SOUTH DAKOTA’S ATTEMPT TO FLIP KRATOM REGULATIONS TO PROHIBITION STALLS IN SENATE

An attempt to undo a recently passed set of kratom regulations fell short in South Dakota as the state opted to let those regulations “play out a bit” before reconsidering the laws surrounding the plant. 

A bill to move from regulation to prohibition stalled on the floor of the state Senate after a mixed reaction from the committee that considered the proposal. Instead of undoing efforts made during the 2025 legislative session to regulate kratom, the attempt to criminalize all kratom products failed to gain the recommendation of that committee before being voted down on the floor of South Dakota’s upper chamber of lawmakers. 

Sen. John Carley is the primary sponsor behind SB 77, a bill that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone who “sells, distributes, purchases, consumes, or possesses” any kratom product. That bill would undo the efforts of the 2025 state legislative session, which saw the state pass robust regulations for kratom sales. 

That newly minted law was the result of a robust discussion about “supercharged” products and set restrictions on products with artificially enhanced levels of 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), an alkaloid found in trace amounts in natural kratom leaf products. It also sets requirements for labels and instructions to help customers responsibly consume kratom in the state.  

The Case for Reconsidering Kratom

The first stop for the bill was a hearing before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Carley’s case against kratom started due to his claim that “new information has come to light” and referenced a death in the state, but did not clarify the type of product that the individual consumed. During his testimony, Carley did refer to 7-OH as “one of the compounds in kratom” without further clarification or information about the alkaloid from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

In addition to the local case, Carley referenced the death of Daniel Naroditsky, a famous chess player. He attributed the death to kratom without mentioning that Naroditsky also had methamphetamine and amphetamines in his system at the time of his death. Even with that toxicology report, the coroner still attributed Narodisky’s death to “probable cardiac arrhythmia” caused by an inflammatory disease. 

That didn’t stop Carley from using the example as part of his full-court press against kratom–including a string of six deaths he attributed to any product derived from the plant. 

Carley cited an outdated fact sheet published by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the WebMD listing for kratom. He also referenced both Amazon and Google searches for kratom–what he did not reference was the updated guidance from the FDA about the differentiation between natural leaf kratom and products with enhanced levels of 7-OH.

From Carley's perspective, the previous law regulating kratom sales did not go far enough. 

“How about we just ban the synthetic and semi-synthetic alkaloids or the chemically modified ones?” Carley said. “If you look at South Dakota codified law, actually, it would seem to indicate that this should already be illegal…It essentially already is, but we’re splitting hairs on that one. We still need this bill to make it extremely clear.”

Pushing Back on Prohibition

Opponents of the bill also had a chance to make their case to the committee. 

Advocates for kratom were quick to point out that the FDA was now targeting 7-OH products and created an exception for products that came from natural kratom leaf. From a local perspective, Sam Madson spoke on behalf of small business owners in the state. He pointed out that targeting a product that is regulated in other states and legal under federal law would only push customers to find alternative ways to purchase kratom products. 

With last year’s law in place, Madson said the best option was to enforce restrictions and safeguards on products and let local retailers supply kratom consumers with products that met those regulations.    

“We have a fentanyl epidemic in this state. Do we really want people to go to the street and go to the black market and get (kratom) and overdose on fentanyl?” Madson said. “I think that’s an important thing to think about when we talk about outright bans.”

Members of the committee were divided over the future of kratom regulations in the state. 

Those against the bill pointed out the absence of local medical professionals and other relevant parties that were involved in passing the previous kratom regulations. When it came to the kratom deaths in the state, other members of the committee pointed out that the deaths referenced by Carley occurred before regulations were put in place. 

“We just passed a law last year to address these issues, to make it adult use, to require labels, to do these different things,” Said Sen. Jamie Smith. “We have to let that play out a little bit to see if it works.”

Instead, Smith made a motion to move the bill to the 41st day of the 40-day session, essentially killing the bill. Committee chair Sen. Kevin Jensen spoke out about concerns with kratom and anecdotal evidence from his wife, who works in addiction recovery. Jensen spoke against the idea of tabling the bill and especially mentioned concerns about minors gaining access to kratom. 

Smith’s motion failed by a narrow 4-3 vote, and instead, a motion was introduced by Jensen and passed to advance the bill without recommendation. Sen. Perry was one of the four who voted against killing the bill and countered with a motion to move the bill back to the floor of the Senate without a recommendation. That motion passed unanimously. 

From there, the bill went back to the floor and faced a vote to be placed on the calendar despite not having the support of the committee it was referred to. The attempt to revive the bill was defeated by a 20-13 vote from the entire Senate, which effectively killed the proposed ban.