Tag: 2018 Farm Bill

“Bad Science, Bogus Raids, and Bad Bills:

Written by Jay Maguire on May 15, 2025. Posted in Texas Legal & Regulatory News. No Comments on “Bad Science, Bogus Raids, and Bad Bills:

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Analysis (COA) from a DEA-registered and ISO-accredited lab, are being re-tested and declared “hot” by Armstrong using outdated and inappropriate methods.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.

—END—

Lies, Damned Lies, and “Loopholes

Written by Jay Maguire on March 24, 2025. Posted in Legislative.

How Texas Lawmakers Created the Hemp Market They Now Want to Ban

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”—Mark Twain

Following a playbook more than a century old, Texas Prohibitionists have pushed the false claim that hemp producers and retailers exploited a “loophole” to create a thriving cannabinoid market. They argue that lawmakers only ever intended to legalize agricultural hemp for grain and fiber—despite clear evidence to the contrary. This isn’t just misleading; it’s a calculated attempt by politicians like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Sen. Charles Perry, and Chief Steve Dye to rewrite history, shift blame, and vilify Texas entrepreneurs.

These figures have a long history of twisting the truth, omitting inconvenient facts, and demonizing experts and advocates alike. Our policy has been to track their statements and fact-check them against reality, and in doing so, we’ve found a clear pattern of dishonesty. Sen. Charles Perry, in particular, has a habit of self-serving misinformation, making unfounded accusations in hearings while refusing to let witnesses answer his own questions. His rudeness, bad faith, and unchristian treatment of those who disagree with him betray a clear malice toward ordinary Texans whose lives, liberty, and livelihoods mean nothing to him if they fall on the wrong side of his rigid, dogmatic worldview. Nothing Perry says should be taken at face value—every claim must be scrutinized for errors, logical fallacies, and outright mendacity.

There Is No Loophole—The Law Says What It Says, and They Know It

For at least the past two years Perry’s perorations in virtually every hearing and public event when speaking on Delta 8 includes reference to “unscrupulous manufacturers exploiting a loophole in Texas Law allowing these addictive and dangerous products to be sold.” There’s a problem with that because it’s not a loophole.

The Texas Legislature, following the federal 2018 Farm Bill, explicitly legalized hemp products containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. But they didn’t stop at simply allowing hemp stalks and seeds—they included terms like extracts, derivatives, cannabinoids, and isomers in the legal definition.

If lawmakers had only intended to legalize hemp for fiber and grain, why did they specifically name cannabinoids in the law? The Prohibitionists pushing the “loophole” argument want Texans to believe that legal businesses tricked the state into allowing THC products. But the truth is, the law was written to allow for hemp-derived cannabinoids, and lawmakers knew exactly what they were doing when they passed it.

The 2018 Farm Bill and Texas Hemp Law Expanded Hemp on Purpose

The original 2014 Farm Bill created a narrowly defined pilot program for “industrial hemp.” Congress could have kept this limited framework in 2018—but instead, they dramatically expanded it. Not only did they legalize hemp outright, but they also dropped the “industrial” qualifier entirely.

Texas lawmakers followed suit with House Bill 1325 in 2019, fully aware that the national hemp market was rapidly expanding into cannabinoids like CBD and other THC variants. If Patrick, Perry, and their allies now claim they never intended for consumable hemp products to be legal, they either weren’t paying attention (unlikely) or they’re deliberately misrepresenting the legislative history (far more likely).

The Real “Loophole” Is Their Own Failure to Clarify

If Prohibitionists are so outraged about the growth of the hemp market, they should take their complaints to Dan Patrick and Charles Perry, the very people who had multiple chances to clarify the law but chose not to. Instead of implementing regulations early on, they let the industry develop for years before suddenly deciding it was a problem.

If there was any “loophole,” it was one they created by not setting clear parameters from the start. Now, instead of taking responsibility, they want to paint retailers and producers as bad actors to cover up their own negligence.

