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:

1. It formally acknowledges legitimate medical use
2. It reduces research barriers to legitimate scientific research
3. 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

Representative Amber Arlint Announces Reelection Campaign for District 12 House

Sioux Falls, S.D. – Today, Representative Amber Arlint announced that she is running for re-election to the South Dakota House of Representatives in District 12,  reaffirming her commitment to serving her constituents by improving education, keeping neighborhoods safe, and supporting an economy that rewards hard  work and creates opportunity here at home.

“I am running for re-election because I believe in our community and the future of South Dakota,” said Arlint. “That means protecting taxpayers, strengthening public safety, improving education, and making sure South Dakota remains a place where you can live, work, and raise a family.”

First elected in 2022, Arlint has championed legislation to grow South Dakota’s workforce through technical education, modernize community safety zones to include domestic violence shelters, and strengthen the state’s long-term financial stability. She has also supported public safety measures, including expanding access to forensic medical exam kits, increasing penalties for impaired boating, and strengthening laws to combat human trafficking.

In the Legislature, Arlint serves on influential committees shaping education and transportation policy, where she has consistently defended local decision-making and pushed back against policies that place new requirements on schools and communities without the resources to meet them. She has also led and supported legislation to expand health care training capacity at Southeast Technical College, addressing workforce shortages through targeted, one-time investments.

Arlint is a wife, mother, and small business owner in the Sioux Falls metro area. Together, she and her husband are raising their two children in the community she serves, bringing her family and business experience to her service in the Legislature.

District 12 includes portions of Sioux Falls in Minnehaha and Lincoln counties.

Absentee voting begins April 17, 2026 and the Republican primary election will be held on June 2, 2026.

To learn more about Representative Arlint’s re-election campaign, visit AmberArlintSD.com or follow her on Facebook.

###

Guest Column: Lies Pt. 1 – Citizens Lying to Cops
by Thomas E. Simmons

Not everyone knows a fairly basic fact about what’s illegal: lying to a cop can be a crime. Specifically, lying to law enforcement is a class 1 misdemeanor. (Class 1 misdemeanors are punishable by one year’s imprisonment per South Dakota Codified Law 22-6-2(1).)

This fact was underscored by a recent South Dakota Supreme Court decision, South Dakota v. Biteler (SD 2025), a case which arose out of Lincoln County and was decided in December.

First, let’s look at the statute which criminalizes lying to cops. It a crime whenever someone:

Makes a report or intentionally causes the transmission of a report to law enforcement authorities which furnishes information relating to an offense or other incident within their official concern, knowing that such information is false.

South Dakota Codified Laws section 22-11-9(3).

The statute was initially enacted in 1975, but initially it only penalized the false reporting of a crime. It has since been expanded – as one can see from the text above – to include a false report (1) “relating to an offense” and; (2) to any “other incident within” an officer’s “official concern.” Lies “relating to an offense” would include misleading an officer about the whereabouts of a suspect. Penalizing lies relating to an “incident within” a cop’s “official concern” is broader still.

That’s all well and good, but the word “report” makes it sound like the only thing to avoid is filing some official formal paperwork with the police that contains knowingly false information. What is a “report,” exactly? That was the issue presented to our state supreme court in the Biteler decision.

Amanda Biteler was originally charged with a second-offense DUI a few years ago and sentenced to parole rather than incarceration. As part of her sentence, she was required to submit what is known as “24/7” breath monitoring to check for alcohol consumption. Eventually, she was permitting to submit “remote breath” tests using a portable device with a straw and a camera lens. She was instructed how to use it.

As the court explained, “When a remote breath enrollee submits a breath test, the testing device takes their photograph. One of Biteler’s test photographs was flagged because it did not appear that she was the person who blew into the testing device.” She was charged with making a false report.

The court had to determine whether a breath test and a picture amounted to a “report.” Biteler argued the breath data and photograph didn’t amount to a report because rather than affirmatively communicating to law enforcement, she was simply complying (or rather, failing to comply) with the conditions of her parole. Moreover, there were no words contained within the breath data and photograph.

The statute itself does not define “report.” So, the court turned to ordinary definitions of the word. (Note that the word here is being used as a noun – as in making a report – and not as a verb – for example, reporting something to someone.) The county circuit court had located this definition of report: “a formal oral or written presentation” and it had dismissed the charges against Biteler since the breath test coupled with the photograph didn’t meet that definition.

The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, adopting a broader definition of “report.” It concluded that a report means “a communication which furnishes information.”  Biteler had falsified her breath test by having someone else blow into the unit while Biteler’s face pointed at the camera. The breath test accompanied by the photograph amounted to a report insofar as they represented a communication which furnished information. False information, it turns out.

