A WeedPress research page.
This matrix sets out, question by question, what federal and South Dakota law say about medical cannabis after the April 28, 2026 federal order placing specified marijuana categories in Schedule III, what agencies have said about it, and what remains open. Each card links to the official text. WeedPress’s own reading is labeled as analysis, kept separate from the text of the law, and is not legal advice.
How to read this page
Each question is a card. Read the “Short answer” first, then “What is established” for the text that supports it. “Unresolved” lists what the text and agency statements do not answer. Superscript numbers point to the Notes at the bottom, which give full citations.
| Source label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| [Statute] | Text enacted by Congress or the South Dakota Legislature (U.S. Code; SDCL). |
| [Regulation] | Binding agency rules (Code of Federal Regulations; ARSD) and final federal orders. |
| [Court] | Judicial decisions. A decision is treated as binding only where the court and issue make it so. Where none is documented, the card says so. |
| [Agency interpretation] | What DOJ, DEA, the South Dakota Attorney General or the Department of Health has said, including preambles, formal opinions, letters and emails. These may be persuasive; informal statements are not treated as binding. |
| [WeedPress analysis] | WeedPress’s reading of the sources. Not a legal conclusion. |
| Conflict status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Confirmed conflict | Two provisions cannot both be followed, as shown by their text or a binding decision. |
| Unresolved | The sources leave a real question open (interpretive uncertainty). Different wording alone is not treated as a conflict. |
| No conflict | The provisions can be followed together on their text, or no conflict has been identified. |
No card is currently marked “Confirmed conflict.”
Questions
- 1. What is marijuana’s federal schedule after the April 28, 2026 order?
- 2. Does South Dakota’s own controlled-substance schedule still list THC and hashish in Schedule I, and must the Department of Health act?
- 3. Who must register with DEA, and are South Dakota establishments or cardholders registered?
- 4. Is there a 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31-style exemption route for patients?
- 5. Does a South Dakota written certification satisfy federal dispensing rules?
- 6. How does South Dakota establishment registration (ARSD 44:90) relate to federal registration?
- 7. Do South Dakota’s caregiver and cardholder transfers fit the federal transfer warning?
- 8. Must South Dakota testing labs register with DEA, and under which category?
- 9. What do South Dakota patient protections cover, and what federal exposure remains?
- 10. Which agency questions are still open?
1. What is marijuana’s federal schedule after the April 28, 2026 order?
| Short answer | Marijuana and marijuana extract are in Schedule III when they are in an FDA-approved drug product or are “subject to a state medical marijuana license.” Naturally derived delta-9-THC is in Schedule III when it is in an FDA-approved product or “in marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license.” Other marijuana remains in Schedule I. |
| Federal authority | [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g)(2)–(4); § 1300.01(b) (“state medical marijuana license”). [Statute] 21 U.S.C. § 811; § 812(b) (schedule findings). 91 Fed. Reg. 22,714.¹,²,³,⁴,⁵ |
| South Dakota authority | Not applicable (federal question). See Question 2 for South Dakota’s own schedule. |
| What is established | [Regulation] The order took effect April 28, 2026, and added these entries to Schedule III.¹,² [Regulation] A “state medical marijuana license” is a state-issued license authorizing the licensee to manufacture, distribute and/or dispense marijuana for medical purposes.³ [Statute] Section 812(b) sets the findings for each schedule; section 812(c) lists the schedules as originally enacted, and current placements appear in 21 C.F.R. pt. 1308.⁵ |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] The DOJ preamble states that “unlicensed bulk marijuana, marijuana extract, and [delta-9-]THC material used to make FDA-approved drug products will remain in schedule I.”⁶ [Agency interpretation] DEA’s rescheduling page describes a separate notice of hearing on the 2024 proposal to move marijuana generally to Schedule III.⁷ |
| Unresolved | Whether cannabis that a registered patient or caregiver cultivates at home, or cannabis after it leaves a licensee, is “subject to a state medical marijuana license.” The outcome of the separate general-rescheduling hearing is not documented on this page. |
| Conflict status | No conflict as to the federal classification itself. Comparisons with South Dakota’s schedule are in Question 2. |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | Schedule III Changed the Federal Rules. Here Are 26 Questions South Dakota Still Has to Answer (Sept. 29, 2026); South Dakota Attorney General Publishes Opinion Concerning Impact of Federal Rescheduling (Oct. 13, 2026) |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
2. Does South Dakota’s own controlled-substance schedule still list THC and hashish in Schedule I, and must the Department of Health act?
