South Dakota Senate Panel Advances Full Kratom Prohibition Bill Despite Divided Testimony

Why it matters

South Dakota already passed age limits and potency rules for kratom in prior legislative sessions. A move to full prohibition would mark a significant escalation, and the testimony in committee reflects the same deep divisions playing out in state legislatures across the country — pitting public health advocates against users and businesses who say kratom helps people off opioids.

The big picture

South Dakota has incrementally regulated kratom since 2021, banning sales to minors, then adding potency limits and label requirements, and banning adulterated derivatives in 2025. Senate Bill 77, which would ban all kratom possession, sale, and use with misdemeanor penalties, represents the most sweeping action yet. The state Department of Health reported at least six kratom-related deaths in 2024. Meanwhile, other states such as California have recently moved to declare kratom sales illegal.

Key findings

• Senate Bill 77, sponsored by Sen. John Carley (R-Piedmont), would make kratom possession, sale, and use a class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine
• The Senate Health and Human Services Committee advanced the bill with no recommendation, sending it to the full Senate for a floor vote
• South Dakota's Department of Health attributed at least six deaths in 2024 to kratom use
• Supporters cited the DEA, the DOH data, and California's recent declaration that kratom sales are illegal
• Opponents, including the Global Kratom Coalition, argued 18 clinical trials show natural kratom is safe and that existing regulations should be given time to work

What they say

Matthew Lowe of the Global Kratom Coalition testified: "I think we need to focus on what has been passed and create a safe marketplace before we walk down the path of prohibiting natural kratom leaf entirely."

Bottom line

South Dakota is weighing a full kratom prohibition — a stark contrast to states pursuing regulation rather than outright bans, and a sign of how unresolved the policy debate remains at the state level.