Biteler essentially conceded that she had been noncompliant with the conditions of her parole because she had misused the portable unit, but she resisted the prosecutor’s assertion that she had committed a crime. She had been noncompliant, certainly, but had she attempted to deceive law enforcement with a false communication – a false “report?” Indeed, she had, the court concluded.

On that basis, her conviction was reinstated.

Lying to cops is illegal. In fairness, I expect that a lot of lies to law enforcement go uncharged and unpunished. If, for example, back when Amanda Biteler was driving under the influence and stopped, the officer may have asked her if she’d been drinking. If she denied that she had had a few, this would have been a lie. Indeed, it would have been a report (a “communication which furnishes information”).

Better to refuse to answer a question than to answer it falsely. Falsehoods and untruthfulness can get you in trouble. Lying to cops is rightfully categorized as a claim because it impedes the functions of law enforcement.

The foregoing has been “part I” of a 2-part series on lying. Here, in Part I, we considered citizens lying to cops. In Part II, we’ll consider cops lying to citizens.

Thomas E. Simmons
University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law
Vermillion, SD

—

All of the views and opinions Professor Simmons expresses here on are his as an individual and do not reflect the views of the Board of Regents, the University of South Dakota, its School of Law, their employees, faculty or administrators. The foregoing editorial represents only his views as a private citizen.

Representative Keri Weems Announces Re-Election Campaign for District 11 House

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Today, Representative Keri Weems announced her campaign for re-election to the South Dakota House of Representatives in District 11, citing her commitment to public service, proven legislative experience, and record of delivering for her constituents.

“I’m running for re-election because District 11 deserves experienced leadership that listens, shows up, and delivers,” said Weems. “Our best days are still ahead, and I’m ready to keep working for you.”

Weems previously served three terms in the State House from 2003 to 2008 and brings a strong record of service. Her legislative work has focused on keeping taxes low, making government more efficient, supporting local decision authority, strengthening public education, improving public safety, and investing in infrastructure that keeps communities connected and growing.

Her professional background includes leadership roles in both the private and nonprofit sectors, where she has earned a reputation for integrity, collaboration, and steady leadership in difficult situations. She has worked closely with local organizations, small businesses, and families to strengthen economic opportunity, expand access to essential services, and support initiatives that improve quality of life.

Weems lives in Sioux Falls with her husband, Jay. Together, they have three adult children. As a wife, mother, and grandmother, she remains deeply engaged in her community by volunteering her time and supporting local organizations and causes.

District 11 includes the west side of Sioux Falls, stretching from I-29 nearly to Tea-Ellis Road, and from 57th Street north to 12th Street.

Absentee voting begins on April 17, 2026, and the Republican Primary Election will be held on June 2, 2026.

To learn more about Representative Weems’s re-election campaign, visit KeriWeems.com or follow her on Facebook and X. An official photo of Representative Weems can be found here.

###

From facebook:

Column: Week 1 Session Update
“Serious Problems Demand Serious Legislators and Serious Solutions”

The 2026 Legislative session kicked off in Pierre, and improving South Dakota’s economy needs to be the top issue for my colleagues and I, otherwise our economy will fall behind our neighbors, our kids will leave the state, and everyday South Dakotans will hurt. Getting South Dakota back on track requires bold leadership and vision, because the time is now to make an impact.

###

While we have *10 days* to wait for the 2025 year end reports to see how fundraising went for the statewide candidates, Governor Larry Rhoden already has an event announced to add to his total this Friday in Watertown at the Redlin Art Center:

I’m sure there will be more to come..

Remember last April when there was a pledge and a facebook page enlisting legislators to join them for a call to shoot down planes that people thought were spreading (the mythical) chemtrails?

There were legislators who just couldn’t wait to sign on to “taking military action” after the group’s call to arms against our friendly skies:

 

Yet here we are a week into session, and we’re just getting crickets. It seems that these legislators might be slow-rolling their call to shoot down planes. I mean, a pledge is a promise, isn’t it?  Even considering the fact that chemtrails are a conspiracy-fueled internet myth, these legislators said they’d be on the front lines for calling out the National Guard for “military action.”

But when the rubber hits the tarmac, I just don’t think we’ve seen their commitment.  All keyboard cowboys, and no tinfoil hat.

Kind of “fair-weather” conspiracy kooks, if you ask me.

This disclaimer-less ad started hitting facebook this afternoon.

The South Dakota Freedom Caucus (aka, the free-dumb caucus)  – the group which has to hide many of it’s members – is having an event in early February in Sioux Falls featuring former legislator Steve Haugaard. And if you’ve forgotten, Haugaard has been rumored over the past few months to be possibly seeking the office of Attorney General in the 2026 election:

If Steve Haugaard is Phil Jensen, California Carley, Heather Baxter & Dylan Jordan’s choice for Attorney General, it really becomes a hard pass for a lot of Republicans.