| Short answer | Yes. South Dakota’s Schedule I still lists hashish, hash oil and tetrahydrocannabinol (with exceptions, including marijuana “in its natural and unaltered state”). Changing the state schedule is for the Legislature or the voters; the department’s role is to recommend. |
| Federal authority | [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g). [Statute] 21 U.S.C. § 903 (state law is displaced only on a “positive conflict”).²,⁸ |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20B-14(10), (20) (hashish and hash oil; tetrahydrocannabinol, with listed exceptions); § 34-20B-11 (Schedule I criteria); § 34-20B-18 (Schedule III criteria); § 34-20B-27 (recommendations to the Legislature).⁹,¹⁰,¹¹,¹² |
| What is established | [Statute] Section 34-20B-11 requires a Schedule I substance to have a high potential for abuse, “[n]o accepted medical use in the United States,” and a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision.¹⁰ [Statute] Section 34-20B-27 says the department “shall make recommendations to the Legislature” when it “determines that such substance has a different potential for abuse.”¹² |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] AG Op. No. 26-06 says marijuana “is not scheduled in South Dakota as a controlled substance pursuant to SDCL ch. 34-20B,” that federal rescheduling “will likely have a negligible impact” on the program, that state rescheduling “would have to be taken by either the Legislature or the voters,” and that “no conflict exists.”¹³ [Agency interpretation] The Department of Health wrote on Oct. 22 that the § 34-20B-27 duty “is triggered solely by the Department’s own determination” and declined to issue “what would amount to an advisory opinion”; its Mar. 19 letter said the statute “does not establish a petition or request process.”¹⁴,¹⁵ |
| Unresolved | [WeedPress analysis] Whether tetrahydrocannabinol and hashish still satisfy § 34-20B-11, including “[n]o accepted medical use in the United States,” after federal Schedule III placement and South Dakota’s own medical program. Separately, § 34-20B-27 is triggered by a department determination of “a different potential for abuse”; whether the department has made, or will make, that determination is not documented. [Court] No court decision on this question is documented here. |
| Conflict status | Unresolved (interpretive uncertainty). A stricter state schedule is not, by that fact alone, a federal conflict under 21 U.S.C. § 903; the open question is how South Dakota’s own criteria apply. |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | WeedPress Asks South Dakota Health Department to Rule Whether Schedule I Cannabis Still Fits the State’s Own Statute (Aug. 31, 2026); South Dakota Health Department Declines Requested Ruling on WeedPress Publisher’s Cannabis Scheduling Petition (Oct. 29, 2026); South Dakota’s Attorney General Answered the Schedule III Question. The Department of Health Still Has Its Own Statute to Answer (Oct. 13, 2026); Records Library: DOH petition records; see the Agency Accountability Tracker (companion page). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
