Skip to main content

Tag: Dan Patrick

The New Enforcement-Industrial Complex: From Nixon’s War on Drugs to Texas SB 3

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative. No Comments on The New Enforcement-Industrial Complex: From Nixon’s War on Drugs to Texas SB 3

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.

judge's gavel with hemp flower

Patrick Takes Budget Hostage, Demands House Pass SB 3

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Texas Legal & Regulatory News. No Comments on Patrick Takes Budget Hostage, Demands House Pass SB 3

“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.

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

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Texas Legal & Regulatory News. No Comments on The Big Smear: False and Misleading Claims Dan Patrick and Sen. Perry’s Press Conference Deconstructed and Debunked

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.

Top Ten Prohibitionist Lies

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative, The Drug War.

The March 3 hearing showcased the best anti-THC talking points from the 1970’s, 80’s and beyond. Like a hit parade of bogus tunes, here’s the Top Ten Prohibitionist Lies

1. “Marijuana is a Gateway Drug”

• Falsehood: Using marijuana leads people to use harder drugs like heroin or meth.

• Reality: Numerous studies, including from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), show no causal link between marijuana use and subsequent hard drug use. The real gateway factors tend to be socioeconomic conditions, trauma, or early exposure to addictive substances like alcohol and nicotine.

2. “Marijuana Causes Violent Crime”

• Falsehood: Legalizing marijuana increases violent crime rates.

• Reality: Crime statistics from states that have legalized cannabis (e.g., Colorado, Washington) show no significant rise in violent crime—and some cities have even reported decreases. In contrast, illegal drug trade violence often decreases when legal markets replace black market sales.

3. “Marijuana Lowers IQ and Makes People Lazy”

• Falsehood: Long-term cannabis use reduces intelligence and destroys motivation.

• Reality: Studies show no significant IQ drop in adults who use cannabis. While adolescent overuse may impact cognitive development, occasional adult use has not been linked to measurable declines in intelligence. Moreover, many successful professionals and creatives openly use cannabis without suffering motivational issues.

4. “Marijuana is as Dangerous as Heroin and Fentanyl”

• Falsehood: Cannabis is a “Schedule I drug” because it’s highly addictive and has no medical benefits.

• Reality: Marijuana is not chemically addictive in the way opioids or nicotine are, and it has established medical benefits for pain, epilepsy, PTSD, and more. In fact, it is far less harmful than alcohol and prescription painkillers.

5. “Legalization Leads to More Teen Use”

• Falsehood: When states legalize marijuana, more teenagers will start using it.

• Reality: Studies from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and Colorado Department of Public Health show no increase in youth marijuana use post-legalization. In fact, some states have seen decreases in underage use due to better regulation.

6. “Marijuana Kills Brain Cells”

• Falsehood: Smoking weed permanently destroys brain cells.

• Reality: This myth originated from a flawed 1970s study where researchers suffocated monkeys with excessive cannabis smoke, depriving them of oxygen. Modern neuroscience shows that cannabis affects brain function but does not destroy brain cells.

7. “People Overdose on Marijuana”

• Falsehood: Cannabis use leads to lethal overdoses.

• Reality: There are zero recorded deaths from cannabis overdose. While high doses can cause discomfort, anxiety, or nausea, it does not suppress respiratory function like opioids.

8. “Legal Marijuana States Have More DUIs and Traffic Accidents”

• Falsehood: Marijuana legalization leads to more impaired driving and crashes.

• Reality: While THC can impair driving ability in some cases, overall crash rates have not spiked in legal states. Many studies indicate that drunk driving is a far bigger problem than cannabis-impaired driving.

9. “Marijuana Has No Legitimate Medical Use”

• Falsehood: There is no scientific evidence supporting medical marijuana.

• Reality: Cannabis is FDA-approved for multiple conditions, and studies confirm its effectiveness in treating epilepsy (CBD), chronic pain, nausea from chemotherapy, PTSD, and multiple sclerosis. The U.S. government even holds a patent on cannabinoids for their neuroprotective effects.

