Criminal Justice (Drug Policy)

HB 1162 adds 59 specific substances - including synthetic opioids like "W-18" and "butonitazene," as well as compounds such as "methiopropamine" - to South Dakota's Schedule I controlled substances list. This means these substances are now classified as having no medical use and a high potential for abuse under state law. The bill directly affects anyone in South Dakota who possesses, distributes, or uses these listed substances, making such actions illegal without specific exemptions. The key mechanism is the explicit inclusion of these chemical compounds (including isomers and salts) into Schedule I, closing potential legal gaps for enforcement.

SB 45 prohibits the sale, distribution, or possession of specific cannabis products (including delta-8 THC, THC-O acetate, and hexahydrocannabinol) to individuals under 21 years old. It makes it a Class 6 felony to sell or distribute these products to minors, and a Class 2 misdemeanor for minors to possess or consume them, or for adults (other than parents/guardians) to provide them to minors. The law directly affects retailers, minors under 21, and adults who might supply these products to underage individuals. Penalties are clearly defined based on the specific violation.

HB 1151 bans kratom and kratom products in South Dakota, making it a Class 2 misdemeanor to sell, distribute, purchase, consume, or possess them. It specifically prohibits sales or use by anyone under 21 (except by parents/guardians), and requires strict labeling for products that remain legal, including serving sizes, alkaloid content, and health warnings. The bill also prohibits products containing over 2% 7-hydroxymitragynine, synthetic compounds, or harmful additives. This directly affects consumers, businesses selling kratom, and retailers who must comply with new labeling rules.

HB 1065 would require individuals facing cannabis-related charges to possess a registry identification card to use a legal defense claiming they are permitted to possess cannabis. Currently, South Dakota law does not mandate this card for such defenses, but the bill would amend § 34-20G-53 to make it a requirement. This change would directly affect people charged with cannabis offenses who attempt to rely on this specific defense in court. The bill creates a new condition for accessing this defense, requiring the card as a prerequisite for its use.