3. Who must register with DEA, and are South Dakota establishments or cardholders registered?
| Short answer | Federal law requires persons who manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances to register unless an exemption applies. An “ultimate user” possessing a controlled substance for a purpose specified in 21 U.S.C. § 802(27) is exempt from registration. Section 1301.13(k) gives entities holding state medical marijuana licenses an expedited registration path; it does not create a registration for patients because they hold registry cards. WeedPress has not documented which, if any, South Dakota establishments have applied or registered. |
| Federal authority | [Statute] 21 U.S.C. § 822(a), (c)(3), (d); § 823. [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1301.11(a); § 1301.13(k); pt. 1301.¹⁶,¹⁷,¹⁸,¹⁹,²⁰ |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20G-55 (state registration certificates); [Regulation] ARSD ch. 44:90:03.²¹ |
| What is established | [Statute] Ultimate users possessing for a purpose in § 802(27) are not required to register.¹⁶ [Regulation] Section 1301.13(k)(1) creates manufacturer, distributor and dispenser registrations for state licensees; (k)(3) ties the registration to the state license; (k)(7) provides that an applicant who applied within 60 days of the rule’s publication may, while the application is pending, operate “in conformity with a state-issued license.”¹⁹ [Agency interpretation] DEA’s registration page lists Form 224M for medical marijuana dispensaries.²² |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] AG Op. No. 26-06 says an existing South Dakota licensee “may now do so in compliance with federal law if they register with the DEA.”¹³ |
| Unresolved | Which South Dakota establishments applied within the 60-day window or hold DEA registrations; whether the Department of Health tracks this. DEA’s registrant-verification tools are restricted to registrants, so this is not publicly verifiable from DEA’s site. |
| Conflict status | No conflict identified. Federal registration is an added federal requirement; South Dakota law does not prohibit it. [WeedPress analysis] |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | Schedule III Changed the Federal Rules. Here Are 26 Questions South Dakota Still Has to Answer (Sept. 29, 2026); South Dakota’s Attorney General Answered the Schedule III Question. The Department of Health Still Has Its Own Statute to Answer (Oct. 13, 2026); see the Agency Accountability Tracker (companion page). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
4. Is there a 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31-style exemption route for patients?
| Short answer | Not under current text. Section 1307.31 covers only nondrug use of peyote in bona fide Native American Church ceremonies. No comparable cannabis-patient exemption is documented. A comparable route would appear to require further federal action, such as a DEA waiver by regulation under § 822(d), a discretionary exception under § 1307.03, or action by Congress. |
| Federal authority | [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (Native American Church); § 1307.03 (exceptions on written request). [Statute] 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) (waiver by regulation).²³,²⁴,¹⁶ |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20B-14(17) (state peyote exception for Native American church sacramental use).²⁵ |
| What is established | [Regulation] Section 1307.31 exempts Native American Church members “so using peyote” from registration, while suppliers must register.²³ [Regulation] Under § 1307.03, the Administrator “may grant an exception in his discretion.”²⁴ |
| Agency interpretation | None documented on a cannabis-patient exemption. |
| Unresolved | [WeedPress analysis] Whether DEA would consider a patient-level exemption modeled on § 1307.31; no request to DEA for one is documented here. |
| Conflict status | Unresolved (policy proposal; no existing exemption to compare). |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | From Gap to Solution: A Step-by-Step Implementation Framework for a User-Level Medical Cannabis Exemption in South Dakota (June 12, 2026) (WeedPress analysis and proposal). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
5. Does a South Dakota written certification satisfy federal dispensing rules?
| Short answer | For DEA-registered dispensers under § 1301.13(k), a certification that state law deems sufficient is “sufficient to permit dispensing” if it meets the federal date, signature, user-identification and practitioner-identification requirements. South Dakota’s statutory definition overlaps with, but does not list, every one of those requirements. |
| Federal authority | [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(5). [Agency interpretation] 91 Fed. Reg. at 22,720.²⁶,²⁷ |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20G-1 (“practitioner”; “written certification”).²⁸ |
| What is established | [Regulation] Section 1301.13(k)(5): a certification “that state law deems sufficient” permits dispensing if it is dated and signed on the day issued, bears the user’s full name and address, and contains the name, address and state license number of a practitioner authorized under state law.²⁶ [Statute] South Dakota’s “written certification” must be dated and signed by a practitioner, state that the patient has a qualifying condition, affirm a bona fide practitioner-patient relationship, and specify the condition, the expiration date and any earlier certification by that practitioner.²⁸ |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] The DOJ preamble summarizes the same conditions.²⁷ |
| Unresolved | [WeedPress analysis] Whether South Dakota’s certification form or registry card in practice carries the user’s address and the practitioner’s license number (the department’s form was not reviewed for this page). The text of (k)(5) refers to state-law authorization and does not mention a DEA number; no agency statement on that point is documented. |
| Conflict status | Unresolved (possible gap in form contents, not a confirmed conflict). |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | Schedule III Changed the Federal Rules. Here Are 26 Questions South Dakota Still Has to Answer (Sept. 29, 2026). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
