South Dakota Moves to Outlaw Kratom and Hemp-Derived Consumables

South Dakota Moves to Outlaw Kratom and Hemp-Derived Consumables

PIERRE, SD – January 22, 2026 – The landscape for kratom and hemp-derived consumable merchants and consumers in South Dakota is facing a significant shift as a legislative panel has advanced bills to the Senate floor that would enact outright bans on these products. This development, emerging from the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, signals a serious threat to the availability and legality of these substances within the state.

What Happened: A Dual Legislative Push for Prohibition

On Wednesday, January 21, 2026, the South Dakota Senate Health and Human Services Committee considered two key pieces of legislation: Senate Bill 77 (SB 77) and Senate Bill 61 (SB 61). SB 77 specifically targets kratom, proposing to ban its sale, distribution, purchase, consumption, and possession, making violations a Class 2 misdemeanor. This bill would repeal existing regulations that previously outlined unlawful actions related to kratom products, such as restrictions on sales to minors and labeling requirements, effectively moving from regulation to outright prohibition.

Concurrently, SB 61 aims to ban hemp-derived intoxicants not intended for medical purposes. This bill seeks to prohibit the chemical modification or conversion of industrial hemp into various THC isomers (like delta-8, delta-9, delta-10 THC) and other derivatives. It also restricts the sale of hemp products containing chemically derived cannabinoids or those in amounts greater than 0.4 milligrams per container, with exemptions for medical marijuana products. The committee ultimately sent both bills to the full Senate without a clear recommendation, indicating the contentious nature of the debate.

Why This Matters to Kratom Merchants and Consumers

For kratom merchants, the passage of SB 77 would mean a complete cessation of legal operations within South Dakota. This ban would not only eliminate a market but also set a concerning precedent for other states. Consumers would lose access to a product many use for pain relief, energy, or as an aid for opioid withdrawal, forcing them to seek potentially unsafe alternatives or resort to the illicit market. The economic impact on businesses that have invested in the kratom market in South Dakota would be substantial, leading to potential closures and job losses.

Similarly, for merchants dealing in hemp-derived consumables, SB 61, if passed, would severely restrict the types of products they can offer, particularly those containing intoxicating cannabinoids. This could decimate a significant portion of the burgeoning hemp industry in the state, impacting product innovation and consumer choice.

Compliance Implications and What High-Risk Merchants Need to Know

The immediate compliance implication for merchants is the urgent need to monitor the progression of SB 77 and SB 61 through the South Dakota Legislature. Should these bills pass, any continued sale or distribution of kratom or restricted hemp products would result in legal penalties, including Class 2 misdemeanors.

For high-risk merchants, this legislative action underscores the critical importance of robust compliance practices, even in currently legal or less regulated markets. While South Dakota's current move aims for prohibition, in states where kratom and hemp products remain legal or are regulated under a Kratom Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), the following are paramount:

• Certificates of Analysis (COAs): Always ensure all products have current, third-party COAs from ISO-accredited labs. These COAs must verify the absence of heavy metals, pesticides, microbial contaminants, and accurately state alkaloid content (for kratom) or cannabinoid profiles (for hemp). This demonstrates a commitment to product safety and quality, which can be crucial in legislative debates.
• Lab Testing: Regular and comprehensive lab testing is non-negotiable. This not only protects consumers but also provides verifiable data that can counter negative narratives often presented by prohibitionist lawmakers. For kratom, this includes testing for mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine levels, and ensuring no synthetic adulterants are present. For hemp, it involves verifying THC levels and the absence of prohibited synthetic cannabinoids.
• Regulatory Compliance: Stay informed about all state and local regulations. Even in the absence of a federal framework, states are increasingly imposing their own rules. Adhering to labeling requirements, age restrictions, and marketing guidelines is vital. For example, previous South Dakota legislation highlighted the importance of pregnancy warnings on kratom products.
• Advocacy and Education: Engage with industry associations and advocate for responsible regulation rather than outright bans. Educate lawmakers and the public about product safety, consumer demand, and the potential negative consequences of prohibition.

The situation in South Dakota serves as a stark reminder that the legal status of kratom and hemp-derived products is continuously evolving. Merchants must remain vigilant, prioritize consumer safety through rigorous testing, and be prepared to adapt to rapidly changing regulatory environments to protect their businesses and the industry as a whole.