In a major political reversal that stunned both advocates and opponents of cannabis reform, Governor Greg Abbott has vetoed Senate Bill 3, the controversial measure that would have effectively banned nearly all hemp-derived THC products in Texas.
The bill—championed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and passed by both chambers of the Legislature in May—sought to outlaw products containing any detectable amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a sweeping move that would have shuttered hundreds of small businesses and sent shockwaves through the $8 billion hemp industry.
Governor Abbott allowed the bill to sit on his desk for the full 20-day consideration period before finally acting late Sunday. As of this writing, no formal veto proclamation has been released, but sources close to the governor cited concerns about economic disruption, job losses, and veterans’ access to therapeutic hemp products as key factors in his decision.
“This veto is a lifeline,” said Russell Dowden, publisher of Texas Hemp Reporter and long-time industry voice. “Governor Abbott heard our message—and the voices of thousands of veterans, farmers, patients, and retailers—and made the right call.”
The decision marks a rare public break between Abbott and Patrick, whose office had made passage of SB 3 a top priority. Patrick has since doubled down on his opposition to THC products, telling the press that he expects a renewed push to “clean up” the market during a special session or the 2027 Legislature.
Industry leaders and civil liberties groups had lobbied intensely for the veto, warning that SB 3 would criminalize legal commerce, create confusion for law enforcement, and potentially violate both state and federal constitutional protections.
Meanwhile, litigation challenging the law was already in motion. A coalition of farmers, manufacturers, and medical companies had filed suit last week seeking to block enforcement on grounds of irreparable harm.
Abbott’s veto does not end the debate, but it buys crucial time for the hemp industry to regroup, professionalize, and advocate for a more rational regulatory framework.
“This was never about getting high,” said one veteran advocate. “It was about staying alive, staying out of pain, and staying in business.”
As the political dust settles, all eyes now turn to whether Lt. Gov. Patrick will push for a special session—and whether lawmakers can craft a smarter, science-based policy that protects consumers without crushing small businesses.
The Texas Hemp Reporter will continue to track developments and publish updates as they unfold.
People from every corner of the industry—consumers of our products, allies, enemies, friends, and frienemies alike—have been blowing up my phone and sliding into my DMs for the past 36 hours. The question on everyone’s mind: *What’s Abbott going to do about SB 3?*
Well, I’ve been around this building and this issue long enough to have a very clear set of criteria for what I call a **sophisticated wild-ass guess** (SWAG). And at the risk of torching what little remains of my reputation as an astute observer of Texas politics, I’m going to say it outright:
**Governor Abbott will veto SB 3 tonight.**
Now, I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before. But I’m also secure enough in the knowledge that if I *am* wrong, the legal teams already sharpening the knives for a constitutional challenge to SB 3 are in excellent position to succeed. These aren’t amateurs. They’re the same group I helped assemble and coordinate in *Sky Marketing v. Hellerstedt*, where we secured a temporary injunction that kept the industry alive and operational for the past five years. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
So maybe this isn’t wisdom talking. Maybe it’s just the overconfidence of a guy who knows more than anyone else about what goes on under that Pink Dome. But I’ve got receipts, I’ve got perspective, and I’ve got the late-night texts to prove just how deep this runs. So here’s my reasoning—clear-eyed, bare-knuckled, and grounded in 30 years of watching Texas politics up close.
Abraham Lincoln—consistently ranked among the greatest Republicans ever to hold office—once observed, “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” It’s a line that’s held up remarkably well, especially in Texas politics, where the contrast between our top two statewide officeholders could not be more vivid.
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, never one to let a microphone go cold, seems determined to test Lincoln’s wisdom on a near-daily basis. If there’s a press conference, a pulpit, or a news camera within 50 feet, Dan will find it—and fill it—with grim anecdotes, shaky claims, and the kind of moral panic that would make Carrie Nation blush. Whether it’s teenage “scromiting,” zombie stoners, or apocalyptic warnings about hemp gummies, Patrick has become a one-man flood of fear and folksiness, rarely pausing long enough to wonder whether the rest of us have stopped listening.
Governor Abbott, by contrast, prefers to let the silence work for him. He rarely indulges in theatrics or legislative sermonizing. Instead, he waits. Watches. And when the moment is right, he reaches for his veto pen and uses it like a surgeon—or, depending on the bill, a medieval executioner. Say what you will about Abbott, but he doesn’t need to grandstand. He lets his vetoes do the talking—and in the case of SB 3, that pen may be the last line of defense between reason and full-blown reefer madness.
Patrick may fill the airwaves, but Abbott owns the red ink. And if we’re lucky, the man who knows how to keep his mouth shut might also be the one who saves an entire industry by opening his hand and signing the veto.
Let’s not mince words: SB 3 is Dan Patrick’s political theater, pure and simple. It’s vintage Patrick—moral panic dressed up as public safety. The grieving mothers, the sheriff associations, the horror stories about “scromiting teens” and gummy-eating schizophrenic zombies—it’s all pageantry designed to override logic and stampede legislators into doing what he wants.
And what Patrick wants is a legacy. He wants to be the culture warrior who cleaned up the state by banning “weed candy” from every smoke shop in Texas. But this isn’t about safety. It’s about power. Control. Discipline. Optics.
Abbott knows it. He’s seen this show before. And he’s not in the business of playing second fiddle—especially not to a guy who keeps trying to script his finale.
In 2023, Abbott vetoed 76 bills—many of them out of the Senate—and used the veto pen as a blunt instrument to remind Patrick who the real executive is. He’ll do it again if the circumstances call for it. And SB 3? This bill practically dares him to do it.
Let’s be brutally honest: the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), which Patrick is trying to pitch as the “responsible” alternative to the hemp industry, is turning into a slow-rolling scandal.
What the public doesn’t see—but insiders can’t stop talking about—is that TCUP has become a boutique monopoly, guarded by DPS and run under rules so loose you could drive a truckload of influence through them. Thanks to the way the expansion was drafted, anyone can be an undisclosed owner of a license, as long as they’re not on paper as “engaged in day-to-day operations.”
Let that sink in. There are potentially millions in profits being skimmed off a state-created cartel, and the public has no legal right to know who’s cashing in. For all we know, the same political operatives and campaign donors who helped push this bill are waiting in the wings with license equity—and nobody’s asking questions.
Meanwhile, the product being offered through TCUP is wildly overpriced, inconsistently dosed, and—if you believe the patient forums—barely effective. The people who *need* cannabis the most are getting gouged for subpar relief, and the only reason anyone would willingly switch from affordable, over-the-counter hemp to TCUP is if they were *forced* to by law.
Abbott has stayed quiet about all of this, but make no mistake—he’s paying attention. And there’s no chance he wants that mess hung around his neck. Not when he can smell the burn of a corruption story that hasn’t broken yet. Not when TCUP is shaping up to be the next “Paxton problem.”
If the cronyism wasn’t enough to give Abbott pause, there’s a constitutional landmine waiting to go off in the fine print of TCUP—and it’s the kind of thing Texas Republicans don’t forgive.
Under federal law, anyone who signs up for a medical cannabis registry—even in a state where it’s legal—is considered a user of a federally controlled substance and therefore prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms under the Gun Control Act.
That means every Texan who enters TCUP to access legal cannabis for PTSD, pain, or cancer symptoms automatically loses their Second Amendment rights. Permanently. No guns, no ammo, no concealed carry.
