How South Dakota’s 3 New Bills Could Transform Medical Marijuana
A Guide to South Dakota’s Medical Marijuana Bills
The Senate Health and Human Services committee has recently made a shocking move by pushing forward three bills related to medical marijuana. These bills, which aim to further regulate the medical marijuana industry in South Dakota, are led by committee chair Republican Sen. Erin Tobin, who has a background as a healthcare provider.
Two of the bills, SB10 and SB11, went to the Senate floor for further debate, while the third bill, SB71, went directly to the Senate consent calendar, as it did not face any opposition in the committee.
According to critics of the bill, SB71 is a dangerous piece of legislation that proposes to give more power to law enforcement and governmental agencies to inspect, search, seize, prosecute, or take disciplinary action against cannabis-related businesses.
The bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, argues that this is necessary to prevent medical marijuana facilities from engaging in illegal activities, such as selling cannabis for recreational use (this, despite the reality that 24 states already allow the sale of recreational marijuana). He claims that the current law does not provide enough tools for local and state law enforcement to monitor and enforce the legal operation of medical marijuana facilities.
Opponents of the bill counter that law enforcement already has the authority to intervene in medical marijuana issues, as long as they have a search warrant and probable cause.
They also contend that the South Dakota Department of Health (DOH) is responsible for overseeing the medical marijuana program, and that adding more law enforcement involvement is not needed. They cited the example of bars, which are subject to compliance checks by law enforcement, and say that medical marijuana dispensaries should not be treated the same way.
Republican Sen. Al Novstrup expressed his doubts about the need for inspections and asked whether businesses should be exposed to such scrutiny.
Medical marijuana lobbyists, Jeremiah Murphy and Roger Tellinghuisen, maintained that the existing law protected patient privacy, and that inspections should only be conducted with probable cause. They have also voiced their concerns that SB71 could violate patient confidentiality, as it would allow law enforcement to access patient records and information.
Committee vice-chair Republican Sydney Davis, who is also a healthcare provider, shared the concern about patient privacy, and says with regard to the medical field, “...we don’t have police officers come into our work to check if we are following health care laws,”.
Murphy explained that the current law allowed for inspections with probable cause, and that patient privacy was respected. He also pointed out that the DOH had the authority to revoke or suspend the licenses of medical marijuana facilities that violated the law.
SB71 received support from the South Dakota Attorney General and the South Dakota Sheriffs Association, who believed that the bill would enhance public safety and accountability. Tobin acknowledged the privacy concerns, but suggested that having police officers visit medical marijuana facilities could be helpful, as they could observe the operations and conditions firsthand.
During the committee vote, Davis changed her initial no vote on SB71 to a yes, after hearing the arguments from both sides. The bill passed with a 6-1 vote, with only committee member Democrat Sen. Shawn Bordeaux voting against it.
Tobin’s sponsored bill, SB10, also passed unanimously and moved to the Senate. The bill focused on requiring healthcare providers to notify the DOH of any medical cannabis certifications they issued to patients.
Meanswhile, SB11, another Tobin-sponsored bill, faced no opposition from the committee and was set for the Senate consent calendar, which meant it would likely pass without debate.
The bill deals with the issue of healthcare providers referring patients to medical marijuana clinics that they had a financial relationship with, which could create a conflict of interest and compromise the quality of care.
The bill prohibits healthcare providers from knowingly referring patients to medical marijuana clinics that they own, operate, or have a direct or indirect financial interest in, unless they disclosed the relationship to the patient and the DOH.
The bill also prohibits medical marijuana clinics from compensating healthcare providers for referrals, or soliciting referrals from healthcare providers who have a financial relationship with them.
Tobin amended the bill to include the word “knowingly,” to clarify that the bill only applied to cases where the healthcare provider was aware of the financial relationship.
This was important, as some medical marijuana clinics may have complex ownership structures that may not be transparent to the healthcare provider.
These bills represent a blatant attempt to undermine the burgeoning medical marijuana landscape in South Dakota, ignoring the various aspects of law enforcement oversight, patient privacy, and healthcare provider responsibilities.
They also go against the will of the people, who voted in 2021 to legalize cannabis for medical use. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 88% of U.S. adults say either that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use (59%) or that it should be legal for medical use only (30%)3.
By presenting these three bills, the politicians are seemingly overriding the wishes of the public in favor of their own agendas, apparently aimed at increasing regulation, instead. As they advance through the legislative process, the details of each bill will likely be further examined and challenged.