Prohibitionists Distort, Deceive, and Disgrace Themselves to Justify a Ban

Rather than focusing on legitimate regulatory improvements, Prohibitionists like Chief Steve Dye have resorted to outright misinformation. Dye and others have made scurrilous accusations against hemp retailers, suggesting—without evidence—that they’re knowingly selling dangerous or illegal products to consumers.

This is a classic moral panic playbook:

• Cherry-pick a few bad actors and pretend they represent the entire industry.

• Mislead the public by suggesting all hemp-derived products are the same as illegal marijuana.

• Use law enforcement disinformation to push a political agenda.

Chief Dye’s public statements show a consistent pattern of fear-mongering, deliberate omissions, and outright falsehoods. He has been a mouthpiece for prohibitionist propaganda, making claims that contradict both regulatory evidence and industry data. His statements should never be assumed to be factual and must always be examined for dishonesty.

The vast majority of hemp businesses in Texas operate within the law and have been calling for clear, fair regulations for years. If Prohibitionists truly cared about public safety, they’d work with the industry to improve oversight—not weaponize misinformation to push for a total ban.

Because I said so, and God is on MY side, Dammit.

The Baselice poll delivers a clear message: Texans, including a strong majority of Republicans, support legal, regulated access to THC. Conducted among 600 likely voters, the survey found that 68% favor keeping hemp-derived THC legal with strict regulations, while only 20% support an outright ban. Even among Republicans, support for legality outpaces prohibition by a two-to-one margin, exposing the disconnect between prohibitionist lawmakers like Charles Perry and their own voter base. The results cut through the moral panic and fear-mongering, showing that Texans aren’t buying the manufactured crisis Perry and his allies are pushing. Instead, they recognize the reality—responsible adults should have access to legal THC, and the state’s focus should be on smart regulation, not reactionary bans.

When confronted with hard data that contradicts his narrative, Senator Charles Perry doesn’t debate—he attacks. Upon hearing that a Baselice poll showed 68% of Republicans support some form of THC legalization, Perry turned red-faced and sputtered, dismissing the respected pollster as a “bottom dweller.” He didn’t refute the numbers. He didn’t challenge the methodology. He simply lashed out, as if reality itself were an insult. This is how Perry manages disagreement: not with facts, not with reason, but with sheer force of will, belittling the source and attempting to intimidate the messenger. For Perry, to be proven wrong isn’t just inconvenient—it’s unacceptable. And so, rather than engaging in an honest discussion, he bullies, dodges, and ultimately denies, hoping that if he shouts loudly enough, the truth will simply go away.

The “Loophole” Perry Wants Isn’t the One He Claims

The “loophole” Perry is so desperate to close isn’t the one that made Delta-8 THC legal—it’s the one that prevents him from criminalizing it by legislative fiat. Delta-8 remains legal in Texas due to a court order, but Perry and his allies are attempting to override this by distorting the definition of “synthetic.”

They seek to lump a well-understood, safe chemical process called isomerization—the conversion of one natural cannabinoid into another—into the same category as dangerous, lab-created substances like K2 and Spice. This isn’t just misleading; it’s deliberate. By twisting scientific terminology to fit his prohibitionist agenda, Perry hopes to conjure a public health crisis where none exists. His goal is clear: to weaponize legal definitions, equating a regulated cannabinoid with the reckless chaos of street drugs to justify an unnecessary, fear-driven ban.

Perry, Patrick, and Dye’s Political Game Is Transparent

One of the biggest enablers of this mess is Sen. Charles Perry, a longtime Prohibitionist who deliberately let regulatory uncertainty fester—only to later use it as an excuse for a crackdown. Instead of helping establish clear guidelines for the industry, Perry sat back and waited for problems to arise, knowing he could later use them as ammunition to push prohibition.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has been complicit in this strategy from the beginning. He has consistently blocked even the most modest cannabis reform efforts, from medical marijuana expansion to regulatory improvements for hemp. His sudden concern over hemp-derived THC isn’t about protecting Texans—it’s about pandering to the Prohibitionist base and consolidating power.