10. “Marijuana Legalization Harms the Economy”

• Falsehood: Legal weed will damage businesses and hurt the economy.

• Reality: Legal cannabis is one of the fastest-growing industries, generating billions in tax revenue, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and reducing costs related to law enforcement

The Curious Timing of SB3 and the DSHS Inspections

Written by texashempreporter on . Posted in Legislative.

 
 
The Curious Timing of SB3 and the DSHS Consumable Hemp Program Inspections
Cannonballs at the Alamo (Our Texas Hemp Industry)
 
On February 20, 2025, two significant regulatory shifts are set to take effect in Texas: the release of Senate Bill 3 (SB3) and the initiation of an intensified inspection protocol under the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) Consumable Hemp Program. While these developments may seem unrelated at first glance, the coinciding timing of their implementation raises critical questions about their potential connection and underlying intent.
 
The DSHS Consumable Hemp Program Crackdown

Simultaneously, DSHS has announced a wave of inspections targeting consumable hemp manufacturers and retailers. According to an official communication dated February 20, 2025, DSHS has encountered increasing resistance from industry participants regarding inspections. In response, the agency has reaffirmed its authority under Texas Health and Safety Code (HSC) Chapter 431.042, which grants it broad oversight powers, including license revocations and civil penalties up to $25,000 per day.

 
Notably, the inspections will focus on verifying compliance with pre-existing regulations, and businesses refusing to cooperate risk severe penalties. Given that hemp regulations have remained relatively stable over the past few years, the sudden urgency in enforcement—just as SB3 comes into play—suggests more than mere coincidence.
 
Conspiracy to Bully  . . .  an Industry?

The concurrent implementation of SB3 and heightened hemp inspections prompts speculation about whether this is a coordinated effort to reshape the industry landscape. While SB3 introduces new provisions that necessitate increased scrutiny, industry leaders are jumping ship and starting to take sides in the future of the consumable hemp market.

Interestingly enough, today Friday the 21st amidst the industry already noticeably shaken by these two initiatives from Texas authorities; Bayou City Hemp Co. released a flyer in its Capitol visit today agreeing that lawmakers should ban all Smokable Hemp Products.More concerning, is that members of Bayou City Hemp Co. are also part of the Texas Hemp Coalition whose stated goal is to keep these products legal.

 
 Cracks in the Alamo 
 
Official statement was released the following Tuesday. (UPDATE)
 

“As an executive board member of the Texas Hemp Coalition, Bayou City Hemp does NOT speak on our behalf nor do we support their efforts to sabotage an entire industry we are all here to protect. An official statement will be made soon.” – Jake Garry stated  in an industry stakeholders WhatsApp forum this afternoon.

 

The Texas Hemp Reporter also tried to reach out to Jeromy Sherman – of Bayou City Hemp Company, Inc. for comment but did not get an answer.

 
It is perhaps in lue of the company’s interest and position in its beverage expansion that it no longer needs to support the flower market. Drink brands from Bayou City Hemp have now collaborated with Spec’s Wines, Spirits & Finer Foods and its 238 locations  as of March of last year. Now that they are seeking national partners like Total Wine and others it looks like Texas retailers will now have to fend for themselves in the cannon-fire of the 89th Legislature.

While the Alamo (our industry) remains under enemy fire, we might be seeing notable differences in lobby teams’ goals with different opinions and strategies. The Texas Business Council is doing their best to work with members of the house and seems to have a good deal of support from many state Hemp Businesses. The move from Bayou City Hemp Co to take sides on the issue against smokable hemp flower is sudden since, traditionally, its leaders have been board members of the Texas Hemp Coalition. I know all these players as I too was a member of that same Board in 2023!

 
With DSHS Inspections and more bills being filed; the contents of SB3 this week is not a shocker . . .  in that we all knew it was seeking the bidding of Dan Patrick’s goal to ban these products. SB3, is filed, which would create criminal offenses for manufacturing, selling, AND possessing hemp products. The first cannon-balls have been fired and the walls of the Alamo (our industry) has shown some cracks and even division amongst her ranks. However, Mark Bordas, Executive Director of Texas Hemp Business Council has stated before “We are early in this fight. We just need to end up on top.”
 