You can imagine the headlines: “Texas Governor Signs Law That Disarms Veterans.” “Medical Marijuana Registry Becomes Gun Ban List.”
That’s not hyperbole. That’s the law. And it’s exactly the scenario Patrick was counting on most of us missing. TCUP isn’t a solution. It’s a trap—and it’s baited with constitutional consequences.
Abbott is a lawyer. A former judge. He knows exactly what kind of blowback this will create, especially among his core base. And if Patrick thinks he can dump that kind of political liability onto Abbott’s desk and walk away clean, he might want to check his math.
Let’s zoom out. Polls show a double-digit margin of opposition to SB 3 among Republican voters. Over 150,000 signatures have landed on Abbott’s desk opposing the bill. Veterans groups, libertarians, physicians, parents, and small business owners have united against it. Even Donald Trump’s camp has quietly encouraged Abbott to walk this back.
SB 3 isn’t just bad policy. It’s politically toxic. And Abbott, ever the pragmatist, can see where this leads. Sign the bill, and he hands his enemies an opening. Veto it, and he gets to be the adult in the room. That’s a win. Not just for the industry. For Abbott himself.
Let’s say I’m wrong. Let’s say Abbott doesn’t veto and lets SB 3 become law by default. What happens next? We sue. And we win.
The federal lawsuit filed on June 20 goes straight to the heart of the matter: federal preemption, vagueness, due process, regulatory takings, Commerce Clause violations, and overbreadth. And we’re not filing with a hope and a prayer. This is the same legal team that obtained the only injunction that has ever protected our industry from overreach. They’re disciplined, strategic, and already five moves ahead.
A veto avoids all that. But if Abbott decides to punt? We’ll be in court by Monday—and I like our odds.
People forget that Greg Abbott isn’t just a political operator—he’s a conservative jurist. And his decision-making, when you peel away the PR, comes down to four instincts:
* Protect constitutional order
* Minimize legal exposure for the state
* Support small business and property rights
* Avoid public association with corruption or political embarrassment
SB 3 fails every one of those tests.
It’s legally dubious. It endangers the state’s standing in federal court. It obliterates a thriving industry while propping up a crony-driven monopoly. And it’s wrapped in Patrick’s fingerprints like a bad penny taped to a campaign mailer.
This bill isn’t just wrong. It’s radioactive. And Governor Abbott knows it.
He doesn’t need to be a hero. He just needs to be smart. And he is.
So no, I don’t have a crystal ball. But I’ve got 30 years of Texas politics under my belt, and I’ve never seen a moment more ripe for the veto pen.
Abbott has the tools. He has the cover. He has the motive. And he sure as hell has the opportunity.
June 21, 2025 — In a headline-grabbing move that belies the deeper political drama beneath it, Governor Greg Abbott today signed House Bill 46 into law, enacting the most significant expansion of the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP) since its inception. The new law allows physicians to recommend low-THC cannabis for chronic pain, expands access for veterans with PTSD, and marginally increases the allowable THC cap.
But the bill is far from a clean win for medical cannabis advocates—and for many in the broader cannabis community, it may feel like a Trojan Horse.
The Political Trade-Off
Lt. Governor Dan Patrick leveraged HB 46 as a political bargaining chip to strong-arm reluctant House members into voting for Senate Bill 3, the sweeping ban on hemp-derived cannabinoids that passed in the waning days of the session. Patrick made it clear: if lawmakers wanted HB 46, they had to swallow the poison pill of SB 3.
Capitol sources confirm that House lawmakers who had long fought for TCUP expansion were told, bluntly: support the ban, or your patients get nothing.
Now, with HB 46 signed and codified, Patrick has delivered on his part of the deal. But Governor Abbott’s final decision on SB 3 looms large. He has until midnight, Sunday June 22, to sign it, veto it, or let it quietly pass into law without his signature.
HB 46: Expansion, Yes—But Also a Trap
While the expansion of medical access will help a subset of patients, HB 46 also introduces a highly restrictive and monopolistic licensing structure that critics say will entrench the existing TCUP oligopoly and lock out the broader cannabis industry—including hemp operators and legacy entrepreneurs.
Key concerns include:
No pathway for current hemp licensees or manufacturers to participate in the expanded TCUP system, even if they meet quality and safety standards.
Arbitrary license caps and undefined “moral character” criteria that will allow the Department of Public Safety to deny applications without meaningful oversight or appeal.
A closed-loop supply chain that forces vertical integration—limiting the market to those with millions in capital and existing political relationships.
Out-of-state control of licenses and a strong whiff of insider favoritism. At least one TCUP license is backed by national investors with lobbying ties to both Patrick and powerful Senate committee chairs.
Critics argue that while the bill appears to expand access, its actual effect is to reinforce a cartel structure—one that Patrick and his allies can control through regulatory choke points. The expansion is not broad legalization; it’s restricted commercialization.
“HB 46 is a gilded cage,” said a former legislator who asked not to be named. “It gives the illusion of progress while institutionalizing exclusion.”
The Bigger Battle: SB 3
All of this unfolds in the shadow of SB 3—the bill that would ban all hemp-derived THC products including Delta-8, Delta-9, Delta-10, and THCa, currently sold in legal retail markets across Texas. The legislation threatens to wipe out a multi-billion-dollarindustry, shutter hundreds of small businesses, and criminalize the very products that many consumers, including veterans and patients not covered by TCUP, depend on for relief.
A newly filed lawsuit by Texas retailers and manufacturers in Travis County seeks injunctive and declaratory reliefagainst SB 3, arguing it violates federal preemption, the Takings Clause, and due process protections. That case may delay enforcement, but it doesn’t undo the political damage.
Abbott’s Decision Will Be Defining
Governor Abbott has historically taken a moderate stance on cannabis, expanding TCUP in previous sessions and signaling openness to low-THC therapies. With three recent polls—including one from the Texas Politics Project—showing majority Republican opposition to a ban, pressure is mounting for a veto of SB 3.
If Abbott signs it, prohibition returns under a new name. If he vetoes it, the fight for regulatory reform can begin in earnest. If he does nothing, the bill becomes law by default—and with it, the state’s most draconian anti-cannabis law in a decade.
In that case, HB 46 may go down not as a win for patients—but as the velvet glove hiding the iron fist of prohibition.
Jay Maguire is Political Editor of the Texas Hemp Reporter, Executive Director of the Texas Hemp Federation, and co-founder of CRAFT: the Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas. Reach him at maguire@texashempfederation.org or 512-954-8054.
It’s not a hypothetical. It’s not a loophole. It’s the law—and it’s targeting some of the most vulnerable Texans.
Every patient in the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), our state’s limited medical marijuana registry, is already in legal jeopardy under federal law. The moment a Texan with PTSD, cancer, epilepsy, or chronic pain enrolls in TCUP and begins legally using low-THC marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician, they are—under federal law—a “prohibited person” who can no longer legally own or possess a firearm.
Most of them have no idea.
Here’s why: under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance—even if that substance is legal under Texas law—loses their Second Amendment rights. No guns. No ammunition. No recourse.
This isn’t a bureaucratic technicality. It’s enforced.