And then there’s Chief Steve Dye, who has made it his mission to spread law enforcement disinformation about the industry. Rather than basing his claims on actual evidence, Dye has relied on fear tactics and demonstrably false statements, often demonizing both industry experts and consumer advocates. His refusal to engage in honest debate—combined with his repeated omission of facts—shows that his goal is not public safety but rather to serve the Prohibitionist agenda.

The Bottom Line

The “loophole” argument is nothing more than a convenient excuse for Prohibitionists like Patrick, Perry, and Dye to cover up their own failure to regulate responsibly. The Texas hemp industry followed the law as written, and the same lawmakers who now complain about hemp-derived THC were the ones who wrote those laws in the first place.

Texas retailers, farmers, and consumers deserve better than political games and misinformation. If lawmakers want to change the rules, they should do so through honest debate—not by demonizing legal businesses and rewriting history.

Texans must not allow prohibitionist politicians like Dan Patrick, Charles Perry, and Steve Dye to use bad-faith narratives to shut down an industry that has operated in good faith. The Texas hemp industry is here to stay, and we must not let these politicians weaponize disinformation to take us backward.

The Big Smear: False and Misleading Claims Dan Patrick and Sen. Perry’s Press Conference Deconstructed and Debunked

Written by Jay Maguire on March 20, 2025. Posted in Texas Legal & Regulatory News.

Executive Summary

On March 19, 2025, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick hosted a legislative briefing to address the proliferation of synthetic THC products across the state. The briefing centered on Senate Bill 3, introduced by Senator Charles Perry, which aims to ban these products completely. Law enforcement officials and families affected by synthetic THC-related mental health crises provided testimony supporting the proposed legislation. This report analyzes the claims, evidence, and broader context of this high-profile public health discussion.

Introduction and Background

The briefing opened with Lieutenant Governor Patrick displaying a map showing approximately 8,300 locations selling THC products throughout Texas. “This is the problem,” Patrick stated, pointing to the visual representation. “8,300 locations doing $8 billion worth of business in Texas, preying on young people, preying on any adult who doesn’t know what the products are they’re buying.”

Patrick framed the issue as an urgent matter requiring immediate legislative intervention, emphasizing that Senate Bill 3 would ban THC products completely, including those found in beverages sold at liquor stores. “This is a poison publicly, and we as the legislature, number one responsibility is life and death issues, and that’s why this is Senate Bill three,” Patrick declared.

Senator Perry’s Presentation

Senator Charles Perry, the author of Senate Bill 3, presented a notably emotional case against synthetic THC products, recounting several personal stories of young adults suffering from psychosis and addiction. “2020 years old in recovery for a year. I’m here for David. 29 years old in psychosis today. I’m here for grace. 29 in psychosis today. I’m here for melody. 22 addicted,” Perry recounted, listing numerous cases of young people experiencing severe psychiatric and health issues allegedly linked to synthetic THC use.

Perry emphasized that the products in question are fundamentally different from traditional cannabis: “This is not pot of yesterday. This is stuff that will change lives forever in a very negative way, actually probably cause loss of life at the end of the day, because paranoid and schizophrenia are the attributes that are a common thing when you talk to these parents of these kids are in this stuff.”

The senator also addressed concerns about THC-infused alcoholic beverages: “In what world would conceive that if you mix drug and alcohol, that the end result can be anything but bad? That doesn’t end well for any people.” He insisted that such products cannot be excluded from the proposed ban.

Perry directly challenged the industry’s economic arguments: “Profit over people is never an excuse to ignore the people… The taxes we collect does not cover the behavioral health issues that’s created an addiction that state budgets of the day have to cover.”

Law Enforcement Perspectives

Police Chief Steve Dye of Allen, representing the Texas Police Chiefs Association, provided insights into the challenges facing law enforcement. He explained that consumable THC products currently being sold across Texas often contain illegally high concentrations of THC: “Undercover police investigations have found THC consumables that tested up to 78% THC concentration, which is many times more than the naturally grown marijuana of the past, which was less than 5% THC.”