As the cannon-fire will continue to volley back and forth in the next 100 days of the 89th Texas Legislature in the fight for legal Hemp, you can be sure our team at the Texas Hemp Reporter will be in the thick of its coverage. In the words of Sam Houston “Remember the Alamo”

Russell Dowden
Texas Hemp Reporter
The Texas Hemp Show
ESPN 102.7 FM Sundays at 7AM

Lt. Governor’s Prohibition Push: History Repeats in Texas Hemp Debate

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative.

 

When Lt. Governor Dan Patrick announced Senate Bill 3 to ban all forms of THC in Texas, he drew from a familiar political playbook. His declaration that “thousands of stores have opened to sell all types of dangerous products with unlimited THC” echoes rhetoric used to justify cannabis prohibition in the 1930s, when claims about “reefer madness” helped drive federal policy.

 

The Texas Hemp Federation, through Executive Director Jay Maguire, responded: “The Lt. Governor’s characterization ignores basic facts about our industry. Legal hemp businesses employing thousands of Texans are providing safe, tested products while generating over a billion dollars in tax revenue. This isn’t about public safety – it’s about politics.”

Patrick’s announcement comes as multiple studies show regulated hemp markets reduce illegal sales and provide safer alternatives for consumers. States with strict regulation rather than prohibition consistently report better outcomes for both public health and law enforcement resources.

 

The timing is particularly notable given recent challenges to the “tough on drugs” political narrative. As more states move toward regulated markets, evidence continues to mount that prohibition creates more problems than it solves. Even traditionally conservative states have begun embracing hemp’s economic benefits while implementing sensible regulations.

 

Law enforcement perspectives have also evolved. Many departments now prefer focusing resources on actually dangerous substances rather than hemp products. Some Texas police chiefs have publicly stated that regulated hemp markets make their jobs easier by clearly distinguishing legal from illegal products.

 

The economic stakes are substantial. Beyond direct revenue and employment, Texas’ hemp industry supports numerous ancillary businesses from agriculture to retail. Local communities across the state have come to depend on hemp-related commerce and tax revenue for essential services.

 

“History teaches us that prohibition doesn’t eliminate demand – it just drives markets underground,” notes the Federation’s statement. “We’ve built a transparent, regulated industry that protects consumers and supports communities. Dismantling it would only benefit illegal operators.”

The proposed ban faces several hurdles, including potential federal preemption under the Farm Bill and likely legal challenges from affected businesses. Previous attempts at administrative prohibition have already been blocked by Texas courts.

 

For now, the industry continues operating under existing regulations while preparing for what promises to be a defining legislative battle. The outcome may well determine whether Texas embraces evidence-based policy or returns to failed strategies of the past.

 

[Note: This article represents ongoing coverage. The Texas Hemp Reporter will continue following developments as this story unfolds.]

 

POT THE VOTE

Written by Jesse Williams on . Posted in Legislative.

IF VOTING FOR CANNABIS FRIENDLY CANDIDATES IS HOW YOU CHANGE THE LAW IN THE STATE OF TEXAS IN NOVEMBER, HERE’S WHERE THEY STAND

We’ve finally escaped primaries in the state of Texas with the runoffs giving us our November candidates and new seat holders. Some seats are called as there will be no opponent on the ballot in November. Unfortunately this also means that there is likely to be a point of contention among people when it comes to discussing cannabis friendly candidates showing on the ballot where there are incumbents and party loyals.

Cannabis herb and leaves for treatment.Buds. Skunk. cbd, hemp buds and money,Closeup of assorted American banknotes.World economic crisis associated with coronovirus.

