materials without resolving the Schedule I criteria question under SDCL § 34-20B-11.²⁷ The Department spoke and gave presentations on October 13 as well. The posted documents establish what was submitted; they do not independently establish everything said during the meeting.²⁸
Record
The posted documents do not contain a transcript of oral proceedings or any formal committee action taken on October 13. They do contain the Attorney General’s written conclusion that the federal Schedule III order supplies a registration pathway for state-licensed establishments, the full ASA presentation, Cooper’s patient-access comments, Sheehan’s earlier questions, and the Department’s responses to earlier questions. The six options referenced in Opinion 26-06 are not identified in the posted materials reviewed as of the time of publication.²⁹
¹ S.D. Legis. Rsch. Council, 2026 Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee Hearing Documents, https://sdlegislature.gov/Interim/Committee/501/HearingDocuments (listing materials posted for the Oct. 13, 2026 meeting).
² Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Will Have ‘Negligible Impact’ On South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Program, Attorney General Says, Marijuana Moment (Oct. 13, 2026), https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-marijuana-rescheduling-will-have-negligible-impact-on-south-dakotas-medical-marijuana-program-attorney-general-says/.
³ S.D. Legis. Rsch. Council, supra note 1.
⁴ Jason Karimi, Schedule III Changed the Federal Rules. Here Are 26 Questions South Dakota Still Has to Answer, WeedPress (Sept. 29, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/09/29/schedule-iii-changed-the-federal-rules-here-are-26-questions-south-dakota-still-has-to-answer/.
⁵ S.D. Att’y Gen. Op. 26-06 (Oct. 6, 2026), https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinionhtml.aspx?id=1779.
⁶ Id.
⁷ Id. (citing 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(1) (2026)).
⁸ Id.
⁹ Id.
¹⁰ Id.
¹¹ Jason Karimi, WeedPress Asks South Dakota Health Department to Rule Whether Schedule I Cannabis Still Fits the State’s Own Statute, WeedPress (Aug. 31, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/08/31/weedpress-asks-south-dakota-health-department-to-rule-whether-schedule-i-cannabis-still-fits-the-states-own-statute/; see also SDCL § 34-20B-18.
¹² S.D. Att’y Gen. Op. 26-06, supra note 5.
¹³ See S.D. Legis. Rsch. Council, supra note 1.
¹⁴ Author’s note.
¹⁵ Marijuana Moment, supra note 2.
¹⁶ Id.
¹⁷ Id.
¹⁸ S.D. Legis. Rsch. Council, supra note 1 (listing “Americans for Safe Access -Medical Cannabis Presentation”).
¹⁹ Id.
²⁰ Aaron B. Cooper, Self Handout 3 (Oct. 13, 2026), https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/308354.txt.
²¹ Id.
²² Id.
²³ Id.
²⁴ Jim Sheehan, Self, Handout (Aug. 14, 2026), posted at S.D. Legis. Rsch. Council, supra note 1.
²⁵ Id.
²⁶ S.D. Legis. Rsch. Council, supra note 1.
²⁷ See DOH South Dakota Medical Cannabis Program Overview (Aug. 17, 2026), posted at id.
²⁸ S.D. Legis. Rsch. Council, supra note 1.
²⁹ S.D. Att’y Gen. Op. 26-06, supra note 5.
Leave a Reply