South Dakota Panel Advances Hemp, Kratom Bans Without Endorsement

A South Dakota Senate committee voted Wednesday to advance legislation that would ban intoxicating hemp products and kratom, but declined to recommend the measures for passage—a rare procedural move that signals deep divisions over the proposals.

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee sent both bills, sponsored by Sen. John Carley (R-Piedmont), to the full Senate floor without the customary endorsement. The decision reflects lawmakers' uncertainty about restricting products that thousands of South Dakotans currently use legally.

"I'd hate to take a product away from people who are using it responsibly," one committee member said during Wednesday's hearing at the Capitol in Pierre.

The Legislative Split

The committee's unusual approach—advancing bills without recommendation—creates an uncertain path forward for the restrictions. In South Dakota's legislative process, bills typically receive a "do pass" recommendation from committee before moving to floor votes. Sending legislation forward without that endorsement often signals skepticism about its merits while allowing full Senate debate.

Carley's proposals target two distinct markets that have grown significantly in South Dakota since 2018. The first bill would prohibit hemp-derived intoxicants, including delta-8 THC products that have proliferated in gas stations and convenience stores across the state. The second would ban kratom, a botanical substance derived from Southeast Asian trees that users say helps with pain management and opioid withdrawal.

Both products exist in regulatory gray areas. Hemp-derived cannabinoids became legal nationwide under the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC. But the law didn't anticipate manufacturers would synthesize other intoxicating compounds from legal hemp. Kratom remains unscheduled federally, though several states have moved to restrict or ban it.

Industry and Consumer Pushback

The committee heard testimony from retailers, consumers, and advocates who argued the bans would eliminate access to products many South Dakotans rely on. Hemp-derived cannabinoid sales have become a significant revenue stream for convenience stores and specialty retailers, particularly in a state where recreational cannabis remains illegal.

South Dakota voters narrowly approved medical marijuana in 2020 after rejecting recreational legalization the same year. The state's medical program launched in 2021 but remains relatively restrictive, with fewer than 10,000 registered patients. That's created sustained demand for hemp-derived alternatives, which require no medical card and are widely available.

Kratom advocates emphasized the substance's role in harm reduction, particularly for individuals managing chronic pain or recovering from opioid addiction. Policy experts note that outright bans can push users toward more dangerous alternatives or unregulated black markets.

What Happens Next

The bills now head to the full Senate, where they'll face floor debate without the political cover of a committee recommendation. That makes passage more difficult but not impossible—South Dakota's Republican-controlled legislature has shown willingness to restrict substances it views as potentially harmful, even over industry objections.

Timing matters here. The legislative session runs through mid-March, and controversial bills without strong committee support often struggle to gain momentum as deadlines approach. Carley will need to build coalition support among Senate colleagues who may be reluctant to vote for restrictions the committee itself wouldn't endorse.

If the Senate approves either measure, it would move to the House, where similar dynamics could play out. Republican Gov. Kristi Noem hasn't publicly weighed in on the proposals, though her administration has generally supported tighter controls on intoxicating substances.

The debate in South Dakota mirrors similar fights playing out across the country as states grapple with hemp-derived intoxicants that exist in federal legal limbo. More than a dozen states have moved to restrict or regulate these products since 2022, though approaches vary widely from outright bans to age restrictions and testing requirements.

---

This article is based on original reporting by www.marijuanamoment.net.