When it comes to the individual reps on the ballot, most Democratic candidates have shown to be in favor. That does not mean the Republican candidates are always opposed either. Texas NORML has put together a wonderful list of candidates that responded to a survey they put forward well before primaries started. Several questions were asked and candidates were given a chance to respond. If a candidate for your state house or senate district has not responded, it is recommended that one reach out to the contact information listed on the survey results for that candidate.

On a state level it’s not looking so much in the favor of the Republican candidates this election. Greg Abbott has signaled that he does not want to see prisons and jails filled with cannabis offenders, but has also put forward that possession should still be hit with criminal penalties instead of civil penalties. Abbott has stated that he is a hard no on legalization of marijuana and has not signaled any current favor towards expanding the medical cannabis side of things in Texas.

Abbott’s Democrat opponent Beto O’Rourke is almost a total 180 on cannabis positions. Beto has posited legalizing to help provide property tax relief and help to fund schools in the state. Expanding the medical program on the radar, and so is eliminating criminal penalties. It should be expected to be a big topic when it comes time for debates between the candidates.

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Abbott’s stance on criminal possession charges, while better than not moving it at all, is hit by a roadblock of the incumbent Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. Patrick is the Republican incumbent running for this election with Democratic opponent Mike Collier making a ballot appearance return. Collier was the Democrat opponent 4 years ago and lost by a narrow margin.

Patrick has vocalized in a previous legislative session that any movement to decriminalize cannabis possession would be killed in the Senate.Legalization is off the table with Patrick and the notion of getting medical advancement is insanely difficult given that Patrick has shown to not be favorable and his stand-ins during his absence on the floor have been rather against cannabis progression as well.

Collier has been vocal about changing the law in the state and has been in favor of using the program for the same reason’s Beto has. Collier has also noted that a vast injustice has been created socially with the criminalization of cannabis and that legalization would rectify that. One may think that Collier would be a Texas favorite for this election given his work within the oil industry in Texas along with his work with the highly trusted accounting and audit company PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The agency is known for maintaining the integrity and secrecy of the academy award nominations every year. Oil and election integrity – sounds very Texas.

Then there is the race for AG Commissioner. Incumbent Republican Sid Miller has been on the record saying that he desires to see cannabis move forward for medical reasons in the state of Texas and changes for the better with the hemp program in the state. These statements came about before the most recent legislative session. Unfortunately, Mr. Miller was not very vocal publicly during the 87th legislative session and a hemp cleanup bill was killed over delta-8 language added by the senate. Medical only moved a slight margin with no public statements from Miller during the legislative session on that topic either.

Sid’s opponent is Democrat Susan Hays. Susan is an attorney and a rancher in Texas and has most recently been in the spotlight as one of the attorneys involved in the smokable Hemp ban case. Susan has helped to craft the hemp bills in Texas and guide the process so that things like who is responsible for what, would make more sense. Of course language gets changed after drafting it and before it’s submitted for official filing by an official. Hays has been vocal about having a properly regulated program in place that makes sure each law enforcement agency in the state is aware of the agricultural programs Texas now has legalized.

And when it comes to attorney general, there is the incumbent Ken Paxton whose office  is currently fighting the delta-8 cases brought forward by the Texas Hemp Federation. Paxton’s office was initially trying to defend a retail ban along with the manufacturing ban of smokable hemp products in the state of Texas. The retail ban was not kept as DSHS dropped fighting to keep it. Paxton has not shown any support for the industry.

Rochelle Garza is the Democrat opponent that Ken Paxton will have to face in November. Garza’s stance is that of “it never should have been criminalized. The fight for legal cannabis isn’t about making a dangerous substance legal. 18 states have already legalized cannabis, and Texas needs to be next if we want to jump-start criminal justice reform.”

It would be great to see conservative statewide office holders showing the enthusiasm Sid Miller was showing in 2020. The voting base is for it and that includes Republican voters when promoting it to fund schools and keep property taxes down. As much as there are conservatives that are for having a stellar medical program the way Oklahoma does, the key positions within the statewide offices, don’t seem to be there.

