What Federal Cannabis Rescheduling Means and Why South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Law Remains Essential for Patients and Public Safety
By Emmett Reistroffer
President Trump’s recent executive order directing the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act is a significant and historic step toward potential federal reform. But it is only that—a first step. Any actual change will unfold through a lengthy, uncertain process that could take years before it produces meaningful, on-the-ground effects.
Still, the announcement has understandably sparked (pun intended) widespread interest and confusion, particularly among the more than 18,000 South Dakotans who currently rely on our state’s voter-approved medical cannabis program for safe and lawful access. Questions are fair. Misinformation is not.
As someone who has spent years advocating for safe medical cannabis access—and who now works daily with patients, caregivers, regulators, local governments, and licensed operators across South Dakota—I believe it is important to set the record straight. Patients, providers, and community leaders deserve clarity. Unfortunately, some politicians appear eager to exploit uncertainty as an opportunity to undo progress backed by an overwhelming majority of voters.
South Dakota’s medical cannabis law — now SDCL 34-20G — was built deliberately, carefully, and democratically. It provides patient protections, oversight by physicians and other medical providers, controlled licensing, product testing, and strict regulatory enforcement. It is not a loophole, a commercialization scheme, the wild west, or a policy accident. It is a medical framework supported by veterans, chronic-pain patients, cancer survivors, families, and healthcare professionals who support a safer alternative to opioids and criminalization.
The claim that federal rescheduling somehow makes South Dakota’s voter-approved medical cannabis program unnecessary misunderstands both what rescheduling is and what it actually changes in practice.
First – Why Did President Trump Take Action?
The opening section of President Trump’s executive order clearly states the policy rationale behind directing federal agencies to reconsider marijuana’s classification.
“Chronic pain affects nearly 1 in 4 United States adults and more than 1 in 3 United States seniors, and 6 in 10 people who use medical marijuana report doing so to manage pain. Forty States plus the District of Columbia have State- or locally-sanctioned, regulated medical marijuana programs. Yet decades of Federal drug control policy have neglected marijuana’s medical uses. That oversight has limited the ability of scientists and manufacturers to complete the necessary research on safety and efficacy to inform doctors and patients.”
In short, the executive order recognizes a reality that patients, physicians, and states have already confronted: federal policy has failed to keep pace with medical evidence and real-human experience.
This action reflects Donald Trump’s populist governing approach—addressing issues directly, grounding policy in observable facts, and prioritizing the lived experiences of Americans over outdated assumptions. It does not legalize marijuana, nor does it dismantle state authority. Instead, it acknowledges medical use, encourages research, and begins correcting a long-standing federal and state conflict.
That context matters—because the executive order was not issued to replace state medical cannabis programs like South Dakota’s, but to begin aligning federal policy with what the American people want and what most U.S. states have worked on for decades.
What Federal Rescheduling Really Means — and What It Doesn’t
The shift toward moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III is meaningful — but it is not federal legalization, and it is not a replacement for state medical cannabis programs. It’s also not a guarantee that anything will change – it simply allows a pathway to change.
Rescheduling happens through formal DEA rulemaking process that includes scientific review, public comment, and final rule publication. The process is further affected by other agency involvement and input and even Congressional action. This will take, at least, several months — but more likely, years — and potentially longer if litigation occurs. Until rescheduling is final, cannabis remains Schedule I under federal law.
Even if rescheduling is finalized, marijuana will still be a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. It will not become broadly available as a federally prescribed medication unless and until there is full FDA approval to be dispensed in pharmacies.
Physicians in South Dakota issue medical certifications, not federal prescriptions — and rescheduling does not convert our program into a federal prescription system.
In practical terms, rescheduling does three important things:
- It formally acknowledges legitimate medical use
- It reduces research barriers to legitimate scientific research
- It allows relief from the punitive IRS 280E tax restriction on state-licensed medical cannabis businesses
Those are positive steps — and a long list of various organizations and the vast majority of Americans, including Veterans, patients, medical providers and researchers support rescheduling because it strengthens and stabilizes state medical cannabis programs — not because it replaces them.