Every legal gun sale in Texas requires ATF Form 4473, which explicitly warns that marijuana is still a Schedule I drug federally and that “the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”
If a TCUP patient answers “no” to the question about marijuana use, they’ve committed a felony punishable by up to five years in federal prison for lying on a government form. If they answer “yes,” they are denied the right to purchase—and could face federal charges simply for possessing the firearms they already legally owned prior to enrollment.
Veterans. Retirees. Rural Texans. People who have carried and relied on a firearm their entire adult lives. These are not criminals. They are patients who did what the state asked: registered for a tightly regulated program to access medicine recommended by their doctor.
And now? They are in the federal government’s crosshairs.
This is not a new law—it’s been on the books since the 1960s—but it has taken on new urgency as SB 3 threatens to eliminate most over-the-counter hemp-derived THC products in Texas, forcing tens of thousands of Texans to either suffer without relief or pivot into TCUP. They’ll be walking straight into a legal trap.
The hypocrisy is staggering. The same political leaders who campaign on defending gun rights and medical freedom are now backing policies that funnel citizens into a government-run marijuana registry—and in doing so, strip them of the very constitutional rights those leaders swore to protect.
No one should have to choose between relief from debilitating pain and the right to protect their home and family. But that’s exactly what Texas patients are facing.
Governor Abbott has the opportunity—and the obligation—to recognize this injustice. By vetoing SB 3, he can protect not only patient access to safe, legal hemp-derived relief, but also the constitutional rights of thousands of Texans who trusted their doctors and their state.
If he signs it, he owns it.
Because when a veteran who served his country with honor is forced to turn in his firearms simply for treating his PTSD with legal, state-approved marijuana, it won’t be Dan Patrick’s name they remember.
Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is selling Texans a fraud—and calling it reform. Senate Bill 3, his signature attempt to ban nearly all hemp-derived THC products, is nothing short of a full-spectrum assault on personal liberty, small business, patient access, and constitutional rights. With a straight face and a white coat, Patrick is using the language of public health to disguise what is ultimately a prohibitionist power grab.
Governor Abbott must veto SB 3. Here’s why:
1. They’re Coming for Your Guns, Not Just Your Gummies
When a Texan signs up for medical cannabis through TCUP, they’re unknowingly walking into a legal buzzsaw. Overnight, they become a “prohibited person” under federal law—no firearms, no ammo, no recourse. This isn’t some bureaucratic technicality. It’s disarmament disguised as medicine. And Dan Patrick knows damn well what it means. He’s banking on Texans not reading the fine print.
2. They’re Yanking Relief Right Off the Shelf
For years, Texans have had legal access to over-the-counter hemp products like Delta-8 and Delta-9. These products have helped veterans sleep, cancer patients eat, and working folks manage stress without jumping through hoops. SB 3 would rip those remedies off the shelves and toss them in the trash, forcing everyone into a system they neither asked for nor need.
3. They Shut Down the Corner Store and Opened a Toll Booth
With SB 3 outlawing OTC hemp and forcing patients into TCUP, Patrick’s plan funnels every Texan into a tightly controlled, DPS-operated monopoly. The state isn’t offering medicine—it’s charging admission. And only a select few companies, cozy with the Capitol crowd, get to collect the toll.
4. They’re Pricing Pain Relief Like It’s Platinum
Once they’ve shut down your neighborhood shop, they’ll send you to a DPS-licensed dispensary where the price tag is as steep as the red tape. Insurance won’t cover a drop, and the product selection is as sparse as a West Texas rainstorm. The folks who need it most—veterans, seniors, and working-class Texans—are left high and dry.
5. They’ll Nail You Whether You Tell the Truth or Not
Want to follow the law? Tell the ATF you’re a TCUP patient—and kiss your gun rights goodbye. Want to keep your rifle? Lie on the form—and risk a felony. Patrick’s “compassionate” policy is a legal booby trap, rigged to criminalize honest Texans either way.
6. They’re Using Junk Science to Kick in Your Door
Patrick’s DPS has been storming small businesses using discredited lab tests and manipulated data. The Texas Forensic Science Commission warned against it—three times. But instead of fixing the problem, Patrick leaned into it, letting politics override science to justify sweeping raids. That ain’t law enforcement—it’s showbiz with badges.
7. They’re Letting Their Buddies Cash In Behind Closed Doors
Under the new TCUP rules, investors can stay anonymous. That means lobbyists, donors, and political cronies can rake in the profits while Texans lose access, lose jobs, and lose everything they’ve built. It’s medicine for the rich and raids for the rest.
8. They’re Crying Wolf While Texans Suffer
Patrick stood on the Senate floor waving horror stories about vomiting, psychosis, and panic attacks. But the facts tell a different tale. These so-called dangers are rare, extreme, and usually tied to long-term heavy use. Meanwhile, Tylenol and Imodium cause more ER visits than cannabinoids ever have. It’s classic Patrick: distract, distort, and divide.
—
The Verdict: Texans Are Getting Played, Not Protected
They’re losing their guns, their medicine, their freedom to choose, and their right to run a business—all so Patrick and his allies can consolidate power, control markets, and cloak prohibition in the language of compassion.
This bill is a lie wrapped in a lab coat and tied with campaign cash.
Governor Abbott: Veto SB 3. Texans see the game. Don’t play.
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has made banning hemp-derived THC products a top priority this session, even threatening a special session if the House refused to advance the measure. Senate Bill 3, which passed the House after heavy procedural pressure, would effectively shut down Texas’ entire market for legal, consumable hemp products. But two recent polls—one from UT Austin and another from the Texas Hemp Business Council—tell the same story: most Texans don’t support this ban. And more notably, neither do most Republican voters.
The Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin found in April that a full 50% of Texans oppose outlawing cannabis-derived products, including hemp-based THC. Just 34% support such a move. And when voters were asked to rank the importance of various legislative priorities, placing limits on cannabis access came in near the bottom—15th out of 17.
Now, new June polling from Ragnar Research on behalf of the Texas Hemp Business Council drills into Republican primary voters specifically. The findings challenge the assumption that a THC ban plays well with the GOP base:
Just 35% of likely Republican primary voters support banning THC. 45% oppose.
On banning consumable hemp products, support and opposition are similarly split: 37% support vs. 47% oppose.
Among Republicans who align with Donald Trump, opposition to the ban grows: 47% oppose; 38% support.
72% of Republican voters say veterans should be allowed to access THC products as a non-opioid treatment option.
68% want law enforcement focused on violent crime and border security—not adults using legal hemp.
Perhaps most revealing, majorities also believe the policy itself is counterproductive: 53% agree a THC ban would create opportunities for drug cartels, and 55% say it would lead to more unregulated and dangerous synthetic products on the market.
So why is this prohibition moving forward? Why is Texas advancing a bill that’s unpopular even with Republican voters?
The answer lies not in the data—but in the dynamics of Texas politics.
Patrick has long shown a talent for mobilizing the most ideologically committed conservative voters in Republican primaries. These voters—often older, rural, and socially conservative—don’t constitute a majority, but they reliably turn out in low-participation primaries. And that turnout reality gives them disproportionate influence over Republican lawmakers, many of whom fear a challenge from their right more than any general election.
Even among these voters, the polling shows growing ambivalence toward prohibition. Just 31% of self-identified “extremely conservative” Republicans say marijuana should be completely illegal—down from 39% in 2010. Support for medical-only use and strict regulation continues to grow, even as public opinion shifts away from zero-tolerance approaches.
