Lawmakers in South Dakota came together, and recommended on September 1, that the state Legislature should prohibit patients from growing medical marijuana in their homes. The Initiated Measure 26, that legalized medical and recreational cannabis, that voters approved in November 2020 included rhetoric to allow registered patients to cultivate a minimum of three plants at home, as reported by a KELO report. Although, the South Dakota Legislature’s Medical Marijuana Subcommittee voted 6-4 to recommend a ban on home cultivation, according to the news outlet.

Now, the ordeal will go before the full Marijuana Study Committee, which is made up of eight senators and 16 representatives The Medical Marijuana Subcommittee’s chairman, Senator Bryan Breitling, said references to home-grown were scattered through South Dakota’s new laws. Senator Bryan Breitling, said, “It’s hard to pick out a specific section to take a vote on.” He also said that the vote was on the concept of an overall repeal. 

The discussion came about one hour after the medical cannabis panel voted 8-2 to set some sort of a maximum number of plants that could be possessed. Breitling said the maximum question would be assigned to a workgroup to develop a proposal. He said, “We can agree there will be a max. We just don’t know what yet.” The state Department of Health meanwhile has to deliver its administrative rules on medical cannabis to the Legislative Research Council by September 6. 

The Legislature’s Rules Review Committee will decide on September 13 whether the rules can take effect. The department must reveal by October 29 its process for issuing medical marijuana cards to individuals who have debilitating conditions and physician approval, and to caregivers. Any changes to Initiated Measure 26 that are ultimately approved by the committee will also need to be passed by the state Legislature, which has immensely resisted making changes to the voter-approved initiative, according to an Argus Leader report. Senator Mike Rohl told the news outlet, “I don’t think they have the votes to get anything like that done in the long run.” This case highlights how no matter how important the continued fight for marijuana reform is.