South Dakota Bill to Restrict Intoxicating Hemp Products Scheduled for January 21 Public Hearing

Legislation that would significantly tighten South Dakota’s restrictions on hemp-derived intoxicants is scheduled for a public hearing on January 21 in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Senate Bill 61, “An Act to ban hemp-derived intoxicants not for medical purposes”, was filed last week by State Senator John Carley along with eight bicameral co-sponsors. The bill would ban the manufacture, sale, distribution, possession, and consumption of most hemp-derived intoxicating products that are not intended for medical use, marking one of the more sweeping hemp-related proposals introduced this session.

Under the legislation, chemically modifying or converting industrial hemp into intoxicating cannabinoids would be prohibited. This includes converting cannabidiol into delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC, delta-10 THC, or any other THC isomer, analog, or derivative. The bill would also bar the sale of hemp products containing cannabinoids that are chemically derived or synthesized outside of the plant, as well as products containing cannabinoids in amounts greater than 0.4 milligrams per container.

The measure draws a clear line between hemp-derived intoxicants and medical marijuana. Products regulated under South Dakota’s medical marijuana program would be explicitly exempt from the ban, leaving that framework unchanged. Outside of the medical system, however, violations would carry criminal penalties, with offenses classified as a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Senate Bill 61 also updates statutory definitions tied to the state’s hemp program, including clarifying what constitutes a “chemically derived cannabinoid” and redefining industrial hemp products to exclude items containing delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, THC-O, HHC, THCP, and similar compounds.

The January 21 hearing will be the bill’s first formal test before lawmakers, as advocates and opponents weigh in on how the proposal could affect hemp businesses, consumers, and enforcement across the state.

[Editor’s Note: Originally, the title of this article incorrectly stated “South Carolina” rather than “South Dakota”.]