South Dakota HB 1101: CBDT Analysis of Medical Cannabis Repeal Attempt

Bill Status: Introduced January 27, 2025; No Hearing Scheduled (Likely Dead)
Impact on Legal Market: Complete elimination of voter-approved medical program
CBDT Framework Application: Medical market destruction analysis
Last Updated: November 2025

Bill at a Glance

Executive Summary

South Dakota HB 1101 represents an extraordinary legislative attack on democratic will: a bill to completely repeal a medical marijuana program approved by 70% of voters just four years ago. Introduced by Rep. Phil Jensen and six Republican cosponsors, HB 1101 would eliminate the only legal cannabis channel in South Dakota, returning the state to total prohibition despite clear voter mandate for medical access.

CBDT Assessment: HB 1101 would be catastrophic for South Dakota's nascent legal cannabis market. By eliminating the medical program serving 8,000-10,000 patients, the bill would:

• Reduce legal market share from 8/100 to 0/100 (complete prohibition)
• Eliminate $35-45M annual legal medical market
• Force 8,000-10,000 patients back to $400-500M illicit market
• Eliminate $2.1-2.7M in tax revenue while maintaining $8-11M enforcement costs
• Increase arrests (patients lose legal defense, return to criminal market)

The bill represents textbook legislative nullification of voter-approved policy. While HB 1101 is unlikely to pass (no hearing scheduled, insufficient political support), its introduction demonstrates institutional hostility toward cannabis reform that extends beyond policy disagreement into democratic subversion.

Political Reality: HB 1101 is performative conservative signaling rather than serious legislation. The bill allows anti-cannabis legislators to tell base voters "I tried to repeal marijuana" while avoiding actual floor votes that would force colleagues to choose between voter will (70% approval) and ideological purity.

Bottom Line: HB 1101 should be rejected immediately. The bill disrespects democratic process, harms vulnerable patients, and demonstrates South Dakota's ongoing policy dysfunction on cannabis.

The Context: How South Dakota Got Here

Measure 26: The 70% Voter Mandate

On November 3, 2020, South Dakota voters approved Initiated Measure 26 (medical marijuana) by the largest margin of any cannabis initiative in state history:

• YES votes: 70% (368,112 votes)
• NO votes: 30% (157,852 votes)
• Margin: +40 percentage points

This wasn't close. This was overwhelming democratic consensus that medical marijuana should be legal in South Dakota.

Program details:

• Launched July 2021
• Qualifying conditions: 13 total (cancer, PTSD, chronic pain, seizures, severe nausea, etc.)
• Patient limits: 3 oz per 14 days
• Home cultivation: Up to 4 plants (if authorized)
• Current enrollment: 8,000-10,000 registered patients

Program performance (2023-2024):

• Annual sales: $35-45M
• Dispensaries: 15-20 statewide
• Tax revenue: $2.1-2.7M (sales tax only)
• Arrest reduction: 46% decline from 3,120 (2020) to 1,682 (2021) when medical launched

The medical program works. It serves patients, generates tax revenue, reduces arrests, and operates without significant public health or safety incidents.

The Amendment A Backstory: Courts vs. Voters

Understanding HB 1101 requires understanding South Dakota's broader cannabis history:

November 2020 (same ballot as Measure 26):

• Amendment A (adult-use legalization): Passed 54-46%
• Created constitutional right to adult-use cannabis
• Included comprehensive regulatory framework

February 2021:

• Circuit Court invalidated Amendment A (single-subject rule violation)
• Governor Kristi Noem had sued to overturn immediately after passage

November 2021:

• State Supreme Court upheld lower court 4-1
• Amendment A permanently nullified despite 54% voter approval

Result: South Dakota voters approved both medical (70%) and adult-use (54%) cannabis legalization in 2020. Courts overturned adult-use. Legislature now attacks medical.

The Pattern: Institutional Resistance to Democratic Will

South Dakota's cannabis policy reveals systematic institutional resistance:

The 2020 medical vote remains the clearest expression of South Dakota's democratic will on cannabis: 70% approval with no court challenges or subsequent voter reconsideration. Yet HB 1101 attempts to nullify it.

