South Dakota Senate Rejects Debate On Banning Intoxicating Hemp And Kratom

South Dakota hemp-derived THC ban stalls on the Senate floor, with kratom dragged into the undertow

South Dakota hemp-derived THC ban talk died on the vine this week, not with a grandstanding speech or a moral panic, but with a procedural shrug. In Pierre, where winter wind slices across the prairie and into the marble halls, senators voted against even discussing whether to ban intoxicating hemp products and kratom. A committee had moved both ideas out without a recommendation—no love, no hate, just a cold handoff—and by Senate rules that meant the full chamber had to bless debate before anything real could happen. It didn’t. The push to block hemp-derived consumables from anyone without a medical marijuana card—filed as Senate Bill 61—never made it to center stage. Neither did the kratom prohibition, Senate Bill 77. The votes were clean and final-for-now: 19–14 against debating the hemp bill, 20–13 against touching kratom. No debate, no catharsis—just a hard pass that says more about the mood of the room than the chemicals in question.

Inside the sausage grinder: rules, amendments, and a Monday that never came

Sen. Kevin Jensen tried to tee it up. He moved to stick both bills on the Senate’s Monday calendar, promising amendments for SB 61 to soothe the doubters—like a bartender offering to cut the whiskey with water after the first sip hits harsh. Sen. John Carley, the sponsor, reminded colleagues that the Health and Human Services Committee had at least agreed the proposals deserved a floor airing. But this wasn’t a vote on science or morality; it was a vote on whether to talk about either one. And the chamber, with its peculiar ritual that requires a majority just to greenlight conversation, decided it wasn’t in the mood. What’s left is the outline of a debate that never happened: questions about intoxicating hemp derivatives, consumer safety, small-business livelihoods, and whether South Dakota’s cannabis policy reform should tighten or loosen at the margins—folded neatly back into the drawer, for now.

• A Senate committee advanced SB 61 (hemp-derived intoxicants) and SB 77 (kratom) without recommending passage.
• By rule, bills without a recommendation need a majority vote to be placed on the calendar for debate.
• Floor outcome: 19–14 against debating SB 61; 20–13 against debating SB 77.
• Supporters promised amendments to SB 61; they didn’t get to pitch them.

What this says about the market—and what other states are doing while South Dakota hesitates

The larger backdrop is a national tug-of-war over intoxicating hemp products—things born legal under federal hemp law, then refashioned into psychoactive experiences through chemistry and ingenuity. Some states draw bright red lines; others let the market breathe. You can feel the push-pull in Pierre, a place that wants clarity without collateral damage. Meanwhile, the Midwest map isn’t standing still. Across the border, tax revenue from legal cannabis is already hitting municipal budgets, with Ohio Cities Begin Receiving Marijuana Revenue To Support Local Programs And Services, giving mayors and city councils something concrete to point at when skeptics grumble about promises. Out east, the politics are shifting with speed: Virginia House And Senate Lawmakers Approve Bills To Legalize Marijuana Sales Under New Pro-Reform Governor, a signal that the legal cannabis revenue conversation is moving from if to how. And in Washington, there’s a growing appetite to stop playing whack-a-mole with hemp derivatives and build a ruleset that treats chemistry, potency, and packaging like the real risk factors they are—see the push outlined in New Bipartisan Congressional Bill Would Regulate Hemp Products, In Contrast To Ban Trump Signed. South Dakota’s vote to skip debate doesn’t end the story; it just leaves the market and consumers in the same limbo they woke up to yesterday.

The thin ice between progress and panic

Regulating intoxicating hemp isn’t a binary switch; it’s a dimmer. Get too heavy-handed and you gift the illicit market a windfall. Get too loose and you invite headlines that write the rules for you. The volatility isn’t unique to hemp or kratom. Reformers in adjacent spaces remind us the terrain is unforgiving: one sloppy move, one misread headline, and momentum evaporates. That lesson echoes through the halls as clearly as any floor speech—captured in the cautionary note from Bipartisan Lawmakers Warn That Even One Mistake In Push For Psychedelics Access Could Derail Progress. South Dakota’s choice not to debate might be read as prudence—wait for sharper amendments, tighter definitions, better guardrails. Or it might be political self-preservation. Either way, when the chamber opts for silence, the conversation doesn’t end. It goes elsewhere: to city councils, to border states, to online carts, to workplaces and ERs and courtrooms, to the families parsing what their teenagers just bought at a gas station. Policy avoids debate at its own peril.

After the non-vote: what to watch, what it means

For the South Dakota cannabis market, this is a pause, not a verdict. Advocates of a ban will regroup, sharpening language and hunting for votes. Opponents will argue for a scalpel instead of a hammer—age limits, potency caps, testing, packaging, retail licensing—anything short of a blackout that pushes consumers underground. If lawmakers bring back SB 61 with real amendments, the only honest way to land this is with daylight: testimony from chemists, small operators, law enforcement, doctors, and the people who actually buy and use these products. Kratom will need that same daylight—evidence over anecdotes, standards over stigma. Until then, South Dakotans live with the status quo, and the market keeps moving like a river under ice: quiet on the surface, powerful underneath. If you want to stay close to the action—and the culture that keeps evolving around it—take a look at what’s on the shelves at our shop.