Chief Dye highlighted the marketing tactics employed by retailers: “Wholesalers and retailers often market these products as candy, chips and cookies, covering labels to disguise and mislead on the contents. Consumers have no idea what they’re consuming in these containers, and most people think that if you walk into a store and you’re able to buy something from a retail establishment, it must be legal and it must be safe. With these THC consumables, neither is true.”

District Attorney Greg Willis of Collin County reinforced these concerns from a prosecutorial perspective: “Daily dosing basically can make psychosis five times more likely. For one in 10 heavy users, the psychosis never lifts, and it becomes a lifetime of mental illness. One hit, one habit, and the door to schizophrenia swings wide open, never fully closing again.”

Willis drew parallels to previous synthetic drug crises: “As has been mentioned, we’ve been here before. K2 spice basalts. Every time it starts the same, new drug slips through a loophole, gets marketed as safe, as just another option. Then comes the overdoses, the psychotic breaks and the ruined lives. But each time Texas has acted, and Texas should act again.”

Sheriff Bill Waybourn added context about the impact on county jail systems, noting: “We’ve been asking to add to our mental health capacity in Tarrant County because of these things, this is clearly the evil that stands before us.”

Testimony from Affected Families

Some of the briefing’s most compelling testimony came from family members of those affected by synthetic THC products. A representative from Safe and Healthy Texas shared the story of Sonia Jimenez, whose son died by suicide after experiencing psychosis from a product called “wedding cake Delta eight.” According to the testimony, “The voices in [his] head told him to go to LA to save God’s children… He was suffering. He didn’t understand what happened in front of the train.”

Another parent, Chandel Stricklin, shared her personal experience of having to retrieve her son from a psychiatric ward: “I had to pick up my son from a psych ward, had to speak with a psychiatrist, explained the medication, the recovery process and what next steps for our family would look like.” She described her fear of her own child after his mental state changed dramatically: “For the first time in my life, I experienced being afraid of my own child… I question if I need to stay up all night, am I going to be able to go to sleep?”

Stricklin emphasized the need for immediate action: “We don’t have time for more regulation, because families are at risk, lives are at risk, we are asking for a total ban of synthetic THC.”

Policy Discussions and Responses to Questions

When questioned about existing medical cannabis programs in Texas, Senator Perry clarified that Senate Bill 1505 would be amended to expand the state’s compassionate use program: “There’ll be an amendment on the floor for the teacup bill, 1505 when it comes up that’s going to require not, not May, but shall, open up those three additional licenses that we’re going to so they’ll produce six licenses.”

Perry also addressed a question about a poll showing 68% support for THC in Texas, arguing the poll was misleading: “Synthetic THC was not polled… The average person in this room, and people are listening, do not understand the distinction between THC and synthetic.” He suggested that the public might support the concept of THC in general without understanding the specific dangers of synthetic variants.

Lieutenant Governor Patrick emphasized coordination among state leadership: “The Governor and the Speaker and I have talked about this several times. We just had breakfast this morning. We’re all on the same page. We’re going to protect the people of Texas from THC.”

Patrick concluded with a pointed observation about retail locations: “Why are almost all of these THC stores building and opening up around schools? The idea that they say, ‘Well, we have 21 sign on the door. We don’t sell—’ Why are they all opening up around school? That’s where they believe their market is, you don’t open a business in an area that you’re not selling products.”

Analysis and Context

The briefing presented a coordinated message from state leadership, law enforcement, and affected families, all supporting a complete ban on synthetic THC products. However, several important considerations merit additional context:

First, the terminology used throughout the briefing often blurred distinctions between different types of cannabis-derived products. The speakers frequently referred to “synthetic THC” when discussing hemp-derived cannabinoids like Delta-8 THC, which are technically semi-synthetic (derived from CBD through chemical conversion) rather than fully synthetic drugs like K2 or Spice. This terminological imprecision could lead to confusion about exactly which products would be banned under the proposed legislation.

Second, while the speakers cited extreme cases of psychosis and other serious health effects, they did not address the complex relationship between cannabinoid use and mental health that has been documented in scientific literature. The causal relationship between THC exposure and psychosis is still being studied, with some research suggesting bidirectional effects and confounding factors that complicate straightforward conclusions.