South Dakota Republican House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach has posted his update for the first week of the legislative session with a message critical of South Dakota’s education system, going after the people that lobby in Pierre for schools as well as declaring that catering “to the bottom portion of the behavioral spectrum” has gone on long enough: 

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LOBBYING

Finally, a word on public school discipline and lobbying. This week we began to also hear bills in committees. The education committee heard testimony and voted on HB1017, a much-needed bill brought by our Department of Education meant to address the behavior crisis faced by too many of our classroom teachers and students. I attended, and testified in favor as a proponent. After hearing much opposing testimony, the committee ended up voting to defer the matter to another day for more discussion.

The essence of the bill states: “A school board may assign a student to receive instruction in an alternative setting for aggressive or violent behaviors that disrupt the school or that affects the health or safety factor of the school or its program.” Simple common sense, right? Well not so fast.

As a former school board member, concerned taxpayer, state representative and someone who cares about applying common sense to enhance the welfare of our teachers and students, I was shocked listening to the opposing testimony by the public school lobbyists purporting to represent school administrators and large schools.

Their testimony was basically that we cannot address the crisis in classroom behavior until we first spend untold millions of additional dollars on everything from new student treatment centers to cater to the troublemakers, to new programs that provide “training to parents.” Their vision for the size and scope of the “education” system puts them totally outside their lane, essentially wanting lawmakers to spend taxpayers into oblivion on side-projects before addressing an issue that is having immediate and ongoing negative impacts on the classroom experience of so many of our kids who do want to learn, and on the overworked teachers tasked with making it happen.

What message does it send to young people in the classroom when we go to superhuman lengths to cater to the bottom portion of the behavioral spectrum while ignoring the unique needs of all others in the process? This has gone on long enough.

Informed citizens and taxpayers need to wake up and be aware of what kinds of things are being said in Pierre by those claiming to speak on your behalf.  The positions taken on most issues by the public school lobbyists leads one to conclude they think the “system” would do a better job raising your kids then you would – if only we’d fully fund it. Their efforts too often frustrate the ability of policy makers to address major problems – such as HB1017, which sought to finally address violent school behaviors that are literally putting kids and teachers in danger.

Read the entire facebook post here.

It seems like we’ve gone from the goals of the federal “No Child Left Behind” act in 2001, which increased focus on achievement gaps,  especially for minority and low-income students,  to asking ourselves “which kids is it ok to skip because they’re a tough kid?” As the parent of a child who from very early on has been a participant in special education services in my school district, I’m not sure I care much for a conversation that seems to say that more challenging kids, most definitely including those who have a disability, are somehow are less deserving of receiving an education.

For those legislators who have taken an oath of office to follow the constitution, let me point out a passage from the South Dakota State Constitution:

ARTICLE VIII

§ 1. Uniform system of free public schools. The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.

Equally open to all. I’d place particular emphasis on one specific word here – ALL.  The easy kids are those who can learn in any environment, whether you have in-class instruction, or try to do it over the computer in a classroom remotely, or as we suffered through during COVID, force them to learn remotely at home.

It would be great if all kids were easy. I wish all my kids were easy. But they’re not. Life intervenes.   Some kids have behavioral issues, Some kids suffer from physical or mental illness. Some have disabilities. And you have some who lost badly in the lottery of life, and they have parents with their own problems including just plain old poverty, criminal behavior, mental illness, drug addiction, etcetera. And parent’s issues sometimes get dumped on the kid who might go to school in unclean clothes, or as happens all too often, they go to school hungry, and any food they get at school might be the only meal they get that day.

That’s the reality schools are forced to deal with. They get to be teachers paid on average at some of the lowest rates in the entirety of the United States. They also get to be disciplinarians, social workers, and mental health advocates, and any number of other professions just in an attempt to deliver an education as required under the constitution to the easy kids, the kids who might have challenges and even those who have behavioral issues.  If the legislature has a problem with the requests from the education lobby, and laments that the state is forced to go to “superhuman lengths to cater to the bottom portion of the behavioral spectrum,” then maybe the answer is to change the South Dakota Constitution and exchange the word “all” with “easy kids,” or another phrase to clarify which of our children are worthy of an education and which are not?

If they want to clarify which of our children it’s ok to leave behind, it would make it a lot easier for schools to tailor their requests to the legislature for needs and funding. Until then, whether legislators like it or not, schools are going to send their representatives to Pierre in January seeking assistance, clarification, and a way to pay for all is being demanded of them on how to best deal with the societal challenges they are forced to face just by virtue of doing their jobs.