Yet Patrick is doubling down. Not because the policy is popular. But because the political calculus is familiar: cater to the base, use procedural leverage to force the House to comply, and count on silence from the Governor’s Mansion.
Governor Abbott has yet to take a clear position on SB 3. But he should consider the broader picture. There’s no groundswell for this bill. Its most persuasive arguments—protecting children, ensuring safety—could be achieved through regulation. Instead, a full ban would wipe out a legal industry, harm veterans seeking non-opioid therapies, and push consumers into unregulated gray markets.
More and more Texans—including Republican voters—see this for what it is: an overcorrection driven by political positioning, not public demand.
Texas doesn’t need to criminalize hemp to fix it. We need to regulate it with clarity, consistency, and respect for the law-abiding adults who use it—and the veterans whose quality of life depends on it.
A veto of SB 3 wouldn’t just correct a policy mistake. It would send a message: that governing in Texas still means listening to the people.
Dan Patrick’s Political Theater Has Real Victims—and Texans Are Paying the Price.
SB 2024: The Vape Bait-and-Switch
Sold as a defense against youth vaping, SB 2024 instead criminalizes flavored disposable vape products made in China or not FDA-authorized—effectively banning almost all available products in Texas. No grace period. No inventory relief. No respect for small retailers.
But global manufacturers shifted production months ago to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The “China ban” doesn’t block supply—it just cripples Texas retailers, while larger players quietly retool abroad.
Meanwhile, the packaging provisions are so vague and subjective that enforcement will depend entirely on perception, not fact. This creates a legal gray zone ripe for selective prosecution and abuse—with consequences borne disproportionately by minority-owned businesses and communities already over-policed.
A Blow to Liberty—and the Truth
What do you get when you pair bad science with political ambition, amplify it through law enforcement spectacle, and suppress the only agency qualified to call it out?
You get SB 3 and SB 2024.
You get a government that requires untrained officers to make felony arrests based on inaccurate lab results. You get “probable cause” traffic stops based on smell, suspicion, and outdated testing methods—the very ingredients that have driven racial disparities in policing for decades. You get executive overreach disguised as legislative prudence. You get governance by grievance, not by principle.
Dan Patrick plays MAGA, but his playbook is from the swampiest parts of the Deep State playbook: manufacture a threat, consolidate authority, and eliminate competition—then wrap it in MAGA red.
Texas Values Demand Better
Texas lawmakers have long claimed they don’t want to “pick winners and losers”—that they believe in free markets and level playing fields. But Dan Patrick turns that principle on its head. With bills like SB 3 and SB 2024, he handpicks the winners, criminalizes the rest, and blames the casualties on “the children.”
Texas values demand something better. We demand cannabis policy built on science, not superstition. We demand regulatory oversight from independent experts—not puppet labs with a financial stake in every conviction. We demand a free market—not a rigged cartel. And we demand leaders who tell the truth—not ones who choreograph its suppression.
Dan Patrick’s final act may be complete—but the damage is ongoing. Businesses are being raided. Lives upended. Patients are being abandoned. And trust in Texas government is being shredded for the sake of applause lines and power plays.
The show is just about over. The consequences are just beginning.
WARNING: THE REPORT DAN PATRICK DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE!
In Texas, we’ve seen this before: a political agenda dressed up as public safety, a compliant bureaucracy, and the weaponization of bad science to justify bad law. But this time, it’s not marijuana. It’s legal hemp—and the state’s own forensic watchdog warned them not to do it.
The Science Was Clear
In July 2021, the Texas Forensic Science Commission (FSC) issued a report questioning the reliability of gas chromatography (GC) testing methods—specifically the kind used by Armstrong Forensic Laboratory—in determining THC levels in cannabis samples. The problem? GC destroys the chemical integrity of the sample by heating it, converting non-psychoactive THCa into delta-9 THC. The result: legal hemp often appears “hot” when tested this way.
By April 2025, the Commission had grown more urgent. In a formal warning, it told prosecutors and law enforcement not to rely on GC-MS without derivatization—the exact method Armstrong was using—because it does not distinguish between THCa and delta-9 THC in processed products like vape pens and edibles. The Commission’s position was clear: GC is not scientifically valid for the enforcement of Texas hemp laws. The right tool? High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), which preserves the cannabinoid profile without artificially inflating THC levels.
DPS Didn’t Just Ignore the Science—They Sought Out Bad Results
Despite having access to state-run, accredited labs that used validated HPLC methods, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) chose Armstrong Labs. Why? Because Armstrong’s flawed GC testing produced the kind of “hot” results that could turn lawful retail inventory into felony contraband on paper.
This wasn’t just negligence—it was selective science-shopping. DPS bypassed better labs and used the one that would give them the numbers needed to justify search and arrest warrants. Those warrants led to a coordinated series of raids in August 2024 across North Texas, most prominently in Allen, where nine hemp retailers—nearly all minority-owned—were raided. Doors were kicked in. Products were seized. People were arrested. Lives were disrupted.
And when asked about the scientific controversy, DEA Special Agent Eduardo A. Chávez, standing behind a row of local police chiefs, said the quiet part out loud:
“We’re not going to get into a scientific debate.”
That’s because there was no debate. The science was already settled—just not in their favor.
Dan Patrick’s Fingerprints
The timing and utility of these raids are no coincidence. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, a long-time prohibitionist, has made clear his desire to eliminate the hemp-derived THC market. Along with Senator Charles Perry, he introduced Senate Bill 3, a sweeping measure to criminalize and regulate hemp in ways that would effectively shut down thousands of small businesses statewide.
But Patrick’s proposals needed fuel—a sense of public danger. That’s where the Allen raids came in. News coverage of the raids, complete with sensational claims about high-THC products and cash seizures, created the illusion of widespread criminality. Those raids—and the test results behind them—became Exhibit A in the Senate’s push for SB 3.
In reality, the entire operation was built on sand. The lab method was known to be invalid. The warrants were based on forensically unsound evidence. The prosecutions have largely stalled or gone unfiled. But the political damage was done—and the policy momentum created by those raids is still being used to push bans, criminal penalties, and massive regulatory overreach.
The Consequences
Dozens of stores have closed. Millions in assets have been seized. Texas entrepreneurs—many from immigrant and minority communities—have been branded criminals for selling federally legal hemp products. Some of the retailers caught in this net can’t even afford legal counsel; their bank accounts are frozen, their reputations destroyed.
All because DPS chose the wrong lab on purpose.
If It’s Not Illegal, It’s Worse
Some may argue no laws were broken. But that’s the problem. When law enforcement uses scientifically invalid methods, even after being formally warned twice by the state’s own scientific authority, it isn’t just a technical error. It’s an abuse of power. Under Texas Penal Code §39.03, this pattern begins to resemble official oppression—public servants using their authority to target people unjustly under the color of law.
And the Fourth Amendment may also come into play. Raids based on scientifically discredited probable cause are ripe for constitutional challenge. The state didn’t just bend the law—it bent science, and it bent justice.
The Big Lie, Texas Edition
Dan Patrick’s prohibitionist crusade depends on the belief that hemp stores are fronts for drug dealers. But the science doesn’t support that claim, and neither do the facts. What we’re seeing is the deliberate manufacture of criminality using rigged lab results and coordinated enforcement—all to push a bill that benefits entrenched political allies and clears the market for the few operators who can afford to comply.