Third, the briefing characterized the industry as exploiting regulatory loopholes rather than acknowledging the complex legal environment created in the wake of the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and created a gray area for hemp-derived cannabinoids. The speakers did not address potential regulatory frameworks short of complete prohibition that might address their concerns while allowing regulated access.

Finally, the economic implications of banning an $8 billion industry in Texas were mentioned primarily as a counterargument to industry claims rather than as a consideration requiring detailed analysis. The potential impact on tax revenues, employment, and alternative sources for these products was not substantively addressed.

Conclusion

The March 19 briefing presented a strong case for banning synthetic THC products in Texas based on public health and safety concerns, particularly regarding mental health impacts on young people. The testimony from affected families provided compelling emotional support for the proposed legislative action.

While Senate leadership has signaled firm support for Senate Bill 3, the dynamic in the Texas House of Representatives differs significantly from that in the Senate. Industry advocates and stakeholders will have opportunities to address factual inaccuracies that contribute to what appears to be a moral panic designed to eliminate the industry rather than regulate it responsibly. The Texas legislative process requires each chamber to pass identical bills before any law can be presented to the governor, leaving ample room for negotiated regulations or even the possibility of Senate Bill 3 being defeated entirely.

Businesses operating in this sector should focus on implementing and maintaining best practices to improve overall industry optics. Strict adherence to existing laws and regulations provides the most effective defense against both immediate enforcement actions and proposed prohibitions. Companies that can demonstrate responsible operations, age verification procedures, proper labeling, and third-party testing will be better positioned to advocate for reasonable regulation rather than outright prohibition.

The Parable of the Two Molecules

Written by Clay Moore on January 31, 2025. Posted in Cultivation.

On a quiet morning in a town that could be anywhere—though, in truth, it sits under a
blazing Texan sun—two figures stand at a crossroads. One is an old farmer, face lined
with decades of toiling in the fields, familiar with the gentle hum of wind through
cannabis leaves. He smiles easily, remembering a time when all he had was the plant,
its naturally occurring Delta-9 THC dancing beneath the sun, a secret he could trust.
The other figure, a young chemist in a crisp white lab coat, fresh from a makeshift
laboratory hidden behind a steel door, cradles a vial of something new, something
strange: a synthesized cannabinoid conjured not by nature, but by human ingenuity.

They meet by a rickety wooden sign that reads: “HEMP—0.3% THC LIMIT.” It’s a relic
from a not-so-distant past, a guideline that changed the course of everything. On one
side of the sign, fields of hemp sway under legally sanctioned skies, their Delta-9 THC
content tightly bound by regulation. On the other side, a world of possibility and
confusion blooms—hemp-derived molecules twisted, converted, and reshaped into
something both eerily familiar and unstintingly new: Delta-8, THCP, HHC, and more.

The farmer remembers a hypothetical: If you could hop into a time machine—say, back
to 2018—and whisper in the ear of a president, “Legalize cannabis outright,” would all of
this tinkering have been necessary? Would there be a room full of chemists bending
molecules to comply with laws rather than to discover truth? One timeline might have
yielded an abundance of natural Delta-9 THC, openly grown, studied, and enjoyed
without the shadowy dance around percentages. But in the timeline we have, clever
minds spotted a legal loophole and seized it. Thus, a new era was born.

The chemist, for their part, isn’t some cartoon villain. They are a seeker of knowledge.
They might say, “Nature is wondrous, but so is the human mind. If we can create a
molecule that offers therapeutic benefits that Delta-9 can’t, why not do it?” Yet the
farmer counters, “If we’d just started by legalizing the original plant, would we have even
bothered? Isn’t Mother Nature’s original blueprint enough?”