The offices and incumbents need votes to stay around and every candidate is doing a behavior to either obtain something or avoid something. They need votes to obtain time in office and avoid getting out to the curb. Elections happen so that people can decide to not give them their votes if they cannot learn to do the right things for the people when in office. This is your voice Texas, this is your vote. We as journalists shouldn’t tell you how to vote when it comes to articles such as these. But when it comes to these topics we can give you the facts available on their positions and the candidates history with the topics.

Be sure to vote, Texas. If you are not registered, do so. Start finding out now what your voting locations are and your candidates. Ask them questions. Use your first amendment right and question these people. To check out the NORML voting guide for Texas, just Google Texas NORML Voter’s Guide

Penalty Reduction Bill an Update on Joe Moody’s HB 2593

Written by Jesse Williams on . Posted in Legislative.

Penalty Reduction Bill HB 2593 an Update on Joe Moody’s

by Jesse Williams

Rep. Joe Moody (D) of El Paso authored HB 2593. The bill specifically deals with marijuana concentrates of up to 2 oz of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC). Moody had previously authored what has become HB 441 (another penalty reduction bill for marijuana flower) authored by Rep. Zwiener in the 87th legislative session.

HB 2593 would remove tetrahydrocannabinol and related substances from Penalty Group 2 and place them in a new category, Penalty Group 2-B, under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.

Penalties for possession of substances from the new Penalty Group 2-B would have been the same as those in Penalty Group 2-A, which range from a class B misdemeanor if the substance is two ounces or less, to life in prison or a term of five to 99 years and a fine up to $50,000 if the amount of substance possessed is more than 2,000 pounds.

Right now, any amount of concentrate found in your possession is a state felony. The last time penalty reduction was passed by the Texas legislature was 1973.

The bill passed out of the House committee with only two nay votes and passed in the House with a final supermajority vote of 108-33.

 The bill proceeded to the Senate where it passed out of committee with only 2 nay votes as well. From there the bill was approved out of the Texas Senate with a delta-8 amendment attached by Senator Perry. The amendment would bring the regulation of delta-8 to what Perry called the federal limit imposed on THC by the 2018 Farm Bill. The second reading of the bill was passed with a 25-6 vote, and after the third reading for the final passage with amendment added, a vote of 24-7 was taken to pass the bill with supermajority support.

Grinded weed shaped as Texas and a joint.(series)

Senator Hinojosa asked if the amendment would bring any lab confusion such as the previous hemp bill, to which Perry responded no. Perry was also asked if the author (Moody) was okay with this amendment, to which the answer was yes.

When the bill went back to the House to see if the author conferred with the amendments or wanted a conference committee, Rep. Moody made a point of order on the bill. Moody requested a conference committee on the grounds that the delta-8 amendment was not germane (not relevant to purpose) to the bill it was added to. The House agreed that the amendment was not germane and the bill went to the conference committee. The same conclusion was reached in the conference committee.

The House then voted on the conference committee version without the delta-8 amendment language and passed the bill again. The bill was then sent to the Senate to be heard by the members on the floor. When sponsor Sen. Nathan Johnson (D) requested for the bill to get a vote on the floor, Lt Gov Dan Patrick denied the request, likely from frustration that the delta-8 amendment language was not present.

When this request on the floor was denied, the bill was effectively dead because the deadline was coming up within hours to have the bill passed by the Senate floor once more and sent to the governor.

Concentrates of THC now remain a state felony in the state of Texas until the legislature convenes again in 2023 to possibly bring up another bill.

Heather Fazio talk to Texas Hemp Reporter

Written by texashempreporter on . Posted in Texas Legal & Regulatory News.

Interview with Heather Fazio of Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy by Sana v’Ritzvah

Heather served as Texas Political Director of the Marijuana Policy Project from 2014-2018. Now, she utilizes her passion for grassroots activism and coalition building as Director of Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy, an advocacy-focused coalition.

TEXAS HEMP REPORTER: Heather what occurred in the Texas Legislature in May?

