South Dakota’s ‘Fake Weed’ Ban Takes Effect Amid Legal Challenge

South Dakota's 'Fake Weed' Ban Takes Effect Amid Legal Challenge

A new law in South Dakota prohibiting the production and sale of certain hemp-derived products with intoxicating effects goes into effect on July 1st. This comes despite a lawsuit filed by a Pierre-based hemp store, Hemp Quarters 605, challenging the law’s constitutionality.

The Law and the Legal Battle

House Bill 1125, signed by Governor Kristi Noem in March, targets specific chemicals found in low concentrations in hemp plants. These chemicals can be synthesised and concentrated, creating products that mimic the psychoactive effects of marijuana’s THC.

Hemp Quarters 605 argues that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with the interstate sale of legal products. They also claim the law contradicts the 2018 federal farm bill which legalised hemp with a THC content below 0.3%.

The store sought a preliminary injunction to block the law’s implementation while the lawsuit progresses. However, U.S. District Judge Eric Schulte denied the injunction, ruling that the state has the authority to regulate hemp within its borders for public health and safety reasons.

What’s at Stake?

The availability of products like gummies, vape pens, and smokable hemp containing the targeted chemicals is now in question. These products have been widely available across South Dakota in gas stations, grocery stores, and specialty shops like Hemp Quarters 605.

The store claims that hemp-derived products make up a significant portion of their business, and the law could force them to close. While Judge Schulte acknowledged this potential harm, he determined that the state’s interest in regulating potentially unsafe products outweighed the store’s concerns.

Uncertainties Remain

The lawsuit challenging the law is still ongoing. Even though the injunction was denied, it doesn’t guarantee a win for the state. The judge’s decision focused on the specific arguments presented for the injunction, not the overall merits of the case.

Furthermore, while the law is now in effect, enforcement remains unclear. The Hughes County state’s attorney has stated they don’t plan immediate prosecution, and the Attorney General’s office typically avoids prosecuting misdemeanours like those outlined in the law.

Source

Southdakotasearchlight

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.