What Rescheduling Does Not Fix
Rescheduling alone does not resolve the core conflicts between federal and state law.
Congress would still need to act to:
- harmonize federal criminal statutes with state-regulated systems
- address interstate transport and commerce rules
- modernize banking and financial protections
- establish an appropriate federal framework for medical cannabis access
- preserve state regulatory authority
South Dakota’s medical cannabis program remains essential until these issues are addressed and safe access for patients is guaranteed.
If South Dakota repealed SDCL 34-20G today, there would be:
- no federal replacement structure ready
- no federal prescription access available
- no legal framework protecting patients
- no oversight system for quality, safety, or testing
Repeal would not “defer to federal law.”
Ultimately, repeal would simply remove patient protections and re-criminalize sick and dying South Dakotans – whom 70% of voters decided deserve compassion, dignity, safe access and legal protection.
A small group of newly elected lawmakers, led by a vocal anti-marijuana activist, are calling to return South Dakota back to a time when sick and dying patients had to get cannabis from street dealers and risk jail or prison time, just to find relief and manage paint – folks with chronic pain, seizures, or PTSD among many others.
I believe a more reasonable, conservative and compassionate approach is to respect the will of the voters and focus on program improvements instead – working together to ensure safe access to medical cannabis with proper oversight.
South Dakota’s Program Reflects This Approach.
Maintaining the voter-approved medical cannabis program means:
- regulated rather than chaotic
- physician-guided rather than street-driven
- tested and tracked rather than unmonitored
- accountable to state agencies rather than cartels or illicit suppliers
Our Department of Health, local governments, and licensed operators have invested years and millions of dollars into building a secure, compliant system — one that prioritizes safety, product integrity, and an overall responsible approach to handling medical cannabis.
Repealing the voter-approved law and current program would:
- destabilize communities
- endanger patients and create unnecessary risks for them and their families
- embolden street dealers and make the black market more lucrative
- and undo the will of South Dakota voters
Federal reform should support and complement South Dakota’s voter-approved and state-regulated medical cannabis program — not erase it.
The Responsible Path Forward
Rescheduling is progress — but it is not a finish line.
The responsible and principled approach is to:
- maintain the voter-approved medical cannabis law (SDCL 34-20G
- continue improving the program to ensure every patient who qualifies has the option for safe access to medical cannabis
- work with regulators and stakeholders to ensure regulations are reasonable and fair
- align where appropriate with evolving federal policy
- advocate for Congressional action that respects state sovereignty
South Dakotans support a program rooted in compassion and common-sense oversight. We should not abandon that work — but steward it wisely as federal policy finally begins to catch up. While President Trump’s executive order is a positive step in the right direction, South Dakota is ultimately better positioned to deliver on the needs and desires of our own people and should remain in control of our own medical cannabis policy — rather than rely and wait on Washington bureaucracy.
—
Emmett Reistroffer is the Director of Government Relations for Genesis Farms, based in Box Elder, SD and is a Republican candidate for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 35
As a former narcotics officer, I am and always will be against legalization. That said, I am not against medical research if forms of marijuana could be useful treatments for some diseases. I viewed the medical marijuana laws we enacted in SD as carelessly formulated. It is not difficult to convince some doctors to provide a card that gives one access to medical marijuana, but who is doing the follow-up to ensure that each user adheres to the provisions of the law? I am a bit concerned how this change to schedule III will work since schedule III drugs require a prescription from a doctor. And that doctor must have a legitimate patient doctor relationship with his patient. Would pharmacies be required to stock medical marijuana and what effect would that have on dispensaries? Enacting laws to make it easier for people to intoxicate themselves has never worked well.
As a patient, I have to see the doctor that issued me my medical marijuana card every year to ensure that I still need medical marijuana for my treatment. However, my primary care provider at Monument Health in Rapid City can’t recommend me medical marijuana because of federal guidelines due to “insurance and company policy.” My PCP could however refer me out to a doctor who could recommend medical cards. I communicate with my PCP regularly about what’s going on in my healthcare routine while I also have to renew my medical card every year. I feel very well taken care of seeing as I was diagnosed in 2019 and medical marijuana saved my life.