What HB 1101 Would Do

The bill text is remarkably simple: Complete repeal of SDCL Chapter 34-20G (medical cannabis law).

Eliminated Provisions

Patient protections:

• No affirmative defense for medical marijuana possession
• Medical cardholders subject to arrest for any cannabis possession
• No legal source for cannabis medicine

Dispensary operations:

• All 15-20 licensed dispensaries closed
• $50M+ private investment in cultivation/retail eliminated
• 200-300 jobs eliminated

Regulatory infrastructure:

• South Dakota Department of Health Medical Cannabis Program dissolved
• Patient registry eliminated
• Cultivation/testing/distribution licenses revoked

Home cultivation:

• Medical patients lose authorization for 4-plant personal cultivation
• Patients with debilitating conditions forced to illicit market or no access

What Happens to Patients

8,000-10,000 registered medical patients face three options:

Option 1: Return to illicit market

• Purchase untested cannabis from unlicensed dealers
• No quality control, unknown potency
• Risk of contamination (pesticides, heavy metals)
• Criminal exposure (possession still illegal without medical card)

Option 2: Cross-border access (Minnesota)

• Drive to Minnesota (now has adult-use sales as of 2025)
• Legal for Minnesota purchases but illegal to transport back to South Dakota
• Requires regular travel (expensive, time-consuming)
• Still illegal under South Dakota law

Option 3: Suffer without medication

• Return to pharmaceutical alternatives (opioids for pain, etc.)
• Accept reduced quality of life
• Some patients have no alternative treatments

Reality: Most patients choose Option 1 (illicit market). HB 1101 forces vulnerable medical patients into criminal market the medical program was designed to avoid.

CBDT Framework: Quantifying HB 1101's Destruction

The CBDT Framework measures legal market displacement of illicit markets. HB 1101 does the opposite: eliminates legal market, forcing 100% of medical patients back to illicit channels.

Current Medical Program Performance (Before HB 1101)

South Dakota current state (medical only, no adult-use):

Total cannabis market: $435-545M annually

• Illicit adult-use market: $400-500M (92%)
• Legal medical market: $35-45M (8%)

Legal market share: 8/100 (bottom tier, but >0)

Medical program CBDT scoring:

Variable 1: Price Competitiveness (g) – Weight: 4×

• Medical dispensary prices: $10-14/gram
• Illicit market prices: $8-11/gram
• Price gap: Legal 15-40% more expensive
• Score: -0.20 (modest disadvantage)

Variable 2: Access Density (D) – Weight: 1×

• 15-20 dispensaries for 909,824 population
• 1.65-2.2 per 100,000 residents
• Score: 0.25 (inadequate but present)

Variable 3: Safety/Quality (S) – Weight: 1.2×

• Mandatory testing (potency, pesticides, contaminants)
• Licensed facilities with quality control
• Clear labeling, childproof packaging
• Score: 0.85 (strong safety advantage)

Variable 4: Convenience (F) – Weight: 1×

• In-person card application required (no telemedicine)
• $75 state fee + $179-299 physician fee
• 15-20 dispensary locations (limited geographic coverage)
• Score: 0.35 (significant friction)

Variable 5: Enforcement (E) – Weight: 0.6×

• Medical program provides legal defense
• Patients exempt from arrest if within limits
• Illicit market faces enforcement (2,013 arrests in 2023)
• Score: 0.60 (moderate—medical patients protected, illicit market partially suppressed)

Current medical market penetration:

• Eligible population: 212,000-265,000 (qualifying conditions)
• Actual enrollment: 8,000-10,000
• Penetration rate: 3.8-4.7% (vs. 8-12% national average)

Why penetration is low:

• High fees ($254-374 total initial cost)
• In-person requirement (geographic barriers)
• Restrictive qualifying conditions (excludes anxiety, insomnia, migraines)
• Legislative instability (HB 1101 proves patients were right to worry)

Post-HB 1101 Performance (Complete Prohibition)

If HB 1101 passes:

Total cannabis market: $400-500M annually

• Illicit market: $400-500M (100%)
• Legal market: $0 (0%)

Legal market share: 0/100 (complete prohibition)

Impact on former medical patients:

8,000-10,000 patients × $4,000-5,000 annual spending = $32-50M total medical spending

Where this spending goes:

• Illicit market: $32-50M (100% shift to illegal channels)
• No dispensary revenue
• No tax revenue ($2.1-2.7M eliminated)
• No quality control
• No legal protections

CBDT scoring post-HB 1101:

All variables score 0—no legal market exists.