6. How does South Dakota establishment registration (ARSD 44:90) relate to federal registration?
| Short answer | For a credential that qualifies as a “state medical marijuana license,” the federal rule builds on the state license: it treats the state license as conclusive evidence of state authorization, suspends the DEA registration if the state license lapses, and lets registrants follow state law for labeling (with the § 825(c) warning where applicable), disposal and security. |
| Federal authority | [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(2)–(4), (7)–(10); § 1300.01(b).²⁹,³ |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20G-55. [Regulation] ARSD art. 44:90, including ch. 44:90:03; revised rules take effect Nov. 5, 2026 (per WeedPress reporting).²¹,³⁰ |
| What is established | [Regulation] Section 1301.13(k)(2) makes a state license “conclusive evidence” of state authorization; (k)(3) provides automatic suspension if the state license is suspended, revoked or expires; (k)(4) says DEA “shall accept state-required reports, records, and forms to the maximum extent permissible.”²⁹ [Statute] South Dakota issues “registration certificates” to establishments.²¹ |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] AG Op. No. 26-06 treats South Dakota licensees as eligible for § 1301.13(k).¹³ |
| Unresolved | [WeedPress analysis] South Dakota calls its credential a “registration certificate,” while DEA uses “license.” A difference in terms does not by itself create a conflict, but DEA has not been documented as addressing South Dakota’s credential specifically. How the Nov. 5 rule changes interact with DEA-registered operations has not been addressed by either agency. |
| Conflict status | No conflict identified (terminology difference only). |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | South Dakota’s Revised Medical Cannabis Rules Take Effect Nov. 5 (Oct. 27, 2026); Schedule III Changed the Federal Rules. Here Are 26 Questions South Dakota Still Has to Answer (Sept. 29, 2026). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
7. Do South Dakota’s caregiver and cardholder transfers fit the federal transfer warning?
| Short answer | Federal labeling for Schedule III drugs dispensed to a patient warns against transfer to anyone other than the patient. South Dakota law separately protects dispensing via a designated caregiver and certain no-value transfers between cardholders. How the two fit together has not been addressed by DEA or the department. |
| Federal authority | [Statute] 21 U.S.C. § 825(c). [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 290.5; § 1301.13(k)(1)(iii), (k)(8).³¹,³²,³³ |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20G-2(2), (6); § 34-20G-70; § 34-20G-1(10) (designated caregiver); § 34-20G-74.³⁴,³⁵,³⁶ |
| What is established | [Statute] Section 825(c) directs the Secretary to require, for Schedule II–IV drugs “dispensed to or for a patient,” a warning “that it is a crime to transfer the drug to any person other than the patient.”³¹ [Regulation] FDA’s implementing text reads: “Caution: Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed.”³² [Regulation] DEA lets § 1301.13(k) registrants use state labeling if the label includes the § 825(c) warning, “where applicable,” and lets registered dispensers dispense to “individuals authorized by state law to possess” marijuana for medical purposes.³³ [Statute] SDCL § 34-20G-2(6) protects offering or providing cannabis to a cardholder “for a registered qualifying patient’s medical use,” to a nonresident cardholder or to a dispensary “if nothing of value is transferred in return” and the giver does not knowingly cause the recipient to exceed the allowable amount.³⁴ |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] The DOJ preamble restates that registrants may rely on state labeling “subject to inclusion of the statutory warning label.”²⁷ No DEA or department guidance on caregiver pickup or cardholder gifts is documented. |
| Unresolved | [WeedPress analysis] Who “the patient” is when a caregiver receives product under § 1301.13(k)(1)(iii); what “where applicable” covers; how the warning relates to a later no-value transfer under § 34-20G-2(6). Section 825(c) is a labeling directive; this page does not conclude that any South Dakota transfer is a federal crime. |
| Conflict status | Unresolved (interpretive uncertainty). |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | DEA’s New Transfer Warning Collides With South Dakota’s Caregiver and Patient-Transfer Laws (Sept. 28, 2026); Schedule III Changed the Federal Rules. Here Are 26 Questions South Dakota Still Has to Answer (Sept. 29, 2026). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