HEATHER:Texas is inching along with marijuana legislation. I wish I could say more, it’s like a tennis game. 37 states have fully regulated medical marijuana, including all Texas border states, with Alabama profiting at 92 million per year. The Compassionate Use Act was passed in 2015, amended and expanded in 2019. HB1535 (Rep. Klick) flushed the house 134-12 and sent to the Governor. The bill calls for the expansion of access for all not just terminally-ill cancer patients, PTSD treatments and patients with chronic pain.Sadly the Senate dropped the ball cutting the provision for chronic pain re-feeding back into the opioid epidemic, “pills for pain” costing thousands of lives, quality of life, tragedies, wasted resources and severe addictions.    One inspiring thing was our veteran lobby standing up for non-veterans strongly behind the PTSD inclusion vocally supporting accident survivors,mothers whose child perished in childbirth, victims of crimes all who can
suffer the syndrome.

Another us the establishment of the Internal Review Board for Medical Marijuana. Now in-state research and science can promulgate the myriad reasons for expanding legality of cannabis.    It’s silly really how we banter between .5% 1% 5% THC content when it really should be doctors trained in the field concerning dosages.    It was leaked that hearings concerning the cannabis bills were hijacked by the Lt. Governor’s Office which was meeting secretly without public access. These are the draconian measures our officials are taking to stall progress.    Other bills still in the twilight are SB181 (Rep. Johnson) which would take Texas off the list that suspends drivers licenses for “drug convictions” hoping to alleviate the already 50,000 arrested annually for marijuana-related charges. HB1694 could save lives ensuring medical issues are not exploited to arrest people for possession. And HB567 (Rep. Frank) to protect TCUP patients (minors) from being extracted from their homes for failing a THC test.


THR: How did you personally get involved in medical marijuana?

Witnessing one hundred years of suppression of uses and benefits of hemp and with the issue emerging so strongly. I was involved with Texans for ResponsibleGovernment and a member of the Libertarian Party. I saw it as unconscionable. I was involved with grassroots organizing, community building coalition making. After joining Texas NORML I was chosen as Advisor for the Marijuana Activist Manual. The next logical step was Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy.


THR: There now exists a 27 member coalition that coalesces around the issue.


Yes. Our situation is we live in a polarized political environment. We began to seek allies that could bond to institute policies that mattered. As we discussed I come from a libertarian perspective; a bipartisan grouping, democrats and republicans, ACLU.. it really is a privacy rights issue, a due process issue, civil rights. There are millions affected by dis-regulation, it is liberty versus jailing. Tens of thousands of Texans in jail for marijuana and 92% of burglaries go unsolved.
 

THR: What about Delta-8?
HEATHER:There is an attorney for two companies, one that produces and one that sells Delta-8 products. The DSHS has established that THC from hemp, in any traceable form from .0001% to the supposedly legal 3% is all in the same bucket. The attorney called this a quagmire. By lumping all THC we lose the particulars, our law makers prove they know nothing of the science, nothing about the plant they are dealing with. Our advocates strive to shine light on the variables to avoid misunderstanding.


THR: Can you give us a personal testimony?
HEATHER: A nurse from Wichita Falls, she was diagnosed with cancer. After moving to Colorado she tried cannabis for a second time. She wasn’t sure till one day she left her couch without buckling over, entered her kitchen without pain and began cooking again. For those in pain 24-7 this is life-changing.

Photo Jesse Williams for the Texas Hemp Reporter.


TEXAS HEMP REPORTER:What’s does the future hold in Texas for Cannabis?


HEATHER:The Texas Legislature meets on the odd every two years. So we are looking to 2023. We plan to inject into the campaign cycle, ask a lot of questions of our law makers, create discussions with law enforcement.NORML has collected a marijuana-friendly voters guide. And we seek to start conversations with our civic groups, community centers, PTA (lol) why not? 60% of Texans believe small amounts of marijuana should be legal for any purpose.

THR:Are you optimistic?


HEATHER:Very. This is tug of war, we stand on the backs of several generations of activists that have blazed this trail. We represent a professional effort to secure individual rights. Nothing but our best efforts will bring our movement forward.