South Dakota Lawmakers Vote To Eliminate Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee
The sponsor of the bill to eliminate the cannabis panel said it has become an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
By Joshua Haiar, South Dakota Searchlight
The controversial committee that oversees South Dakota’s medical marijuana program could come to an end.
A bill sponsored by Rep. Tim Goodwin, R-Rapid City, that passed the House 41-26 on Monday would repeal the sections of state law that established the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee. The bill goes to a Senate panel next.
The medical marijuana program itself would continue, under the regulation of the state Department of Health.
Current law requires the Legislature’s Executive Board to appoint an 11-member committee made up of two senators, two representatives,and seven non-legislative stakeholders from an array of backgrounds, including medicine, law enforcement, counseling and at least one patient.
The panel must meet at least twice a year and make recommendations to the Legislature and the Department of Health.
Goodwin said the committee made sense when the state was setting up the program after voters approved it in 2020, but he said the committee has since become an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
He said the Department of Health and the Legislature are equipped to manage the program going forward.
The legislation comes amid friction between the oversight committee and the medical marijuana industry.
In November, the committee approved 11 motions, primarily calling for tighter regulations, without publishing them in advance or taking public comment on each motion.
The state has 18,168 medical marijuana patient cardholders.
Innovia Consulting Acquires 365Vertical and 365 Cannabis
ONALASKA, Wis. — Innovia Consulting, a Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central consultancy, acquired 365Vertical and 365 Cannabis, two specialized Microsoft partners that deliver tailored enterprise resource management (ERP) solutions. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.
365Vertical and 365 Cannabis deliver Microsoft‑based ERP and business management solutions tailored to industries including cannabis, agriculture, manufacturing, and other regulated sectors. Their teams will join Innovia Consulting, expanding the company’s national footprint and strengthening Innovia’s ability to support customers navigating complex operational and compliance requirements.
The combined organization will continue to invest in vertical-specific product development, customer success, and strategic growth initiatives. The companies expect the transition to be seamless.
Support Healthy Dog Coats Through Gentle Plant- Based Remedies That Target Persistent Dryness
Many dogs struggle with dull fur and flaky skin that disrupts comfort and daily routines. But what can help bring back softness without harsh ingredients? Plant-based remedies offer gentle support that addresses dryness through natural …
US Cannabis Rescheduling: A Victory or a Federal Trap?
US cannabis rescheduling, much like President Donald Trump who is rightly credited for finally pushing it forward, has sucked all the oxygen out of the room for the last two years.
The project dominates headlines, largely dictates stock prices, and is a central part of any forward facing cannabis debate. This is understandable. The cannabis industry rarely gets the chance to celebrate regulatory progress on such a scale.
However, it has also learned the hard way what happens when optimism and hype outpaces financial and political reality.
In a new multi-part series from regular contributor and our resident reality-checker, Deb Tharp, a cannabis policy analyst and journalist whose work has appeared in Yahoo, STAT, POLITICO Pro, and Marijuana Moment, we are looking at cannabis rescheduling through another, more sinister lense.
This series examines the enforcement, regulatory, and political realities that legacy operators are overlooking, and makes the argument that the cannabis industry is not crossing a finish line with rescheduling, but becoming collateral damage in a state-federal war.
Liberal states that depend on cannabis revenue to fill budget gaps now face unprecedented federal pressure on immigration enforcement, regulatory compliance, and funding. Cannabis sits at the intersection of these conflicts, remaining federally illegal, documentation-heavy, labor-exposed, politically stigmatised, and revenue-critical to the very states under siege.
In the first installment, she begins with her thesis: the cannabis industry isn’t celebrating a victory. It’s being conscripted into a battle it doesn’t yet understand.
Misplaced Euphoria – The Cannabis Industry Isn’t Crossing a Finish Line. It’s Becoming a Pawn in a Brand New Battle Line
The cannabis industry believes it is about to cross a finish line. In reality, it has just crossed a line.
State cannabis markets are no longer experiments. They’re mature revenue streams that prop up flagging state budgets in a declining economy. Many of the states that depend on cannabis revenue are the very same liberal states locked in heated battles with the Trump administration over other salient ideals.
Amid euphoria over potential rescheduling and long-awaited tax relief, cannabis operators are missing the elephant in the room. The states most willing to protect cannabis markets are the same states under federal budgetary and enforcement pressure, particularly around immigration and regulatory compliance.
Cannabis is not insulated from that conflict. It’s exposed by it.
The DoJ is Accused of Losing its Moral Compass
The Trump administration is now openly accused of selective targeting and enforcement along ideological lines. It is becoming increasingly obvious that political opposition makes states and individuals an enforcement target. This is a frightening precedent for vulnerable populations.
And nothing makes selective enforcement easier or more appealing than legal grey areas.
Cannabis operators are about to learn what it feels like to become unwitting participants in a soft civil war between state and federal governments. This is not a war fought with tanks or barricades. It’s fought through funding freezes, administrative choke points, and unprecedented jurisdictional erosion.
Cannabis Gets Caught in the Crossfire
An example of this jurisdictional erosion is the ever-increasing 287g program that’s encouraging state and federal enforcement cooperation on a massive scale. The recent immigration raid against Glass House is just one example of this federal and local cooperation.
For those who don’t know what the 287g program is, it’s an incentive for local governments to cooperate with ICE, via equitable sharing of seized assets, in the increasingly hostile battle over immigration enforcement.
We’ll discuss this more in later sections of this series, but for now, suffice it to say that local governments are being incentivised to allow the feds into areas of enforcement where they were previously barred by policies of non-interference or outright funding denial.
In this environment, cannabis is not merely an ideological target…it’s a nearly irresistible one.