8. Must South Dakota testing labs register with DEA, and under which category?
| Short answer | South Dakota’s rule says yes: ARSD 44:90:06:01 says a testing facility “shall register with the Drug Enforcement Agency pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13 (June 28, 2021).” The 2026 medical marijuana registration types in § 1301.13(k)(1) do not include a testing category; DEA’s general chemical-analysis registration is in § 1301.13(e)(1)(xi). Which category a South Dakota lab uses is a factual question for the lab and DEA. |
| Federal authority | [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(e)(1)(xi) (chemical analysis); § 1301.13(k)(1).³⁷,¹⁹ |
| South Dakota authority | [Regulation] ARSD 44:90:06:01 (DEA registration requirement); 44:90:06:08 (confirmation testing); ch. 44:90:06.³⁸,³⁹ |
| What is established | [Regulation] The state rule incorporates § 1301.13 as of June 28, 2021, before paragraph (k) existed.³⁸,¹⁹ [Regulation] The department “may require all cannabis testing facilities to participate in confirmation testing.”³⁹ [Agency interpretation] DEA lists Form 225 for analytical laboratories.²² [WeedPress analysis] WeedPress has reported that the department’s Nov. 5 rule revisions restored the DEA-registration language after it had been proposed for deletion.³⁰ |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] The department told WeedPress on Oct. 29, 2026: “The public health lab may provide confirmation testing pursuant to ARSD 44:90:06:08,” and “The Department ensures testing is available for all medical cannabis products.”⁴⁰ |
| Unresolved | Which DEA registration the remaining licensed lab holds and for which schedules; whether the Public Health Laboratory holds a DEA registration covering this work. Neither lab answered WeedPress’s Oct. 26 questions as of Oct. 29. |
| Conflict status | No conflict identified. The state rule requires federal registration; the category question is open. |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | South Dakota Had Two Medical Cannabis Testing Labs. Now It Has One. (Oct. 26, 2026; updated Oct. 29); South Dakota’s Revised Medical Cannabis Rules Take Effect Nov. 5 (Oct. 27, 2026); see the Agency Accountability Tracker (companion page). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
