Aaron B. Cooper, Self
Good afternoon, Chair Garcia, Vice Chair Carley, and members of the committee.

My name is Aaron Cooper. I am a qualifying patient from Mitchell, South Dakota, and a recovering addict who has maintained continuous sobriety from hard drugs for more than six years. Cannabis has been a clinically useful tool in that recovery and in managing chronic conditions that previously required other medications with greater risk profiles.

I am here to offer three observations grounded in both the statute that created this committee and the practical experience of patients in rural South Dakota.

First, patient access remains uneven. Initiated Measure 26 directed this committee to evaluate whether qualifying patients in all areas of the state can obtain timely access to high-quality medical cannabis. In smaller communities and for patients who cannot easily travel to a limited number of dispensaries, that access is still constrained by both geography and the current product and testing framework.

Second, the committee’s statutory charge includes reviewing clinical aspects of the program and taking input from patients. The presentations scheduled today from researchers associated with Smart Approaches to Marijuana and similar organizations emphasize potential risks. Those risks are real for some populations and should be acknowledged. At the same time, the existing patient population in South Dakota—more than 18,000 registered cardholders as of recent Department of Health figures—includes individuals for whom medical cannabis has reduced reliance on opioids, improved functional capacity, and supported recovery from other substances. A balanced review requires both sets of data.

Third, federal rescheduling, if it proceeds, will interact with South Dakota’s existing statutory structure under SDCL 34-20G. This committee is well positioned to identify which state-level adjustments would protect patient continuity while aligning with any new federal classification. Clear guidance on testing standards, product labeling, and the distinction between medical and non-medical products would reduce confusion for both patients and licensees.

I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.