You’re against legalization but concerned about the livelihood of dispensaries? Ha sure.
As an American who is pro-freedom, I will always be against this argument to keep things illegal to support the police and prison industry. If I wanted support from the government for something like food, you would call it socialism, but support to develop your industry and put food on your table from it, that then is okay? Naw, that will be a no from me, no victims means no crime.
Cannabis does not “intoxicate” people as you suggest. Realize that a lot of folks suffer from ADHD, anxiety, depression, etc. and find relief and can actually focus from cannabis use. Most uneducated people think cannabis as a ” drug” because of the perpetual lies that have been passed down through Harry Anslinger laws from the 1930’s. It was a propaganda campaign that was not only racist, it played into the hands of the infamous Rockefeller. Not only does alcohol prohibition end around the same time, but Rockefeller was working hard to ban all herbal remedies and only funded schools pushing his petroleum based medicine. Look around man. Wake up. That is the medical system in place today. Cannabis heals. Always has and always will no matter what man made law you try to harness, GOD’S work will always prevail.
I understand where you’re coming from, especially given your background in narcotics enforcement. But that background is also exactly why this deserves a hard second look—because decades of enforcement-first drug policy give us a very large data set, and it doesn’t support the conclusions you’re drawing.
First, on harm. Prohibition hasn’t been neutral. It has meant arrests, lost jobs, broken families, and lifelong criminal records for behavior that medical science increasingly agrees is less harmful than many legal substances. Those harms fall unevenly—on poorer communities, on people without access to good legal defense, and often on people who were not causing harm to others. Whatever one thinks about intoxication, those consequences are real, measurable, and lasting.
Second, on science. The idea that making something illegal meaningfully reduces its use is not well supported by evidence. Alcohol prohibition failed. Marijuana prohibition did not eliminate marijuana; it just pushed it into unregulated markets where there is no quality control, no dosage consistency, and no medical oversight at all. Legalization and regulation, by contrast, allow tracking, standards, and research—things prohibition actively prevents.
Your concern about “carelessly formulated” medical laws is fair, but that’s an argument for better regulation, not criminalization. If follow-up, physician standards, or dispensing models are weak, those are solvable policy problems. They are not evidence that the underlying substance should remain criminalized, especially when comparable or more dangerous drugs are legally prescribed every day under similar doctor–patient frameworks.
As for intoxication: society already allows it, selectively. Alcohol, benzodiazepines, opioids, and stimulants are legal despite far higher addiction and mortality risks. Singling out marijuana isn’t a science-based position—it’s a historical and cultural one, rooted in decades-old assumptions that research has steadily dismantled.
Finally, scheduling concerns cut both ways. Moving marijuana to Schedule III acknowledges what science has been saying for years: it has medical value and a lower abuse profile than Schedule I or II substances. If pharmacies and dispensaries need to adapt, that’s part of integrating reality into law, not a reason to deny reality.
In short, enforcement didn’t fail because it wasn’t strict enough. It failed because it was built on incorrect assumptions about human behavior, public health, and harm reduction. We now have enough evidence to say that policies designed to punish use cause more damage than the substance itself—and continuing them isn’t caution, it’s ignoring the data.
So you know, now the big fight is about getting abortion pills in the mail. Well why can’t we get our medical cannabis in the mail too? If you don’t need a doctor for an abortion and the US post office legally delivers the pills, there’s no reason to have a doctor for cannabis, and no reason the US postal service can’t deliver it to my doorstep.
Great point – Canadians can get it mailed to their house, we should be able to as well.
If cannabis weren’t trapped in Schedule I limbo, and if South Dakota took a more evidence-based approach to regulation, medical cannabis could be delivered by mail like any other prescribed therapy. Instead, we’ve chosen a system where bureaucracy is more protected than patients.
We already trust the postal service with controlled substances, chemotherapy drugs, and medications that can actually kill you if misused—but somehow a plant with a lower risk profile is too dangerous to ship. That’s not public safety; that’s policy inertia wearing a lab coat.