This is Reefer Madness 2.0—driven by bad labs, bad busts, and big lies.
By Nicholas Mortillaro, and Jay Maguire Co-Founders, CRAFT (Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas)
In recent months, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and Senator Charles Perry have repeatedly pointed to a series of lab tests as justification for banning hemp-derived THC products in Texas. They claim these products violate the law and pose a danger to public health. But the truth—buried beneath layers of politicized rhetoric and scientific misrepresentation—is that these lab results are a dangerous distortion, not a reflection of reality.
The Lab at the Center of the Storm
The lab being cited most frequently—Armstrong Forensic Laboratory—has come under intense scrutiny following a bombshell report from the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The Commission, which oversees forensic testing across the state, warned prosecutors and law enforcement that the methods used by Armstrong to test for THC content in hemp products are unreliable, unaccredited, and dangerously misleading.
Let me be blunt: Armstrong’s method is not standard, not validated, and not legally appropriate for determining compliance with Texas hemp law. In fact, Armstrong itself admitted in email correspondence with a senior DPS official that their method guarantees any sample will test above the legal limit of 0.3% Delta-9 THC—whether it’s compliant or not. That’s not science. That’s sabotage.
Weaponized Testing
Texas law is clear: hemp is legal if it contains no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC by dry weight. The only federally accepted method for determining this is post-decarboxylation testing using liquid chromatography, which distinguishes between active THC and its acidic precursor, THCa. Armstrong, however, uses a method designed to simulate smoking—a process that converts all THCa into Delta-9 THC, regardless of whether the product would ever be consumed in that way.
This “smoke conversion” method is not used by any credible lab for regulatory compliance because it doesn’t reflect the actual chemical state of the product at the time of sale. Worse, it has not been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper scientific scrutiny. Yet, Patrick and Perry wave these results around like a smoking gun.
They’re not. They’re junk science—weaponized to create fear and justify overreach.
Political Games, Real Consequences
We’ve seen this before. The history of cannabis prohibition in the United States is a story of misinformation and racialized fearmongering dressed up as public safety. What’s happening now is no different. Members of the Texas Legislature are being manipulated into supporting a policy based not on fact, but on a fiction concocted by an anti-hemp agenda.
Retailers across Texas—many of them family-owned, law-abiding small businesses—have invested heavily in compliance, safety, and consumer transparency. Products are labeled, lab-tested, and age-gated. Yet they now find themselves accused of criminal conduct based on faulty lab tests that wouldn’t hold up in any honest court of law.
Meanwhile, consumers—veterans, cancer patients, people suffering from anxiety, PTSD, and chronic pain—are being told their medicine is somehow a menace.
A Call to Action
It’s time for the Texas Legislature to reject this manipulation. The science is clear. The law is clear. And the motives behind this attack on the hemp industry are becoming clearer by the day.
CRAFT is calling on all elected officials to denounce the use of these illegitimate lab tests as justification for recriminalizing hemp. We urge lawmakers to consult with real scientists, understand the testing standards used by accredited labs across the country, and resist the pressure to ban what should be regulated responsibly.
Texas can lead the way in safe, science-based cannabis policy—or it can double down on fear, fraud, and failure.
The choice is yours.
Nicholas Mortillaro holds a degree in chemical engineering and is the co-founder of CRAFT, a statewide industry alliance promoting education, compliance, and accountability in the hemp retail sector. Learn more at joincraft.org.
Over the past year, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has made no secret of his disdain for the legal hemp industry in Texas. He’s called it the “backdoor to marijuana legalization” and accused retailers of “selling drugs to kids” under the guise of legality. At a February 2024 press conference, he declared, “We’ve got to shut this down. These are drug dealers hiding behind a hemp license.”
Senator Charles Perry, the author of Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), doubled down during committee hearings, claiming, “This isn’t about regulating—this is about stopping a problem before we end up like Colorado.” Both men warned of a crackdown, and now, true to their word, that crackdown has arrived—not in the form of tighter regulatory oversight or better product labeling standards, but in pre-dawn raids, guns drawn, and headlines accusing small business owners of felony drug trafficking.
Behind the media blitz of cash seizures and confiscated gummies lies a quiet but consequential abuse of scientific process. The state is relying on flawed laboratory evidence—obtained through secretive “undercover” purchases and tested using questionable methods at Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, a private facility in Arlington contracted by law enforcement. The result? Lawful, state-registered hemp products, each batch accompanied by a Certificate of Analysis (COA) from a DEA-registered and ISO-accredited lab, are being re-tested and declared “hot” by Armstrong using outdated and inappropriate methods. Raids follow. Arrests follow.
Then come the photos of seized product, weaponry, and headlines about “drug busts”—all as the Legislature debates whether to ban the very products being smeared.
The Heart of the Dispute: What Makes a Product Legal?
Under both federal law (2018 Farm Bill) and Texas Agriculture Code, a hemp product is legal if it contains no more than 0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by dry weight. Importantly, that threshold applies to delta-9 THC only—the psychoactive compound in marijuana. The presence of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), a non-psychoactive precursor to THC found in raw cannabis, does not make a product illegal —unless it is converted into delta-9 THC through a process called decarboxylation.
State-licensed hemp manufacturers know the rules. That’s why their products are tested at licensed laboratories using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), a method that measures delta-9 THC and THCA separately without converting one to the other. These tests provide a transparent, scientifically valid snapshot of the product’s compliance before it reaches store shelves. These are the COAs issued by DEA registered labs and required by Texas Department of State Health Services for sale.
But when those same products end up on the desks at Armstrong Labs— often acquired through undercover purchases by law enforcement—the story changes. Armstrong frequently tests these samples using Gas Chromatography (GC), a technique that involves heating the sample, which automatically converts THCA into delta-9 THC, artificially inflating the measurement and pushing otherwise compliant products above the legal threshold.
The Forensic Science Commission Weighs In
In April 2025, the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) issued a final report on a complaint related to this exact practice. The case involved a man convicted based on a GC-MS (Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) test performed on a vape cartridge. The lab’s method caused all THCA in the product to decarboxylate into delta-9 THC,
resulting in a THC concentration that would not exist under normal use or storage conditions.
The Commission wrote plainly:
“GC-MS testing of cannabinoids that does not use a derivatization agent causes decarboxylation of THCA to delta-9 THC. This is not a limitation of the instrument—it is a result of the methodology.”
They further concluded:
“In this case, the reported result is based on a method that converted THCA to THC, and therefore reflects ‘total THC’ rather than just delta-9 THC… Prosecutors and courts must be made aware that testing conducted in this manner does not distinguish THCA from THC.”
In a just system, this warning would stop prosecutors cold. Instead, law enforcement agencies—coordinated by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)—are proceeding with search warrants and prosecutions based on these flawed lab reports. And when asked by reporters whether they are concerned about the reliability of the THC testing methods used, one senior officer reportedly replied, “We’re not getting into a scientific debate.”
The Real Strategy: Prohibition by Perception
This isn’t about public safety or scientific certainty. It’s a political operation, coordinated from the top, timed to influence legislative decision-making as Senate Bill 3 advances through the House. With the session set to adjourn in mere weeks, raids across the state are producing splashy headlines, SWAT-style photos, and allegations of criminality meant to cast all hemp retailers as bad actors.