9. What do South Dakota patient protections cover, and what federal exposure remains?
| Short answer | SDCL § 34-20G-2 protects cardholders from state arrest, prosecution and penalties for conduct within the chapter. Federal possession law depends on federal terms: 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) prohibits possession unless the substance was “obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner,” or possession is otherwise authorized by the Controlled Substances Act. |
| Federal authority | [Statute] 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); § 822(c)(3); § 802(27); § 903. [Regulation] 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(5).⁴¹,¹⁶,⁸,²⁶ |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20G-2; § 34-20G-18; § 34-20G-22.³⁴,⁴² |
| What is established | [Statute] Section 34-20G-2 bars arrest, prosecution or “penalty of any kind” under state authority for listed conduct.³⁴ [Statute] Section 844(a) makes possession unlawful “unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner,” or “as otherwise authorized.”⁴¹ [Statute] Ultimate users are exempt from registration.¹⁶ |
| Agency interpretation | [Agency interpretation] AG Op. No. 26-06 addresses the program and licensees, not individual federal exposure.¹³ No DEA statement on cardholders is documented. |
| Unresolved | [WeedPress analysis] Whether a cardholder who buys from a DEA-registered dispenser on a (k)(5)-compliant certification has obtained the substance “directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner,” or is “otherwise authorized,” within § 844(a); the status of home cultivation, which is not a § 1301.13(k) registration activity; and purchases from establishments that are not DEA-registered. [Court] No court decision applying the 2026 rule to South Dakota cardholders is documented. |
| Conflict status | Unresolved (interpretive uncertainty). |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | From Gap to Solution: A Step-by-Step Implementation Framework for a User-Level Medical Cannabis Exemption in South Dakota (June 12, 2026); DEA’s New Transfer Warning Collides With South Dakota’s Caregiver and Patient-Transfer Laws (Sept. 28, 2026); Schedule III Changed the Federal Rules. Here Are 26 Questions South Dakota Still Has to Answer (Sept. 29, 2026). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
10. Which agency questions are still open?
| Short answer | Several questions to the South Dakota Department of Health and to labs await answers. The companion tracker lists each one with dates and records. |
| Federal authority | Federal questions above have not been put to DEA by WeedPress as of this review. |
| South Dakota authority | [Statute] SDCL § 34-20B-27; § 1-26-15. [Regulation] ARSD 44:62:01:02. |
| What is established | [Agency interpretation] The department’s Oct. 22 letter said it “remains willing to receive and review information submitted by members of the public.”¹⁴ |
| Agency interpretation | See each row above. |
| Unresolved | Whether the department will conduct a § 34-20B-27 review; whether its Oct. 22 letter is a final disposition of the Aug. 31 petition; DEA registration status of South Dakota establishments and labs; pending public-records requests PUBRECREQ0007157 and 0007158. |
| Conflict status | Unresolved. |
| Supporting records & WeedPress articles | Public Compliance Log; Agency Accountability Tracker (companion page); South Dakota Health Department Declines Requested Ruling on WeedPress Publisher’s Cannabis Scheduling Petition (Oct. 29, 2026). |
| Last reviewed | Oct. 29, 2026 (sources checked against official text) |
About this page
This is a permanent reference page and will be revised as agencies respond, courts rule or rules change. Corrections can be requested through Corrections & Right of Reply. Formal filings and requests are logged on the Public Compliance Log; source documents are in the Records Library.
Disclosure: WeedPress publisher Jason Karimi filed the South Dakota Department of Health petitions and requests referenced in Questions 2 and 10.
Last reviewed: Oct. 29, 2026.
Notes
¹ Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Food and Drug Administration Approved Products Containing Marijuana From Schedule I to Schedule III; Corresponding Change to Permit Requirements, 91 Fed. Reg. 22,714 (Apr. 28, 2026) (final rule and order, effective Apr. 28, 2026), federalregister.gov.
² 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g)(2)–(4) (2026), ecfr.gov.
³ 21 C.F.R. § 1300.01(b) (2026) (defining “state medical marijuana license”), ecfr.gov.
⁴ 21 U.S.C. § 811(a), uscode.house.gov.
⁵ 21 U.S.C. § 812(a)–(b), uscode.house.gov. Section 812(c) lists the schedules as initially enacted; current placements are published in 21 C.F.R. pt. 1308.
⁶ Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Food and Drug Administration Approved Products Containing Marijuana From Schedule I to Schedule III; Corresponding Change to Permit Requirements, 91 Fed. Reg. 22,714, 22,718 (Apr. 28, 2026) (preamble), federalregister.gov.
⁷ U.S. Drug Enf’t Admin., Marijuana Rescheduling Regulatory Actions, dea.gov (last visited Oct. 29, 2026) (describing the Apr. 28, 2026 notice of hearing on the 2024 proposed rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 22,777).
⁸ 21 U.S.C. § 903, uscode.house.gov.