When regulation follows science instead of tradition, access gets safer, cheaper, and more humane. When it doesn’t, people aren’t protected—they’re just inconvenienced by outdated assumptions.
Incredible how attitudes change around here once they have a financial interest 🙂
Why are we taking advice from someone who has a vested financial interest in legalization?
Legislators do that every day with vested-interest lobbyists of all stripes, no?
If their constituents are too busy getting high to go to work, campaign donations will drop
That assumption doesn’t really hold up when you look at the data. States with legal marijuana haven’t seen workforce collapse, mass absenteeism, or economic decline tied to legalization. In fact, employment participation and tax revenue in those states have generally gone up, not down.
If “people getting high instead of working” were a real, widespread effect, it would show up clearly in productivity metrics, unemployment rates, and employer reporting. It doesn’t. What does show up are new jobs, regulated markets, and reduced law-enforcement and incarceration costs.
Also worth noting: alcohol is far more impairing, far more abused, and far more associated with missed work—and yet no one argues that legal alcohol makes democracy or the economy unworkable. Singling out marijuana isn’t an evidence-based concern; it’s a cultural assumption.
Policy should be built on measured outcomes, not stereotypes. When we do that, the “everyone’s too high to function” narrative simply doesn’t survive contact with reality.
John Santana,
I don’t care if you were a narcotics officer or a dog catcher.
Your bias I loud and clear. Cannabis does not and cannot treat a disease.
What it can do is provide relief for pain. The fact that you don’t think that laws should be enacted to make it easier to intoxicate themselves is misleading.
The law gives people options from opioids.
If you were in fact a narcotics officer you know damn well that opioids are the issue.
Not Cannabis. Not to mention booze.
People will indulge in cannabis if it’s legal or not.
They just don’t want people like you ruining their lives because you busted them for a bit of weed.
There are a lot of common sense responses to your post, but I suspect they’d be of little value to you, since you don’t even have the courage to post under your name.
If enforcement budgets, staffing levels, and forfeiture revenue are tied to arrest and prosecution numbers, what incentive does law enforcement have to support policies that would significantly reduce those arrests?
That question is what informs my opinion. Institutions, like people, respond to incentives—and it’s reasonable to scrutinize laws that are financially self-reinforcing rather than outcome-driven.
I trust this plants creator(God-Day 3) more than I trust the pharmaceutical creators because humans can be corrupted and God cannot.
We all could have smoked a couple doobies in the time it took to read this. (No, I don’t partake.)
Alcohol is one of the few recreational drugs that is literally neurotoxic. It doesn’t just impair brain cells temporarily—it kills them. That’s not metaphorical; ethanol causes neuronal death.
Chronic alcohol use shrinks brain volume, especially in the frontal lobes—the part responsible for judgment, impulse control, and decision-making. Ironically, the part people use to argue policy.
I’d wager this applies to your reading skills.
Oh my! The stoner mythology is endless.
One of my concerns is why law-enforcement leadership continues to push so hard to keep cannabis illegal when the evidence no longer supports that position. When a policy persists despite clear data showing it doesn’t reduce use and does cause significant harm, it’s reasonable to question what incentives are actually driving it.
Keeping cannabis illegal has not eliminated demand; it has ensured that supply remains unregulated. That means no quality control, inconsistent potency, and no safeguards for consumers. From a public-health perspective, regulation consistently outperforms prohibition.
Criminalization also produces real human costs: arrests for nonviolent behavior, permanent records that limit employment and housing, family disruption, and long-term community mistrust. These harms are well documented and fall hardest on people with the least ability to recover from them.
Medical and public-health research shows cannabis has a lower risk profile than many legal substances, including alcohol and some prescription drugs. Continuing to treat it primarily as a criminal issue isn’t aligned with modern science—it’s a holdover from outdated policy frameworks.
If the goal is genuinely public safety and human well-being, then policy should follow outcomes, not tradition or institutional convenience. When we examine outcomes honestly, keeping cannabis illegal has repeatedly failed the people it was supposed to protect.