People come from all corners to argue. Some say these synthetic cannabinoids have
opened doors: they’ve allowed consumers in places like Texas to experience something
close to the Delta-9 high without openly defying the law. They’ve ushered in a future
where new pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals might arise—substances that could help
ailments where old solutions fell short. Others warn of unknown dangers. Unregulated
synthetics have sent people reeling into hospital beds, their minds spinning into worlds
they never wanted to see. Safety data is thin, and no one’s quite sure what happens
when these new molecules dance in human biology over the long term.
In the distance, smoke rises from another battlefield. Texas lawmakers threaten to end
all THC sales—Delta-9, Delta-8, and everything in between—citing confusion, public

safety, and unforeseen consequences of the hemp loophole. Thousands of shop
owners face ruin. Consumers who rely on these cannabinoids for relief may lose their
access entirely. This ban wouldn’t just target the chemists and the labs; it would also
strike at the humble farmers and their fields of green. One might ask: Whose fault is this
tightening noose? The natural Delta-9 that sparked fear long ago, or the synthetic
creations that emerged only because Delta-9 was kept at arm’s length?
And what of medicine? The Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP) only permits
naturally occurring cannabinoids. There’s a sanctity, it seems, in what the plant chooses
to provide. Yet, shouldn’t we at least ask if the new synthetics deserve study and
scrutiny in clinical environments? Could they be tamed, understood, and perhaps one
day trusted? Or should they remain at the edges, a wild frontier too dangerous to bring
into the doctor’s office?

These questions swirl like smoke in the twilight air. The farmer and the chemist watch
the horizon. They know lawmakers, lobbyists, patients, and business owners are all
involved—everyone is shouting, everyone is pushing, everyone is pulling. It’s a war of
definitions: What is natural? What is safe? What should be allowed? And beneath these
questions lies an even deeper one: Who are we to decide what belongs in our bodies,
and at what cost?

By now, we are all standing at that crossroads, squinting into a future fogged by
uncertainty. Does the “natural” inherently mean safer, better, more ethical? Or does
human innovation hold a torch that illuminates pathways nature never considered? If
time were reversed, would we just legalize Delta-9 THC and spare ourselves this maze
of molecular modifications? Or would we still crave something new, different, and
perhaps better?

scientist experimenting with cannabis in the lab made with AI

In the end, the figures fade, and we are left with the riddle itself. Just as Hamlet once
pondered “To be or not to be,” we are left wondering: to inhale the old ways or embrace
the new; to trust nature’s leaf or trust the alchemy of the lab; to ban them all or find a
delicate balance.

We stand, each of us, at that same dusty crossroads, knowing there is no easy answer.
In our hesitation, we discover that we are not truly debating chemistry or law. We are
asking who we are as a society—our values, our hopes, our fears. And perhaps, in that
silent pause, we will learn something about existence itself.

80stixx – Premium Alternative Cannabinoid Products

Written by Clay Moore on September 10, 2024. Posted in Hemp.

Since its inception in 2022, 80stixx has rapidly established itself as a leader in the alternative cannabinoid market. Inspired by the Amarillo area code “806,” the brand has expanded its reach across the country, securing placement in over 1,000 stores and establishing more than 10 distribution accounts. With a focus on quality, transparency, and innovation, 80stixx is reshaping the cannabinoid landscape with its wide array of products and commitment to excellence.

The Journey

80stixx’s quick rise in the industry reflects its dedication to providing high-quality cannabinoid products that meet consumer demands. Drawing inspiration from its Texas roots, the brand has become a household name in alternative cannabinoids, offering everything from Delta-8 (D8) and Delta-9 (D9) products to THCA. Each product is carefully crafted to deliver purity, potency, and consistency—qualities that set 80stixx apart in a crowded marketplace.

What truly distinguishes 80stixx from other brands in the cannabinoid industry is its focus on the finer details—taste, aesthetics, and innovative packaging. The brand is known for pioneering die-cut packaging for their D8 and D9 gummies, incorporating creative designs that enhance the consumer experience. This attention to packaging not only adds a visual appeal but also signals the brand’s commitment to quality and innovation.

On the taste front, 80stixx gummies are infused with authentic flavors and precision D9 dosing, ensuring a superior experience for consumers. Unlike many other brands that spray cannabinoids onto gummies, 80stixx opts for infusion, delivering a more consistent and enjoyable product without an overpowering cannabis taste.