⁹ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20B-14(10), (20), sdlegislature.gov.
¹⁰ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20B-11, sdlegislature.gov.
¹¹ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20B-18, sdlegislature.gov.
¹² S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20B-27, sdlegislature.gov.
¹³ Official Opinion Concerning Impact of Federal Rescheduling of Marijuana, S.D. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 26-06 (Oct. 6, 2026), atg.sd.gov.
¹⁴ Letter from Jennifer M. Jorgenson, Chief Legal Counsel, S.D. Dep’t of Health, to Jason Karimi 1 (Oct. 22, 2026) (redacted copy), weedpress.org.
¹⁵ Letter from Jennifer M. Jorgenson, Chief Legal Counsel, S.D. Dep’t of Health, to Jason Karimi 1 (Mar. 19, 2026) (redacted copy), weedpress.org.
¹⁶ 21 U.S.C. § 822(a), (c)(3), (d), uscode.house.gov; see also 21 U.S.C. § 802(27) (defining “ultimate user”), uscode.house.gov.
¹⁷ 21 U.S.C. § 823, uscode.house.gov.
¹⁸ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.11(a) (2026), ecfr.gov.
¹⁹ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k) (2026), ecfr.gov.
²⁰ 21 C.F.R. pt. 1301 (2026), ecfr.gov.
²¹ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-55, sdlegislature.gov; S.D. Admin. R. ch. 44:90:03, sdlegislature.gov.
²² U.S. Drug Enf’t Admin., Diversion Control Div., Registration, deadiversion.usdoj.gov (last visited Oct. 29, 2026) (listing DEA Form 224M, Medical Marijuana Dispensary, and Form 225 for analytical laboratories).
²³ 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (2026), ecfr.gov.
²⁴ 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 (2026), ecfr.gov.
²⁵ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20B-14(17), sdlegislature.gov.
²⁶ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(5) (2026), ecfr.gov.
²⁷ Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Food and Drug Administration Approved Products Containing Marijuana From Schedule I to Schedule III; Corresponding Change to Permit Requirements, 91 Fed. Reg. 22,714, 22,720 (Apr. 28, 2026) (preamble summarizing 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)), federalregister.gov.
²⁸ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-1 (defining “practitioner” and “written certification”), sdlegislature.gov.
²⁹ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(2)–(4), (k)(7)–(10) (2026), ecfr.gov.
³⁰ S.D. Admin. R. art. 44:90, sdlegislature.gov; South Dakota’s Revised Medical Cannabis Rules Take Effect Nov. 5 (Oct. 27, 2026).
³¹ 21 U.S.C. § 825(c), uscode.house.gov.
³² 21 C.F.R. § 290.5 (2026), ecfr.gov.
³³ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(1)(iii), (k)(8) (2026), ecfr.gov.
³⁴ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-2, sdlegislature.gov.
³⁵ S.D. Codified Laws §§ 34-20G-1(10), 34-20G-70, sdlegislature.gov.
³⁶ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-74, sdlegislature.gov.
³⁷ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(e)(1)(xi) (2026) (chemical analysis registration), ecfr.gov.
³⁸ S.D. Admin. R. 44:90:06:01, sdlegislature.gov; see generally S.D. Admin. R. ch. 44:90:06, sdlegislature.gov.
³⁹ S.D. Admin. R. 44:90:06:08, sdlegislature.gov.
⁴⁰ Email from S.D. Dep’t of Health, Off. of Commc’n & Mktg., to WeedPress (Oct. 29, 2026) (responses to WeedPress questions of Oct. 26, 2026) (on file with WeedPress); responses published in South Dakota Had Two Medical Cannabis Testing Labs. Now It Has One. (Oct. 26, 2026; updated Oct. 29).
⁴¹ 21 U.S.C. § 844(a), uscode.house.gov.
⁴² S.D. Codified Laws §§ 34-20G-18, 34-20G-22, sdlegislature.gov, sdlegislature.gov.