Against that backdrop, President Trump’s executive order directing the DEA to expedite cannabis rescheduling has been widely misread as a victory lap. Stocks surged. Headlines focused on historic progress and the promise of Section 280E relief. But the real question is not whether rescheduling will happen. It’s where the industry will stand once the high wears off.
First things first: cannabis has not been rescheduled yet. The rulemaking process remains vulnerable to defunding, delay, and legal challenge. In fact, the legal challenges are virtually guaranteed. The proposal itself acknowledges Congress’s ability to stall or derail implementation, and it preserves significant discretion for a resistant DEA. These caveats are not nefarious; they’re procedural. But they underscore a crucial point, that nothing about this process is settled, safe, or insulated from inevitable political interference.
Legal challenges are not hypothetical. They’ve been anticipated since Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers organized a multistate opposition campaign against rescheduling. That pushback is unlikely to kill the process outright. However, it will shape it. Cannabis opponents have no incentive to block rescheduling entirely if they can instead control the regulatory terrain that follows.
And that’s where the real danger lies.
What Rescheduling Does, and Doesn’t Do for the Industry
Rescheduling doesn’t liberalise cannabis. It federalises it. It opens the door to regulatory capture by actors who already know how to navigate FDA approval pathways, federal supply chains, and national distribution. This consolidation path did not begin with this administration. It has been developing for years. The executive order merely accelerates it.
Strip away the rhetoric, and the EO has two practical objectives:
First, to funnel cannabis into FDA-guided research and standards under an increasingly overwrought public-safety narrative.
Second, to clamp down on hemp-derived products, particularly full-spectrum cannabinoids and THC ratios, under a unified federal framework. Together, these moves pave the way for pharmaceutical-style oversight of cannabis and beverage-style commercialisation of hemp. This should surprise no one. The 2018 Farm Bill deliberately created a temporary, under-standardised hemp market while deferring FDA authority. That limbo was never meant to last. It bought time, set the stage, and gave the industry the rope needed for it to hang itself…nothing more.
The intent was spelt out clearly in the HHS rescheduling analysis:
“Based on these diverse sources of marijuana, there is a lack of unified controls on cultivation and manufacturing, which raises concerns related to the safety, quality, and consistency of botanical substances…” (See page 22)
Once cannabis products are positioned as drugs, make health claims, and enter interstate commerce, FDA authority attaches. What’s changing? FDA’s enforcement authority is far less defined under Schedule 1.
These are conditions that rescheduling actively encourages. Enforcement doesn’t have to be universal to change the playing field. Compliance gravity alone creates the black hole that reshapes access to capital, insurance, banking, and distribution.
Not That Big Pharma Takeover Line Again…
Yes, this really is a Big Pharma and Big Alcohol moment, and the inflection point that activists have warned about for decades.
Deb Tharp, cannabis policy analyst and writer.
Pharmaceutical companies will finally receive a clear pathway to patented, clinical-trial-backed formulations. These will be isolates or synthetics that patients already reject, but Big Pharma believes that regulatory capture will tip the scales in their favor anyway. They wrongly believe prohibition is an actual deterrent to manufacture of a medication that literally grows on trees.
Big Alcohol is aiming for a compliant runway for low-dose cannabinoid beverages through existing retail and distribution infrastructure–although the FDA has already missed the congressional deadline to name specific cannabinoids in the plant and legally define what constitutes “a container.”
Legacy cannabis operators may believe they can secure footholds at the margins, but most are structurally behind firms that have spent decades mastering FDA processes or already control national shelf space.
How the Changing Enforcement Landscape Affects Cannabis
Meanwhile, state-based legacy markets grow more vulnerable, not less. Many operators assume that staying intrastate insulates them from federal pressure.
It does not.
States like Missouri that previously outright banned cooperation with federal authorities for cannabis enforcement have seen dozens of local jurisdictions pairing with ICE over immigration enforcement. These partnerships open up avenues of enforcement that were previously closed through DoJ policy or congressional funding bans.
The cannabis market isn’t just a symbol of bodily autonomy and personal freedom. It’s a lucrative market that states depend on to cover budget shortfalls. It’s also a juicy target for incentivised law enforcement that benefits from civil asset forfeiture.
Through 287g and other programs, local governments are now overriding decades-long state and federal non-interference policies that cannabis operators previously relied on. Meanwhile, income from cannabis taxes become a tempting federal choke point to further financially punish “sanctuary states” that resist this administration’s agenda.
We’re witnessing the beginning of a perfect storm, and the cannabis industry is one of several targets that lie at the center, and clearly the lowest hanging fruit. Why? Cannabis is:
federally illegal,
documentation-heavy,
labor-exposed,
politically stigmatised,
revenue-critical to states
And again, to drive the point home, it’s a juicy target for incentivised law enforcement that benefits from civil asset forfeiture.
I’ve watched opponents chip away at progressive cannabis policy for three decades. This phase will be faster and more surgical than previous ones. We will see the obvious changes play out before election day.
Why? Largely because cannabis is an easy target in the ideological battle now playing out between states and the Fed. Also because there’s a flood of dark money from ideologues and opportunists alike funding this battle. So, in this series, I’ll lay out the existing hurdles rescheduling faces, the new enforcement tools that come into play when it finally passes, the changing enforcement landscape that is eroding the previous demilitarised zone between state and federal cannabis policy, and how, ultimately, 280E tax relief becomes completely irrelevant in our new normal.
Business of Cannabis will publish the next part of this series in the coming days…
Cannabis Dispensary Ships to Every State by Cratom. Legal Weed Delivery, Mail Order from Trusted Online Dispensary Shipping Cannabis to All 50 States in 2026