The formula is familiar:
Conduct a raid on a registered hemp business based on flawed lab data.
Seize product, firearms, and cash, regardless of legality or context.
Issue a press release using terms like “drug trafficking,” “distribution network,” and “organized crime.”
Let the mugshots and media coverage do the rest.
But the reality is very different. These are not cartel fronts. These are law abiding small business owners, operating under the rules the state gave them, selling lab-tested and labeled products to adult consumers. Their
crime? Selling something that looks like marijuana but meets the legal definition of hemp—unless it’s retrospectively declared illegal through laboratory alchemy.
“As a chemical engineer and hemp entrepreneur, I can tell you flatly: relying on gas chromatography to test post-harvest products like vapes and gummies is not just inappropriate—it’s bad science,” said Nicholas Mortillaro, Co-Founder of CRAFT. “Gas Chromatography (GC) methods always alter the chemical composition of the sample, converting THCA into delta-9 THC during analysis. That’s not measurement—that’s transformation. It’s the analytical equivalent of cooking your evidence. If you’re trying to find the truth, you use a method like High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC,) which keeps the cannabinoids intact and tells you what’s actually in the product. Anything else misleads courts, misleads prosecutors, and criminalizes legal commerce based on lab error. That’s not forensics—it’s fiction.”
The Industry Must Speak
The state’s actions are not just punitive—they’re pretextual. The goal is to ban all forms of legal THC, especially THCA flower, by first creating a public perception of widespread criminality. If the Legislature cannot be convinced with policy, then perhaps it can be stampeded by sensational headlines.
But science still matters. Due process still matters. And for the hemp industry—and every citizen who expects government to wield power lawfully—it’s time to say: enough. The evidence is flawed. The raids are political. And the bills being pushed are based on fear, not fact.
⸻
Bad science is being used to justify bad bills, enforced through bad faith raids. Texas deserves better—and the hemp industry must stand up before it’s too late.
Cannabis Retailers Alliance of Texas (CRAFT) | May 14, 2025
Key Facts About SB 3 and Hemp Testing in Texas
Flawed Testing Protocols
State-contracted laboratories, including Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, use gas chromatography (GC-MS) methods that artificially convert THCA into delta-9 THC during analysis.[1]
This conversion process causes legally compliant hemp products to test as controlled substances, resulting in unjustified felony charges.[1,2]
The Texas Forensic Science Commission’s April 2025 Schuette Report confirms these testing methods are only valid for pre-harvest plant material, not finished products like oils or edibles.[1]
Regulatory Context
No legislative updates have occurred since HB 1325 legalized hemp in Texas in 2019.[3]
The Department of State Health Services has not issued updated guidance to address finished hemp product testing.[2,4]
CRAFT has developed industry self-regulation standards including batch testing verification, age restrictions, and third-party standards for product safety.[5]
Economic Impact of SB 3
Projected job losses: 50,000+ direct and indirect positions[6]
As Holy Week calls millions to reflection on the meaning of suffering, mercy, and redemption, it’s worth examining how these sacred themes are distorted when transposed into public policy—particularly in how we legislate access to cannabis in Texas.
At the heart of Christianity—and especially the Holy Week narrative—is the radical idea that no one is beyond grace, that the suffering Christ stood with the outcast, the criminal, the leper, and the sinner—not because they were blameless, but because mercy is not earned. It is given.
Yet in cannabis policy, we see a stark betrayal of that principle, rooted in a theological artifact that has no place in modern governance: the ancient Protestant moral distinction between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor—what historians have called God’s Poor vs. the Devil’s Poor.
This moral sorting lives on in the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), a system so deliberately narrow that it reflects not medical caution but moral gatekeeping. A cancer patient? They pass the test. A veteran with PTSD or a laborer with chronic pain? Denied. Not because they won’t benefit from cannabis—they will—but because they fall on the wrong side of an unspoken, unscientific moral line.
We saw this attitude in 2021, when Sen. Charles Perry opposed including chronic pain in TCUP, claiming “they’d just lie to get high.” That statement didn’t come from science or compassion—it came from a worldview that sorts suffering into categories: sanctified versus suspect. It’s not just stigmatizing—it’s theological in origin and punitive in practice.
And that’s the heresy.
Not religious heresy—but civic heresy. A betrayal of the founding principles that guide our pluralistic democracy. In this country, we do not make law according to theology. We do not ration compassion based on virtue. And we certainly do not let the state decide who is worthy of healing.
This Holy Week, as we remember Christ persecuted by political and religious authorities alike, we must ask: Are we repeating that mistake in our own time, in our own Capitol? Are we denying aid and relief to people who suffer—not because we doubt the medicine, but because we judge the person?
The Christ of Holy Week was not crucified because he helped the righteous. He was crucified because he stood with the condemned and refused to play the sorting game. He broke bread with sinners. He healed without asking for credentials. And he warned us, over and over, about the danger of confusing moral authority with political power.
When we legislate as though some people “deserve” access to cannabis while others are morally suspect for needing the same relief, we are doing the very thing Holy Week condemns: dressing punishment up as justice and withholding mercy from those who need it most.
We need to end this civic heresy—not just to fix cannabis law, but to uphold the Constitution and the moral integrity of our public institutions. If we believe all Texans are equal under the law, then all Texans should have equal access to relief, dignity, and care.
This week above all weeks, let’s remember: Mercy is not a reward for virtue. It is the obligation of power.
In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation of a growing danger:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
He was speaking of the dangerous entanglement between government and defense contractors—an alliance that risked turning war into an economic necessity. But Eisenhower’s words apply just as powerfully to another, quieter behemoth that emerged within our borders over the decades: the enforcement-industrial complex—a system built not on defending national security, but on policing and punishing domestic populations.
This sprawling network of police unions, private prison operators, surveillance companies, drug testing firms, and aligned legislators has, for decades, thrived on one thing: the criminalization of human behavior. Most notably, it has flourished under the banner of the War on Drugs—a campaign that has devastated communities, cost taxpayers billions, and produced little measurable public safety or public health benefit.
And now, in Texas, it’s reasserting itself through Senate Bill 3 (SB 3)—a sweeping ban on consumable hemp-derived THC products like Delta-8, Delta-10, and even hemp-based Delta-9. If passed, SB 3 would not only erase a thriving, consumer-driven industry—it would reignite a failed model of prohibition and control, wrapped in new political packaging.
From the War on Drugs to the Politics of Control
The foundation of America’s modern drug policy was laid during the Nixon administration with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, which created the federal drug scheduling system still in use today. Despite recommendations from experts to treat cannabis as a low-risk substance, Nixon’s administration deliberately placed it in Schedule I—alongside heroin—declaring it had “no accepted medical use” and a high potential for abuse. This move was not grounded in science, but in politics.
This legal framework helped spawn the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and ushered in a new era of militarized policing, mass incarceration, and stigma-driven policy. SB 3 in Texas is a direct descendant of this legacy: it seeks to criminalize legal, hemp-derived cannabinoids using the same fear-based rhetoric and enforcement-first logic, despite widespread public use, minimal harm data, and clear economic benefit. It represents a return to prohibitionist policymaking—rooted in control, not public health.
