South Dakota Lawmakers Say No to Banning Flavors in Medical Cannabis Products

The rule would have barred the use of “non-cannabis terpenes”—natural and synthetic aromatic chemicals used to flavor products—in all cannabis products except tinctures

By John Hult, South Dakota Searchlight

W ithin the esteemed chambers of the legislative assembly in Pierre, South Dakota, a comprehensive and deliberative discourse transpired, culminating in the definitive rejection of a legislative proposal intended to eliminate the addition of flavoring constituents to cannabis-infused edibles and vaporizable substances. The assembly, which convened on a Tuesday, reached a unified accord in opposition to this specific interdiction.

Furthermore, the esteemed legislative assembly engaged in robust discussions regarding a rigorous regulatory proposition that necessitated comprehensive testing by medical cannabis producers. This particular regulation would have imposed an obligation upon medical cannabis producers to conduct thorough and detailed inspections not only of the cannabis plant matter used in the creation of pre-rolled medical cannabis cigarettes, commonly known as ‘joints,’ but also of the rolling papers utilized in these preparations. The intent behind this directive was to ensure that both components met the highest standards of safety and quality before reaching medical cannabis consumers.

The debated regulatory measures were part of an expansive and meticulously crafted 31-page document outlining a series of proposed revisions to the current legal framework governing the medical cannabis program in the state. The document, replete with potential amendments, was brought before the Interim Rules Review Committee, a legislative body entrusted with the critical task of assessing and validating the suitability of proposed rule changes within the context of the state’s medical cannabis program.

The genesis of the medical cannabis initiative in South Dakota was realized through the democratic process, with the electorate’s resounding approval of a ballot measure in the year 2020. This pivotal decision enshrined the medical use of cannabis into law for patients with qualifying medical conditions, as delineated by the state’s guidelines. The latest report issued by the South Dakota Department of Health as of October 23 provides a testament to the program’s acceptance, with a notable 12,325 individuals having been granted medical cannabis cards. This endorsement facilitates their access to cannabis, affirming its status as a medicinally beneficial substance and recognizing these individuals as rightful recipients of its therapeutic advantages.

The establishment of the medical cannabis program reflects a broader societal acknowledgment of the potential medicinal benefits of cannabis, which has historically been viewed through a lens of skepticism and legal prohibition. The adoption of this program marks a significant shift towards embracing alternative therapeutic modalities and underscores the state’s commitment to addressing the health needs of its citizens through progressive health policies. With the continued monitoring and oversight by the Department of Health and the Interim Rules Review Committee, the medical cannabis program is poised to evolve in response to emerging research, patient feedback, and the dynamic landscape of medical cannabis regulation.

Cannabis Sellers: Flavor Ban is Too Wide-reaching

The distinguished Program Director of South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Program, Ms. Tamarah Lee, in a solemn assembly of the legislative counsel, presented a comprehensive and cautious exposition on the ramifications of incorporating non-cannabis substances into medical cannabis preparations. With a firm grounding in methodical research, Ms. Lee brought to light the potential adverse effects these foreign additives may have on the health of patients. She referenced a detailed and authoritative white paper from the year 2020, published by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, an entity charged with the oversight of cannabis regulations in the state of Oregon. This academic treatise meticulously outlined the potential hazards posed by both artificially manufactured and naturally derived, non-cannabis flavoring agents, with an emphasis on those used in vaporizing devices.

The white paper offered a comprehensive investigation into the negative health outcomes resulting from the act of vaporizing and inhaling heated cannabis oil, with a particular emphasis on the significant respiratory distress this could cause.

“Inhaling these compounds is detrimental to the health of the lungs,” proclaimed Ms. Lee with considerable gravity to the legislative body. “It is of utmost importance that we prioritize the safety of our patients.”

The rule under consideration for legislative endorsement was meticulously crafted to categorically prohibit the inclusion of “non-cannabis terpenes,” which include both naturally occurring and synthetically created aromatic compounds that are conventionally used to flavor a wide array of consumable items—in every class of cannabis-derived products, save for the exception of tinctures. Tinctures, which are concentrated forms of cannabis taken orally, typically through sublingual absorption, would not fall under this prohibition, on the condition that the terpenes used for flavoring were extracted from cannabis plants.

