South Dakota Subcommittee says No to Homegrown Medical Marijuana |

A recommendation from the South Dakota Legislature Subcommittee comes from a group of lawmakers working to draft rules to limit the provisions of Initiated Measure 26 (IM26), an electoral measure aimed at legalizing medical marijuana that fell by nearly 70 percent in November of voters in South Dakota passed the 2020 federal election.

The announcement came from a subgroup of the South Dakota Marijuana Summer Study Committee, a body of lawmakers set up to make changes to IM 26 lawyers and another that would allow local governments to ban cannabis companies from operating in their jurisdiction.

“We’re not here to say no to marijuana,” said Republican State Representative Carl Perry. “What we’re doing here is make sure it’s good [policy]. “

South Dakota voters approved medical marijuana in November

Following the passing of IM 26 and a separate vote to legalize cannabis for adult use, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem announced that the implementation of the medical marijuana initiative would be delayed. The delay came despite provisions of state law that approved electoral measures come into effect on July 1 of the year after the adoption of what would have been that year.

“We are working hard to implement IM 26 safely and correctly,” Noem said in a statement released by her office. “This program will take additional time to implement. I am grateful to our legislative leaders for helping us get this right. “

The IM 26 delay was approved by Republican lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Kent Peterson, who argued that it would take more time to come up with a workable plan to implement the measure.

“There is no doubt that IM 26 passed in South Dakota and it is our full intention to respect the will of voters,” Peterson said in the statement from Noem’s office. “Based on the experience of other countries, we know that it takes time to start implementing a safe and workable program. We’ll do the job. “

Lawmakers supporting the abolition of home cannabis cultivation fear that patient-grown marijuana will be diverted to the illegal market. MP Fred Deutsch, another Republican, also mentioned the possibility that home-growing could be a target for thieves.

“It’s the relationship between home growing and the black market,” he said, citing testimonies heard during the committee’s intelligence-gathering process. “Home growing is probably the key factor in the spread of crime and the spread of the black market.”

Other lawmakers noted that at least a dozen states with legal medical marijuana do not allow patients to grow their own drugs. Republican state representative Rhonda Milstead said that Colorado regulators recommended banning home growing.

“Why don’t we listen to the experience?” asked Milstead.

However, not all legislators in the sub-group endorse the changes proposed by the panel. Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, also Republican, said she cannot support amendments that restrict patient access or that are inconsistent with voters’ intentions. However, she supports allowing cities and counties to ban the hosting of cannabis businesses.

“I will always try to uphold the intent of IM 26 while considering the needs of Sioux Falls and the state as a whole,” Rehfledt said. “I voted for local scrutiny, in part because I know there are rural communities that are not adopting medical marijuana by a majority, and I am trying to accommodate their needs.”

Republican Senator Mike Rohl opposed delaying IM 26. He doesn’t think legislature attempts to ban home-growing or allow local governments to ban marijuana businesses will be successful.

“I don’t think they have the votes to achieve something like this in the long run,” said Rohl.

Measure for use by adults even under fire

Noem is also involved in removing voter approval from Amendment A, a proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution that would legalize and regulate recreational marijuana for adults. A governor-supported lawsuit was filed against the measure, which was approved by 54 percent of voters in the 2020 general election. In April, a South Dakota District Court judge ruled the measure was unconstitutional and overturned the change.

The case was then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which in April heard arguments from both sides of the litigation. Rep. Hugh Bartels, the Republican lawmaker who chairs a subcommittee to investigate adult cannabis use legislation, said the court is still deciding whether Measure A is in violation of the state constitution.

“We don’t know how long that will take. We just have to wait, ”said Bartels of the Supreme Court case. “Until then, we’ll somehow be on the spot.”