Adapting to the Shifting Legal Landscape of Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids

Operating in the alternative cannabinoid space means keeping up with the ever-evolving legal landscape. States across the U.S. have varied regulations regarding cannabinoids like THCA and Delta-8, making compliance a top priority for brands like 80stixx. The 2018 Farm Bill paved the way for the hemp industry, but ongoing legislative changes require companies to stay vigilant.

Recently, 80stixx faced challenges in Florida when packaging regulations forced the temporary removal of their products from the market. However, thanks to a reversal of those laws, the company was able to quickly resume operations. This agility in navigating legal challenges demonstrates 80stixx’s resilience and commitment to maintaining a strong presence in the market.

Commitment to Transparency and Lab Testing

Quality and transparency are at the heart of 80stixx’s operations. The company emphasizes the importance of third-party lab testing for all its products to ensure purity, potency, and safety. Every product sold by 80stixx includes a scannable QR code, allowing customers to easily access the Certificate of Analysis (COA) for that batch. This level of transparency not only builds trust with consumers but also ensures that 80stixx continues to deliver the highest standards of cannabinoid products.

Emerging Trends and Innovations Shaping the Future of 80stixx

As the cannabinoid industry grows, consumer preferences are shifting, and 80stixx is keeping pace with the latest trends. One emerging trend is the popularity of diamond prerolls, a product that has been gaining traction among retail outlets. 80stixx plans to expand its product line to include more offerings in this category, capitalizing on the growing demand for premium prerolls.

Another notable trend is the increasing interest in edibles and beverages, particularly among an older demographic. While younger consumers tend to favor flower products from smoke shops, edibles are becoming more popular as a discreet and convenient way to consume cannabinoids. 80stixx is well-positioned to cater to both segments, offering a diverse range of products to meet varying consumer needs.

Sustainability: A Key Priority

Sustainability is a growing concern in the hemp and cannabinoid industries, and 80stixx is committed to doing its part. The company works closely with growers and manufacturers to ensure that all operations are environmentally responsible. Regular visits to production facilities and optimized shipping processes help 80stixx minimize its environmental impact, even in challenging conditions such as extreme heat.

This focus on sustainability not only benefits the environment but also aligns with the values of many of 80stixx’s customers, who are increasingly seeking eco-friendly products.

Shaping the Future of the Hemp Industry

As a rising force in Texas’ hemp and cannabinoid industry, 80stixx is committed to playing a leading role in shaping the future of this rapidly growing sector. The company aims to be a major producer and influencer, crafting innovative solutions and advocating for favorable legislation that supports the growth of the hemp industry.

Looking ahead, 80stixx has its sights set on offering legal cannabinoid products in dispensaries nationwide. With its strong focus on quality, transparency, and sustainability, the brand is poised to continue leading the way in the cannabinoid market for years to come.

For more information about 80stixx and its range of cannabinoid products, visit 80stixx.com or contact them at:

Address: 300 W 6th Street Suite #127, Borger, Texas 79007

Phone: +1 (806) 553-7875

Email: info@80stixx.com

80stixx remains dedicated to offering high-quality, lab-tested cannabinoid products, bringing transparency and innovation to an evolving industry.

Looking for a Hemp Friendly Bank? Here Are 5 Questions to Ask.

Written by texashempreporter on May 4, 2022. Posted in Banking News.

The recent string of good news for hemp-related businesses started with the 2018 Farm Bill, which removed hemp (defined as cannabis with up to 0.3% THC) from Schedule I controlled substances and making it an ordinary agricultural commodity. Financial institutions can now bank hemp-related businesses in states that have the appropriate infrastructure in place to comply with the provisions of the Farm Bill. Good news if you’re looking for a hemp friendly bank, right? Lots of financial opportunities.

But also, lots of potential confusion over rules and regulations.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen this in action as farmers and other hemp-related businesses have been dropped by their banks across the country. Even long-term relationships have ended with banks kicking customers out because of what they see as potentially risky situations.