This rigorous policy recommendation encountered robust opposition from the delegates of the cannabis industry. These representatives argued that terpenes are ubiquitous in many products used for medicinal purposes and in common goods consumed by a broad demographic, which includes both young individuals and adults who have not engaged with cannabis products.

Mr. Tyler Koehne, representing KTTK LLC based in Rapid City, spoke at length about the prevalence of terpenes in a multitude of consumer products. He highlighted that an extensive variety of commercially available items, such as therapeutic syrups, dietary supplements, and an assortment of beverages, contain the same chemical compounds used to enhance the taste of cannabis edibles like gummies.

“The ingestion of flavored items is a fundamental component of our daily consumption,” stated Mr. Koehne, drawing attention to the pervasive nature of such additives in our diets.

Moreover, Mr. Koehne elaborated that even commonplace flavorings such as sugar or coconut oil would fall within the scope of the proposed restrictions. He, along with other representatives from the cannabis industry, acknowledged the potential risks posed by additives that have not been subjected to rigorous testing in vaping products. However, they maintained that an outright ban on flavorings, with the sole exception of tinctures, constituted an overly restrictive action that could potentially lead to the demise of a broad array of products. These products are crucial for individuals who find the natural flavor of cannabis unpalatable and opt not to smoke.

“If the state of Oregon has seen fit to implement a prohibition on inhalable forms, why should we consider extending such restrictive measures to all product forms?” posed Mr. Koehne, encouraging the legislative assembly to consider a more targeted and sophisticated approach to the regulation of flavorings in cannabis-related items.

Pre-roll Testing Rule Gets Rejected

The secondary regulation, which was subjected to meticulous scrutiny, imposed an onerous requirement upon manufacturers to undertake exhaustive testing of the rolling papers utilized in the production of pre-rolled cannabis cigarettes. The esteemed Program Director, Ms. Tamarah Lee, voiced considerable concern regarding the latent health risks posed by certain rolling papers, potentially detrimental to the well-being of consumers.

The extant regulatory edict stipulated a comprehensive post-production evaluation of cannabis products. Notwithstanding this, a discrete exemption had been recognized for pre-rolled cannabis products, thereby permitting manufacturers to isolate the testing of the cannabis material before its integration into a joint, circumventing the need to test the combined end product.

Representative Jean Hunhoff (R-Yankton), exercising due diligence, questioned the comparability of the rolling papers used in cannabis pre-rolls to those conventionally employed in the manual rolling of tobacco cigarettes. In response, Mr. Koehne, representing a manufacturing concern, provided a detailed exposition on the wide array of rolling papers in circulation within the commercial domain. He articulated a preference for the selection and use of papers that had undergone prior validation, rather than embarking on the testing process independently.

Confronted with a similar question from Representative Hunhoff regarding the parity between rolling papers for cannabis and those for tobacco, Ms. Lee acknowledged a gap in her personal experience with such materials. “It is incumbent upon me to admit that my acquaintance with these materials is not practical; therefore, my insights are not entirely definitive,” Ms. Lee confessed, “While I recognize there is a divergence, I am not in a position to affirm this with absolute certainty.”

Senator Jim Mehlhaff (R-Pierre), upon careful consideration of the robust arguments put forth by representatives of the cannabis industry, introduced a motion to rescind the regulations concerning the testing of pre-rolled papers and the addition of flavorings. About the testing of pre-rolls, he posited that the policy might be “somewhat inefficient,” highlighting the redundant nature of conducting separate assessments for the rolling papers and the cannabis therein.

Turning to the debate over flavorings, Senator Mehlhaff illuminated the contradiction manifest in the Department of Health’s generalized concerns about the safety of flavor additives juxtaposed with the specific dispensation granted to tinctures.

“We are faced with a conundrum in which tinctures are sanctioned for consumption notwithstanding the flavorings they encompass, whereas other edible cannabis products are precluded from containing similar additives,” Senator Mehlhaff elucidated.

The committee, having engaged in thoughtful and extensive contemplation, aligned with Senator Mehlhaff’s motion, agreeing to repeal the two controversial provisions. In the wake of this concurrence, the legislative assembly collectively endorsed the enactment of the residual components of the regulatory framework.