Enforcement impact:

• Former medical patients now subject to arrest
• Est. 200-400 additional arrests annually (patients lose affirmative defense)
• Total arrests increase from 2,013 to 2,200-2,400

Fiscal impact:

• Tax revenue: $2.1-2.7M → $0 (eliminated)
• Enforcement costs: $8-11M → $9-12M (increased arrest processing)
• Net fiscal loss: -$11-14M annually

CBDT Net Effect: -8 Percentage Points

HB 1101's CBDT impact:

• Current: 8/100 legal market share
• Post-HB 1101: 0/100 legal market share
• Net change: -8 percentage points (100% destruction of legal market)

This represents complete policy failure—not just failure to displace illicit markets, but active strengthening of illicit markets by eliminating legal alternatives.

The Political Analysis: Why HB 1101 Exists

Who Sponsored HB 1101?

Primary sponsors:

• Rep. Phil Jensen (R-Rapid City): Consistent cannabis opponent; voted against medical marijuana, adult-use initiatives
• Rep. Tony Randolph (R-Rapid City): Conservative caucus member; law enforcement background

Cosponsors (5 additional Republicans):

• All from conservative rural districts
• All voted against prior cannabis measures
• All face no electoral threat from moderate/liberal challengers

Who did NOT sponsor: 98 House members and all 35 Senators

HB 1101 represents fringe position even within Republican caucus.

Why Introduce a Bill With No Chance of Passage?

Political Incentives:

1. Base signaling

• Sponsors can tell conservative constituents "I fought against marijuana"
• Generates local news coverage in conservative media
• Demonstrates ideological purity to primary voters

2. Avoiding accountability

• Bill never gets hearing = No recorded vote
• Colleagues don't have to choose between voter will (70%) and party base
• Sponsors get credit for "trying" without forcing colleagues into difficult position

3. Narrative framing

• Creates perception that medical program is "controversial"
• Provides talking points for future ballot opposition
• Attempts to undermine legitimacy of voter-approved program

4. Fundraising

• Anti-cannabis advocacy groups donate to sponsors
• Creates campaign issue for conservative donors
• Differentiates sponsors from "moderate" Republicans

Why HB 1101 Won't Pass

Mathematical reality:

• House: 63 Republicans, 7 Democrats
• Passage requires: 36 votes (simple majority)
• HB 1101 sponsors: 7 legislators
• Need: 29 additional votes

Political obstacles:

1. Voter approval (70%)

• Overturning 70% voter approval is political suicide
• Even conservative districts supported Measure 26 (most passed 60%+)
• Legislators know constituents support medical marijuana

2. Patient advocacy

• 8,000-10,000 patients + families = 25,000-40,000 voters
• Patient testimony powerful: Cancer survivors, veterans with PTSD, chronic pain sufferers
• Voting to eliminate medicine for sick people is toxic politics

3. Economic stakeholders

• 6 licensed cultivation facilities invested $50M+
• 15-20 dispensaries employ 200-300 people
• These are Republican-friendly businesses (agriculture, entrepreneurship)
• Industry lobbying against HB 1101

4. Fiscal impact

• Eliminating $2.1-2.7M tax revenue during budget constraints
• Increasing enforcement costs
• No fiscal justification

5. Governor silence

• Gov. Noem opposed Amendment A (adult-use) and sued to overturn
• But has NOT called for medical repeal
• Her silence signals HB 1101 lacks executive support

6. No hearing scheduled

• House Health and Human Services Committee chair has not scheduled hearing
• Standard procedure for bills with no chance of passage
• Bill will die in committee

Passage probability: <5%

Winners and Losers if HB 1101 Passed (Hypothetical)

Losers

Medical patients (8,000-10,000):

• Lose legal access to medicine
• Forced to illicit market or suffer
• Return to criminal exposure
• Greatest harm to most vulnerable

Licensed cannabis businesses:

• $50M+ private investment eliminated
• 200-300 jobs lost
• Facilities/equipment worthless
• Legal businesses destroyed overnight

South Dakota tax revenue:

• -$2.1-2.7M annually
• During budget constraints
• No offsetting savings

Democratic process:

• 70% voter approval nullified
• Precedent: Legislature can overturn any initiative
• Chilling effect on future ballot measures

Public health:

• Patients return to untested illicit products
• No quality control, contamination risk
• Some patients return to opioids (addiction/overdose risk)

Law enforcement:

• Additional 200-400 arrests annually (patients lose legal defense)
• Resources diverted from serious crime
• Continued racial disparities (Native Americans 3.3× overrepresented)

Winners

Illicit cannabis market:

• +$35-45M annual revenue (former medical sales)
• Elimination of legal competition
• 100% market share restored

Ideological purists:

• Symbolic victory against cannabis normalization
• Can claim "defeated marijuana" to base voters

Out-of-state cannabis markets:

• Minnesota captures medical patients (cross-border sales)
• South Dakota foregoes tax revenue to Minnesota

Neutral

Most South Dakota legislators:

• Avoid difficult vote (bill dies in committee)
• Can claim neutrality (didn't vote either way)

The Broader Pattern: Legislative Attacks on Medical Cannabis

HB 1101 is not alone. South Dakota's 2025 legislative session included multiple attacks on voter-approved medical program:

Key development: HB 1124's defeat (February 26, 2025) demonstrates legislative appetite for medical cannabis attacks is limited. After HB 1124 failed, remaining bills (including HB 1101) lost momentum.

Pattern: Each session, anti-cannabis legislators introduce bills attacking medical program. Most die in committee. Occasional bills pass (like SB 12 in 2024 allowing employer termination for medical users in "safety-sensitive jobs"). But full repeal (HB 1101) is too extreme even for conservative legislature.

Federal Reform Impact (Irrelevant to HB 1101)

Normally, federal cannabis reform (Schedule III rescheduling, SAFE Banking Act) improves state legal market performance. But HB 1101 makes federal reform irrelevant—can't improve a market that doesn't exist.

If HB 1101 passes:

• Schedule III rescheduling: No impact (no legal market to benefit)
• SAFE Banking: No impact (no dispensaries to bank)
• Federal legalization: South Dakota still prohibited (state law independent)

Conversely, if HB 1101 fails and federal reform occurs:

• Schedule III: Medical dispensaries save 12-18% on costs (280E elimination)
• SAFE Banking: Card payments enabled, security improved
• Combined impact: Medical enrollment could grow to 12,000-15,000 patients

Federal reform makes medical program MORE successful—which makes HB 1101's repeal attempt MORE destructive.

Comparison to Other States' Medical Program Attacks

South Dakota is not unique—other states have attempted to undermine voter-approved cannabis programs:

Florida:

• No legislative repeal attempts
• But: Legislature imposed regulations limiting THC caps, delivery restrictions
• Result: Medical program survives but constrained

Montana:

• 2011: Legislature repealed voter-approved medical program
• 2016: Voters re-approved medical cannabis
• 2020: Voters approved adult-use
• Result: Temporary legislative victory, but voters persisted

Arizona:

• 2010: Medical marijuana approved by voters (50.1%)
• Legislature attempted restrictions, regulations to undermine program
• 2020: Voters approved adult-use (60%)
• Result: Voter persistence overcame legislative resistance

South Dakota pattern mirrors Montana:

• Courts overturn adult-use (Amendment A)
• Legislature attacks medical (HB 1101)
• Voters keep trying but face institutional obstruction

Key difference: South Dakota's 70% medical approval is unusually strong democratic mandate. Most medical programs pass 50-60%. Montana's 2004 medical initiative passed 62%. South Dakota's 70% represents overwhelming consensus—making legislative attack particularly egregious.

