Skip to main content

Tag: Charles Perry

Cannabis Prohibition, Moral Sorting, and the Civic Heresy We Must End

God’s Poor and the Devil’s Poor:

 

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.

A Tale of Two Bills to Decide Fate of Texas Hemp Industry

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

To Register for In-Person Testimony:
https://mytxlegis.capitol.texas.gov/HWRSPublic/About.aspx

To Submit Written Comments:
https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c450

Live Video Broadcast:
https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/

Hemp Wars: Lt. Dan Marches Senate into Kill-Zone

Political Commentary | Jay Maguire – Political Editor Texas Hemp Reporter –
Senate Bill 3, introduced by Senator Charles Perry and backed by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, represents Texas’ most aggressive crackdown on hemp-derived cannabinoids. The bill would ban all cannabinoids except CBD and CBG, effectively outlawing products containing delta-8 and delta-9 THC, which have flourished due to legal gray areas. Supporters argue that these products pose safety risks, particularly to minors, while opponents see the bill as an unnecessary expansion of government control that would cripple Texas’ legal hemp industry.
But this legislation isn’t just about hemp—it’s part of a broader far-right agenda in Texas, where Patrick and Perry have used their power to push extreme culture war policies. Patrick, in particular, has been instrumental in Texas’ hard-right turn, attacking public education, LGBTQ+ rights, and any form of marijuana legalization under the guise of protecting “traditional values.” This latest push to ban hemp-derived cannabinoids aligns with their long-standing efforts to extend the failed War on Drugs, despite mounting evidence that criminalization doesn’t work.
The financial backing behind this movement is critical to understanding what’s happening. Patrick’s biggest donor, West Texas oil billionaire Tim Dunn, has poured millions into reshaping Texas politics, funding primary challenges against Republicans who aren’t conservative enough. Dunn’s money has fueled attacks on public education, voting rights, and any policy that doesn’t fit his ultra-conservative, Christian nationalist vision for the state. In that context, SB3 isn’t just about hemp—it’s about control. It’s another example of Texas’ political machine prioritizing ideological battles over economic freedom, despite the fact that the hemp industry has created jobs and generated revenue for the state.
If SB3 passes, it will take effect on September 1, 2025, with retailers required to comply by January 1, 2026. But for Patrick and Perry, the bill’s impact goes beyond just shutting down hemp businesses—it’s part of a larger strategy to shape Texas in their far-right image, using the War on Drugs as a tool to maintain power.