The mythos of the War on Drugs has long claimed that harsh penalties and aggressive enforcement were necessary to protect Americans from the scourge of addiction. But internal admissions from key figures have exposed a far different reality.
In a 1994 interview, John Ehrlichman, a top domestic advisor to President Richard Nixon, admitted:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people… By getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”
What Ehrlichman revealed was not policy—it was strategy. Criminalization was weaponized for political ends: to break up organizing power, discredit opposition, and institutionalize social control. The resulting machinery—fueled by fear, racism, and misinformation—continues to operate today under new pretenses.
Texas’s SB 3 is not a break from that legacy. It is an extension of it.
SB 3: The Return of Reefer Madness
SB 3 seeks to criminalize the manufacture, sale, and possession of virtually all hemp-derived cannabinoid products that contain anything beyond CBD or CBG. This includes compounds like Delta-8 THC, which are already regulated under Texas’s existing hemp laws and widely used by veterans, cancer patients, and ordinary Texans seeking relief from anxiety, pain, and insomnia.
Supporters of SB 3 argue that these products pose a danger to youth and public safety. But their evidence is shockingly thin.
During legislative hearings, Allen Police Chief Steve Dye declared that these products are “poisoning our kids.” Yet neither he nor other supporters offered any credible data—no Department of Health reports, no emergency room spikes, no controlled studies. Instead, they relied on anecdotes and sensational headlines.
This kind of rhetoric—unsubstantiated, emotional, and politically convenient—is Reefer Madness reincarnated. And like the original, it obscures far more than it reveals.
The Role of Law Enforcement: Interests Over Integrity
SB 3 has received heavy backing from police associations, prosecutors, and law enforcement lobbyists. That alone should raise questions. Who benefits from the recriminalization of legal products?
The answer is clear: police departments gain new enforcement powers, jail populations grow, drug testing firms profit, and court systems collect more fines and fees. In short, the entire enforcement-industrial complex stands to profit—just as it always has when new crimes are created.
This isn’t public safety policy. It’s institutional self-preservation. It’s prohibition repackaged for 2025.
Medical Marijuana: A Convenient Shield
Proponents of SB 3 often argue that Texans who need cannabis for medical reasons can simply go through the state’s Compassionate Use Program (CUP). On the surface, this seems like a reasonable alternative. But in reality, CUP is inaccessible, inadequate, and deeply monopolistic.
Only a tiny fraction of Texans qualify under CUP’s narrow medical eligibility list.
The products are expensive, low in THC, and less effective than widely available hemp alternatives.
Only three companies currently hold licenses to grow and sell cannabis under CUP—licenses that are extremely valuable and tightly guarded.
If SB 3 passes, it will eliminate hemp-derived alternatives that have helped thousands of Texans manage pain, trauma, and illness—leaving only a state-sanctioned oligopoly to serve a small, privileged market.
This isn’t regulation. It’s market capture.
Two Legal Systems, One Plant
If SB 3 becomes law, Texas will establish two entirely different legal frameworks for the exact same compound:
Hemp-Derived THC
CUP-Derived Medical Marijuana
Grown and processed under 2019 Texas hemp law
Licensed under strict state program
Sold at independent, small businesses
Sold by a few state-authorized companies
Used by veterans, seniors, cancer patients
Available to select patients only
At risk of being banned under SB 3
Protected under existing medical cannabis law
This isn’t about chemistry. It’s about who profits—and who is punished.
Prohibition 2.0: Greenwashed, Institutionalized, and Still Failing
Eisenhower warned that entrenched interests would distort democracy and hijack public policy for their own ends. The military-industrial complex he named has been joined by a domestic counterpart—one that builds power not through conflict abroad, but through enforcement at home.
SB 3 is not a policy rooted in science or safety. It is a political maneuver designed to restore criminalization, protect monopolies, and entrench a set of institutions that benefit from punishment over care.
The victims—again—will be working-class people, patients, small business owners, and communities of color. The beneficiaries will be those who already hold economic and institutional power.
“Nixon’s War On Drugs”
A Test of Texas Values
At its core, SB 3 is a moral question disguised as a legislative proposal. Do we believe in evidence-based policy, small business freedom, personal autonomy, and the right to choose non-addictive alternatives to pharmaceuticals? Or do we believe in fear-based control, criminal punishment, and economic protectionism?
We cannot continue to criminalize plant-based compounds while ignoring alcohol-related deaths, skyrocketing fentanyl overdoses, and a failing mental health infrastructure. We cannot afford to keep reviving a failed war in the name of protecting people it never protected.
SB 3 must be seen for what it is: a reboot of the War on Drugs, disguised as reform, designed to serve prohibitionists, monopolists, and those politicians who profit from fear.
So let’s call this for what it is—Texas own version of the Deep State. The time to dismantle the enforcement-industrial complex is now. Texans deserve better.
In just days, the Texas hemp industry faces what may be its defining moment since legalization in 2019. The House State Affairs Committee, chaired by Representative Ken King, will convene Monday morning to hear testimony on two bills with starkly different visions for the future of hemp in Texas.
The hearing, scheduled for 8:00 AM on April 7 in room JHR 120, will feature two competing approaches to hemp regulation that could not be more different in their impact on the thousands of businesses and workers in this growing sector.
A Tale of Two Bills
House Bill 28, authored by Chairman King himself, represents a regulatory path forward. While imposing new restrictions—including age verification requirements, licensing standards, and quality controls—it allows the industry to continue operating under enhanced oversight. This approach acknowledges the economic reality that the hemp industry has become a significant contributor to the Texas economy.
In stark contrast stands Senate Bill 3, championed by Senator Perry and already passed by the Senate with Lieutenant Governor Patrick’s backing. This bill takes a prohibitionist stance, effectively banning most hemp-derived products beyond CBD and CBG. The practical effect would be the criminalization of businesses that have been operating legally since hemp was federalized and then legalized in Texas.
The Texas hemp industry must recognize this hearing as a truly existential moment. The difference between these bills is the difference between a future for hemp in Texas and no future at all.
The Stakes for Texas Businesses
For hemp entrepreneurs across Texas who have invested everything in building compliant businesses, Monday’s hearing represents a crossroads. Many have implemented strict age verification, comprehensive product testing, and responsible marketing practices that avoid targeting young people. Despite these efforts, SB 3 would shut down operations overnight, resulting in job losses throughout the supply chain.
These business owners aren’t alone. Thousands of Texans now work in hemp-related businesses across the state, from cultivation to manufacturing to retail. Many industry stakeholders emphasize they’re not opposed to reasonable regulation.
The hemp industry broadly acknowledges the need for age restrictions, quality control standards, and responsible business practices. The objection is to prohibition disguised as regulation—the difference between workable rules and an outright ban that destroys livelihoods.
Two Minutes to Make a Difference
Those planning to attend Monday’s hearing should note that public testimony will be limited to just two minutes per person—barely enough time to introduce oneself and make a few key points. This limitation makes preparation essential.
Industry advocates recommend business owners focus their brief testimony on concrete facts: business location, number of employees, economic impact, and specific measures implemented to prevent youth access. Those unable to attend in person can submit written comments electronically through the House website until the hearing concludes.
Experienced observers of the legislative process note that lawmakers respond best to personal stories with specific details. Effective testimony should explain exactly how SB 3 would affect individual businesses, employees, and communities while emphasizing support for appropriate regulation rather than prohibition.