What Happens Next: Likely Outcomes

Short-term (2025):

HB 1101 fate:

• Dies in House Health and Human Services Committee (no hearing)
• Sponsors claim symbolic victory ("I tried")
• Medical program continues unaffected

Other medical cannabis bills:

• HB 1124 already defeated (February 26)
• HB 1123, HB 1209 likely die in committee
• Possible minor regulatory bills pass (not repeal)

Medium-term (2026-2028):

Adult-use legalization:

• Unlikely before 2028 (2026 midterm poor environment)
• Possible 2028 or 2032 ballot initiative
• Would need to overcome 2024 failure (IM 29 rejected 56-44%)

Medical program:

• Continues serving patients
• Gradual enrollment growth to 10,000-12,000
• Dispensary network expands to 20-25 locations
• Federal Schedule III rescheduling (2026-2027) improves economics

Federal reform:

• Schedule III: 70% probability by end of 2027
• SAFE Banking: 40% probability by 2028
• If both occur: Medical program significantly strengthened

Long-term (2029+):

Demographic inevitability:

• Voters under 50 support legalization 60%+
• Current older conservative electorate aging out
• Younger voters replace with pro-legalization preference

Regional pressure:

• Minnesota adult-use (2025)
• Possible Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota legalization (2028-2032)
• South Dakota increasingly isolated prohibition state

Economic pressure:

• Foregone tax revenue: $30-40M annually (if adult-use legalized)
• Minnesota capturing South Dakota cannabis revenue
• Border cities (Sioux Falls) demanding legalization to recapture revenue

Prediction: South Dakota legalizes adult-use marijuana by 2032, possibly sooner. HB 1101 represents last gasp of prohibition era, not viable long-term policy.

Conclusion: The Verdict on HB 1101

Should South Dakota pass HB 1101?

No. Absolutely, emphatically, categorically no.

Why HB 1101 is Indefensible Policy

1. Democratic legitimacy:

• 70% voter approval is overwhelming mandate
• Overturning voter will undermines democratic process
• Sets precedent that legislature can nullify any initiative

2. Patient harm:

• 8,000-10,000 vulnerable patients lose access to medicine
• Forces cancer patients, veterans with PTSD, chronic pain sufferers to illicit market
• Some patients have no alternative treatments

3. Fiscal irresponsibility:

• Eliminates $2.1-2.7M tax revenue
• Increases enforcement costs by $1-2M
• Net fiscal loss: $3-4M annually

4. Public health:

• Patients forced to untested illicit products
• No quality control, contamination risk
• Worse outcomes than regulated medical program

5. Criminal justice:

• Additional 200-400 arrests annually
• Continued racial disparities
• Resources diverted from serious crime

6. Economic destruction:

• $50M private investment eliminated
• 200-300 jobs lost
• Legal businesses destroyed

Why HB 1101 Will (Likely) Fail

• 70% voter approval creates political impossibility
• Patient advocacy mobilizes opposition
• Economic stakeholders lobby against
• Governor has not supported repeal
• No committee hearing scheduled
• <5% probability of passage

The Real Purpose of HB 1101

HB 1101 is performative legislation:

• Allows sponsors to signal to base voters
• Generates media coverage in conservative outlets
• Creates fundraising opportunity
• Avoids accountability (no floor vote)

But it's dangerous performative legislation—because it normalizes idea that overwhelming voter mandates can be ignored.

What South Dakota Should Do Instead

Reject HB 1101 immediately. Then:

1. Expand medical program:
   • Add qualifying conditions (anxiety, insomnia, migraines)
   • Reduce fees (barriers to access)
   • Authorize telemedicine
   • Increase dispensary count
2. Plan for adult-use legalization:
   • Comprehensive ballot measure (2028 or 2032)
   • Evidence-based policy (18-22% tax, statewide access, home cultivation)
   • Learn from 2024 failure
3. Advocate for federal reform:
   • Schedule III rescheduling
   • SAFE Banking Act
   • South Dakota delegation should lead

Bottom line: HB 1101 represents South Dakota at its worst—ignoring democratic will, harming vulnerable patients, and clinging to failed prohibition despite overwhelming evidence. The bill should die in committee. And South Dakota should start planning for evidence-based cannabis policy that respects both voter mandates and policy outcomes.

About This Analysis

This prediction uses the Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework, adapted for medical program destruction analysis.

Related analyses:

• South Dakota Cannabis Market Analysis
• Cannabis Legislation Tracker

Analysis by The Silent Majority 420 | November 2025