Where most banks go wrong is by following a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach. They think that if they don’t know what their customers are doing, right or wrong, then the risks can’t hurt them. This strategy is just waiting to backfire. Of course, they’ll find out what they didn’t want to know, and have to write their customers a check and tell them to leave. It’s a good way to get into trouble and a terrible way to partner with customers.

Financial institutions are not exempt from having internal controls in place to determine the risk profile of the entity based on the nature of the business. This is especially true in the rapidly growing world of hemp-related businesses, where having those controls is key to ensuring businesses can bank safely. How do you make it more likely to bank successfully?

A.S.K. (Always Seek Knowledge)

What questions should you ask to gain that knowledge? Let’s look at five you should be asking your financial institution to make sure you’re banking hemp safely.

1. Does your bank have a dedicated hemp vertical with dedicated hemp subject matter experts?

A hemp friendly bank may have a “hemp person,” intended to meet all the needs of their hemp-related customers. What if that person gets stuck in traffic, or gets the flu, or is too darn busy being the only hemp person to properly serve their customers, let alone keep up with all of the constantly evolving regulations?

To really be able to partner with their customers in this ever-changing environment, a bank needs to have an entire vertical with people solely dedicated to hemp-related businesses. And those people need to be experts on hemp. Does your bank have just a toe in the water or are they all in? Do they have a policy for lending or taking deposits in the hemp space? Is their leadership not only on-board, but have they also accumulated the necessary knowledge and embraced banking hemp? If any of the above is a “no”, banking with them should be a no-go.

2. Has your bank written a compliance program?

The worst answer here would be, “What’s a compliance program?” Just as bad would be, “That’s a good idea! They should do that!” Yes, they should. Just being aware of compliance doesn’t come close. Knowing compliance rules isn’t good enough either.

To really bank hemp safely, your financial institution needs to create a compliance program that demonstrates mastery of the rules and regulations. Being fully compliant is crucial to having a successful business and your bank should help you get there.

3. Is your hemp friendly bank vetting you or just inviting you?

Since the dawn of time, banks have wanted your money. More money is better, no questions asked. Until now. When it comes to banking hemp safely, the best thing a hemp friendly bank can do for you is to make sure you’re as good a partner for them as they will be for you. They should want you as customers for the relationship you can develop as much as for the money you can deposit.

If your bank is ushering in your business down a red-carpet flush with rose petals, be wary. For your safety, they should be carefully vetting you. It can only help your business, and with the current challenges in the market, it’s what a true partnership needs to flourish.

Business cannabis stock leaves marijuana success market price green profit growth charts graph money display screen up industry trend grow higher quickly

4. What hard questions are they asking you?

Are they asking to see your testing samples? Your disposal procedures? Your COA? Your license? Are they asking you if you’re up to speed on the latest regulations? Are they asking if you have a safety and security plan in place that is accessible to employees? Are they doing the research to ensure your business has no operational ties to marijuana-related businesses?

If they’re asking these questions, it may not be the easiest thing for you, but it’s the best thing for you. They’re watching out for you. If they’re not, they might be honing their “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” skills. Or they may not even know the right questions to ask. Neither is good.

5. How well does your bank know your business?

It’s important to remember the good things that come from business partners really knowing each other. There’s a difference when a bank has deeply researched your business, the competition, and the overall category; when they’ve been to your place of business, sometimes traveling long distances to be there; when your connection to them is more relational than transactional.

We’d even go so far as to say that they should feel some ownership in your business. They don’t actually, but it should feel that way, like they’re a true partner and not just a place to put your money.

You’re putting a lot out there: your reputation, your hard work, your good name, your funding. The least your bank could do is make sure you’re banking safely. To that end, we’ll leave you with one thought:

When it comes to your hemp-related business, make sure your bank is S.A.F.E: Staffed with Subject matter experts who are All in, Fully compliant at Every level.

The key to certainty? Ask them. Follow the advice of the classic Chinese proverb:

“He who asks a question remains a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask remains a fool forever.”