“At the state level, we probably have more questions than answers.”

By Makenzie Huber, South Dakota Searchlight

A federal change in medical marijuana’s legal classification should help South Dakota’s medical cannabis industry claim business tax deductions and gain access to banking, officials told state lawmakers Monday, but questions remain about the broader impact.

Whitney Brunner, administrator of the state’s medical cannabis program, told the legislative Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee during a meeting at the Capitol in Pierre that the federal government has shared little information about the change with the state—other than to request data.

“At the state level, we probably have more questions than answers,” Brunner said.

In April, the federal government moved medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal drug law. Schedule I drugs are considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule III drugs are recognized as having accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse.

Recreational marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under federal policy, even though 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational cannabis in various forms. South Dakota does not allow recreational marijuana use.

Medical marijuana has been legal in South Dakota since 2021, after voters approved it through a citizen-led ballot measure in 2020. Since then, South Dakota has built a regulatory framework—including licensing systems, testing requirements and oversight.

Brunner did not say whether South Dakota businesses will be required to register with the Drug Enforcement Administration to participate in the state program or what new compliance requirements they might face.

Kittrick Jeffries, chairman of the Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota and owner of Puffy’s Dispensary in Rapid City, said some businesses are taking the initiative.

“A lot of our establishments within our association are currently going through the DEA inspection process to become licensed under the DEA,” Jeffries said.

Cannabis businesses have long been blocked from taking certain federal tax deductions because marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance—meaning they couldn’t deduct ordinary business expenses the way other businesses can. Banks have also largely avoided working with cannabis businesses because marijuana remains broadly illegal under federal law, exposing financial institutions to regulatory penalties even in states where it’s legal.

The reclassification will allow medical cannabis businesses to claim deductions, said Nicole Ezeh, a presenter with the National Conference of State Legislatures. It should also ease banking access for the industry.

The federal changes come as South Dakota’s program is in transition. Brunner told lawmakers the department overhauled its medical cannabis inspection program over the last year, after inspectors were missing violations and citing establishments inconsistently.

“We realized last year, and it wasn’t a difficult realization to make, that we had a lot of work to do on inspections and our processes,” Brunner said.

The department created new procedures and training, reorganized its supervisor structure and added a formal process for businesses to challenge citations, Brunner said.

Rob Krogstad, who operates Bad River Cannabis in Fort Pierre, told lawmakers his business was fined $3,000 for two “clerical errors” that were corrected before inspectors left the building.

“There will be human error,” Krogstad said, adding that the fine forced the business to delay other operational expenses. He suggested a three-strikes approach for minor clerical errors, with immediate fines reserved for more serious violations.

A rules package moving through administrative review would “make this a little easier on establishments,” Brunner said. The package would simplify language around inventory tracking training and reduce how long businesses must store security camera footage—changes Brunner said would be less expensive and less “cumbersome.”

The rules package would also restructure the fines system, making first-offense minor violations result in a corrective action plan rather than an immediate fine.

This story was first published by South Dakota Searchlight.

Source link

South Korea has made substantial progress against smoking over recent decades. Higher tobacco taxes, smoke-free laws, graphic warnings, public education and cessation programmes have all contributed to falling cigarette use. Yet smoking still causes a major burden of preventable disease, and the decline appears increasingly difficult to sustain. The debate is therefore no longer simply about whether South Korea needs stronger tobacco control. It is about which policies will actually reduce smoking fastest without creating damaging unintended consequences.

A case to follow

Sweden’s experience does not necessarily indicate that snus and nicotine pouches alone caused its low smoking prevalence. Culture, taxation and conventional tobacco-control measures matter too. Nevertheless, Sweden demonstrates something highly relevant to South Korea: widespread use of nicotine does not necessarily require widespread cigarette smoking.

Still, this doesn’t completely address concerns about youth vaping. Other research conducted in New Zealand has pointed out issues regarding adolescent vaping patterns, emphasising the necessity for strong age limits and targeted protections for young individuals. The lesson is not unrestricted nicotine access. It is risk-proportionate regulation.

The prohibition problem

Applied to nicotine, Koumal highlighted an obvious contradiction: cigarettes remain legally available while products expected to pose considerably lower risks are sometimes prohibited or heavily restricted. That matters because prohibition does not necessarily eliminate demand.

Reversing the risk hierarchy

This is particularly relevant to South Korea’s treatment of newer nicotine products. South Korea already has substantial experience with alternatives to cigarettes, especially heated tobacco products. But regulation should increasingly distinguish products by their likely health risks and encourage complete substitution, rather than prolonged dual use.

This balanced approach aligns with Koumal’s “sweet spot”: not a completely hands-off market or outright prohibition but a regulated environment focused on measurable health outcomes. Additionally, South Korea should keep assessing whether these interventions are effective. If tighter restrictions lead to more illegal purchases or higher rates of smoking relapse or cigarette use, regulators ought to be ready to make adjustments instead of measuring success just by how many legal nicotine products are sold.

Smoking, not nicotine, should be the target

No problem, smokers who want and can handle complete nicotine abstinence should receive counselling, NRT and cessation medicines. But those unable or unwilling to quit nicotine should have accurate information and regulated pathways towards substantially lower-risk products.

South Korea has shown the positive outcomes that traditional tobacco control can bring. The next step forward might hinge on blending these policies with harm reduction strategies, striking a balance in regulation: being strict on cigarettes, cracking down on illegal sellers, safeguarding young people, while also being supportive of adults who are trying to quit smoking.

Foreign Influence, Sweeping Vape Bans and NRT Restrictions: Sounding the Alarm for Asia

Source link