Regulation vs. Prohibition
The fundamental question before the committee is whether Texas will embrace a regulated hemp market or attempt to put the genie back in the bottle through prohibition.
Historical evidence suggests prohibition rarely works as intended. Rather than eliminating products, prohibition typically drives markets underground, removing quality controls and age verification while enriching illicit operators. Meanwhile, legitimate businesses close, tax revenue disappears, and products simply flow in from neighboring states with more permissive laws, not to mention empowering drug cartels by creating a supply vacuum.
Economic analysts point out that prohibition doesn’t eliminate demand—it just changes who profits from it and removes safeguards for consumers.
The Time for Action
As Monday approaches, the Texas hemp industry faces its most significant challenge yet. The businesses that have operated transparently and responsibly since 2019 must now make their case directly to lawmakers that regulation, not prohibition, is the path forward.
Whether through in-person testimony, written comments, or direct outreach to committee members, every voice matters in this crucial debate about the future of hemp in Texas. For thousands of business owners and their employees, Monday’s hearing may well determine whether they have a future in this industry at all.
Committee Hearing Information
Time: 8:00 AM, Monday, April 7, 2025 Location: JHR 120, Texas Capitol Committee: House State Affairs Chair: Rep. Ken King
CRAFT Leads the Way in Hemp Compliance as SB 3 Threatens Industry
As the Texas Legislature debates SB 3—a bill that would ban all THC products—responsible hemp retailers across the state are stepping up to protect their businesses, their customers, and their communities.
For the past 18 months, Texas hemp industry advocates, business owners, policy and legal experts have worked to create a set of training modules, model store manuals, SOPs and other compliance-related business standards that can be adopted statewide to assist small businesses with building their compliance and sales capacity while pushing back against the false narratives being used to push the Prohibitionist ban agenda. The Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas (CRAFT) is a multi-sector industry-led effort to prove that the hemp industry is capable of self-regulation. Our members have voluntarily implemented a 21+ age policy, adopted rigorous product sourcing and testing standards, and developed a comprehensive Retailer Playbook to help businesses stay compliant in a shifting legal environment.
Our members didn’t wait for politicians to tell them what’s right,” said Jay Maguire, CRAFT co-founder and spokesperson. “Moral panics don’t start with facts—they start with fear. And that’s exactly what Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and Senator Charles Perry relied on: Reefer Madness-style scare tactics and cherry-picked anecdotes. Even when the stories were true, they were outliers—not the norm. The vast majority of retailers are doing the right thing. CRAFT members voluntarily enforce a 21+ age policy and card every customer at the point of sale—just like alcohol and tobacco. That’s what responsible businesses do.”
When Lt. Governor Dan Patrick visited Happy Cactus shop in Austin last week unannounced and looking for evidence of super-high THC products, he was expecting a political “gotcha” moment. What he found instead was a professional, compliant business, stocked with compliant products and operated with trained staff following company policy, carding customers and following best practices. That’s not politics—that’s policy in action.
Key leaders in the hemp space are weighing in:
• Rhiannon Yard, owner of Hemp Gaia, says: “We teach retailers how to verify COAs match the products on their shelves and ensure lab tests were done using the correct methods at accredited labs. That’s how we protect our customers and our licenses.”
• Nick Mortillaro, owner of Lazydaze Coffeeshops, adds: “Retailers need to cut through the buzz and noise with real, evidence-based education. That’s what CRAFT provides.”
• Brian Dombrowsky, owner of Aim High Distro, says: “CRAFT helps business owners stay licensed and build trust by educating their communities about what they do.”
The public already supports this approach. Polls show that 68% of Texans favor safe, regulated access to THC—and the $8 billion Texas hemp market proves they’re voting with their wallets.
📣 To read the full press release or to join the movement, visit joincraft.org
If you’d like to learn more, speak with a CRAFT spokesperson, or schedule a visit to one of our member retailers, feel free to reach out directly.
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”—Brandolini’s Law
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has once again made clear that he’s willing to derail the state’s legislative agenda unless lawmakers deliver on two of his highest priorities: a sweeping ban on hemp-derived THC products and a constitutional amendment that would allow courts to deny bail in a wide range of cases.
His message is blunt: pass Senate Bill 3 and Senate Joint Resolution 5—or face a special session and the threat of a frozen state budget. This isn’t just hardball politics—it’s an attempt to bulldoze policy changes through fear, misinformation, and manufactured urgency.
No Room for Facts in Patrick’s THC Crusade
Despite overwhelming opposition, including testimony from hundreds of industry professionals and consumers, and extensive evidence debunking the claims of his handpicked witnesses, the Texas Senate last week passed SB 3, authored by Sen. Charles Perry. The bill would ban virtually all products containing detectable levels of THC—unless they’re part of Texas’ extremely limited medical marijuana program.
Patrick insists the legislation is needed to protect children from so-called “high-potency edibles” and unregulated bad actors. In reality, SB 3 would dismantle a legitimate, fast-growing sector that’s been operating under both state and federal oversight, with licensed retailers following strict compliance protocols.
To make his case, Patrick recently made a highly publicized visit to Happy Cactus Apothecary, a boutique wellness store in Austin that sells hemp-derived products. Expecting to uncover a lack of oversight, Patrick instead found well-trained staff, strict age-verification protocols, and store leadership that had already taken proactive steps to limit access to minors—including issuing a no-trespass notice to nearby Crockett High School students.
Store attorney David Sergi joined the visit by phone and made clear that the store has been working closely with local authorities to ensure compliance and transparency. In short, there was no scandal—just a responsible business following the law.
None of that stopped Patrick from continuing to push a narrative of chaos and lawlessness in the hemp industry. His strategy isn’t built on facts; it’s built on volume. And because few people invest the time to challenge his talking points, his version of the truth often dominates.
A Bail Overhaul That Undermines Due Process
The second front in Patrick’s campaign is a proposed constitutional amendment that would give judges broad new power to deny bail in cases beyond capital murder—the one category currently exempt from Texas’ constitutional right to reasonable bail.
Through Senate Joint Resolution 5, Patrick and his allies want to grant courts the authority to keep individuals jailed before trial if they are accused of certain violent offenses. Supporters frame this as necessary for public safety, but critics argue that it amounts to pretrial punishment without due process—an erosion of the presumption of innocence that’s central to the American legal system.
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates warn that expanding pretrial detention this way will increase jail populations, disproportionately impact marginalized communities, and burden taxpayers without producing measurable gains in public safety.
Political Theater with Real-World Consequences
Patrick’s approach is straightforward: use fear to drive policy, cast any dissent as a threat to public safety, and marginalize the very stakeholders working to build lawful, responsible industries in Texas. In doing so, he avoids debate and dodges scrutiny, counting on the media and public to move on before anyone checks the facts.
What happened at Happy Cactus should have been a turning point. Instead, it became just another footnote in a campaign built on ignoring what’s right in front of him. The business followed the law. It protected minors. It welcomed oversight. But Patrick walked away still insisting the system was broken.
This is not how sound policy is made. And yet, it often works—because so few are willing to take the time to refute the stories Patrick tells.
The hemp industry and Texas’ longstanding legal traditions are now in his crosshairs. If lawmakers don’t push back with facts, with clarity, and with courage, the state may soon find itself under laws crafted not from evidence, but from political expedience.
