Skip to main content

Tag: Dan Patrick SB3

Dan Patrick and the shadow war on cannabis: A case for official oppression?

Written by Misty Contreras on . Posted in News.

In the corridors of the Texas Capitol, where influence is currency and access determines outcome, one man’s fingerprints are all over the battle to decide the future of THC in Texas: Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. While Governor Greg Abbott weighs Senate Bill 3—a sweeping ban on hemp-derived THC products—Dan Patrick has already chosen his side. And he’s been stacking the deck.

This isn’t just another tale of moneyed lobbying and legislative maneuvering. The facts suggest a pattern that edges uncomfortably close to official oppression, a crime under Texas Penal Code § 39.03, where a public servant uses their position to intentionally mistreat someone or deny them a right.
Let’s walk through how Patrick — directly or through his proxies — may have done exactly that.

A market war disguised as a public health issue

In 2021, AFI Capital Partners poured $21 million into Texas Original Compassionate Cultivation (TOCC), the state’s leading licensed medical cannabis producer. That same year, THC products made from hemp—legal under the 2019 federal and Texas hemp laws—began to outsell their prescription-only counterparts. Suddenly, the monopoly granted to licensed medical marijuana producers was no longer secure. Demand dropped. Patients defected. The state’s entire tightly controlled “Compassionate Use” market was eclipsed by walk-in, over-the-counter sales of delta-8, delta-9, and THCA.

Rather than compete, TOCC called for war. And Dan Patrick was their general.

After TOCC’s decline, AFI Capital managing director Nico Richardson stepped in as CEO and began lobbying for a total ban on hemp-derived THC. Public records show TOCC hired Logan Spence– Dan Patrick’s former chief of staff, paying him upwards of $417,000. That’s not unusual in Austin. But what is unusual is how Patrick then used his office to push a bill that would effectively kneecap an entire retail industry—one supported by the majority of Republican voters.

The Patrick machine

Senate Bill 3, which bans hemp-derived THC starting this September, would gut a $5.5 billion industry and jeopardize over 50,000 jobs. Yet, despite overwhelming grassroots support for retail THC—including 135,000 petition signatures and hundreds of public testimonies— the bill sailed through Patrick’s Senate with little resistance.

Patrick didn’t just allow the bill to advance, he greased the rails. TOCC wasn’t the only company with ties to his orbit. A new pro-SB3 medical cannabis company— Blissful CannaCo— popped up last December and hired a lobbyist with social and academic ties to Patrick’s assistant general counsel. In Texas, that kind of proximity is not coincidence, it’s calculation.

When public officials take steps to rig regulatory outcomes to favor personal allies or economic interests—especially at the expense of broader constitutional rights like due process, equal protection, or economic liberty—that’s not just bad policy, that could be classified as official oppression.

The legal standard

Under Texas law, a public official commits official oppression when they use their position to intentionally mistreat or arrest someone or intentionally deny or impede a right knowing their conduct is unlawful.

Patrick’s conduct raises serious questions under each of these elements:
•Intentionality. The legislation wasn’t neutral—it was laser-targeted at retail THC products that compete with his allies’ investments.
•Mistreatment. The retail hemp industry wasn’t just ignored—it was targeted for eradication through sweeping regulation despite its popularity and economic contributions.
•Unlawfulness. If this regulation is proven to be a backdoor attempt to re-establish a state-protected monopoly benefiting politically connected actors, it could be viewed as an unconstitutional abuse of office.

Even if not criminal, it fits the spirit of the statute. And at a minimum, it’s oppression in the court of public trust.

Who really loses?

While Patrick pulls levers in the shadows, everyday Texans are the ones caught in the crossfire. Medical cannabis serves only 29,000 patients. Retail THC serves millions. Texans have made their choice clear: they want safe, accessible cannabis, without a doctor’s gatekeeping or political games. If Senate Bill 3 becomes law, it won’t be because science demanded it or voters asked for it. It will be because Dan Patrick decided to help out his friends.

And that is exactly why the question of official oppression isn’t just theoretical. When political power is used not to protect the public, but to crush competition and protect a financial elite—that’s not politics as usual. That’s a potential abuse of office.

What now?
Governor Abbott has until June 22 to sign, veto, or ignore Senate Bill 3. If he signs it, expect outrage. If he vetoes it, expect war within the GOP. But no matter the outcome, the role Dan Patrick has played deserves public scrutiny—and maybe more than that.
Because when politicians tip the scales for their allies and crush the will of the people, it’s not just cannabis rights at stake, it’s the rule of law.

Dan Patrick’s THC Ban Doesn’t Reflect the Will of Texas Voters—Even Republican Ones

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in News.

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has made banning hemp-derived THC products a top priority this session, even threatening a special session if the House refused to advance the measure. Senate Bill 3, which passed the House after heavy procedural pressure, would effectively shut down Texas’ entire market for legal, consumable hemp products. But two recent polls—one from UT Austin and another from the Texas Hemp Business Council—tell the same story: most Texans don’t support this ban. And more notably, neither do most Republican voters.

 

The Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin found in April that a full 50% of Texans oppose outlawing cannabis-derived products, including hemp-based THC. Just 34% support such a move. And when voters were asked to rank the importance of various legislative priorities, placing limits on cannabis access came in near the bottom—15th out of 17.

 

Now, new June polling from Ragnar Research on behalf of the Texas Hemp Business Council drills into Republican primary voters specifically. The findings challenge the assumption that a THC ban plays well with the GOP base:

 

Just 35% of likely Republican primary voters support banning THC. 45% oppose.

 

On banning consumable hemp products, support and opposition are similarly split: 37% support vs. 47% oppose.

 

Among Republicans who align with Donald Trump, opposition to the ban grows: 47% oppose; 38% support.

 

72% of Republican voters say veterans should be allowed to access THC products as a non-opioid treatment option.

 

68% want law enforcement focused on violent crime and border security—not adults using legal hemp.

 

Perhaps most revealing, majorities also believe the policy itself is counterproductive: 53% agree a THC ban would create opportunities for drug cartels, and 55% say it would lead to more unregulated and dangerous synthetic products on the market.

So why is this prohibition moving forward? Why is Texas advancing a bill that’s unpopular even with Republican voters?

 

The answer lies not in the data—but in the dynamics of Texas politics.

 

Patrick has long shown a talent for mobilizing the most ideologically committed conservative voters in Republican primaries. These voters—often older, rural, and socially conservative—don’t constitute a majority, but they reliably turn out in low-participation primaries. And that turnout reality gives them disproportionate influence over Republican lawmakers, many of whom fear a challenge from their right more than any general election.

 

Even among these voters, the polling shows growing ambivalence toward prohibition. Just 31% of self-identified “extremely conservative” Republicans say marijuana should be completely illegal—down from 39% in 2010. Support for medical-only use and strict regulation continues to grow, even as public opinion shifts away from zero-tolerance approaches.

 

Yet Patrick is doubling down. Not because the policy is popular. But because the political calculus is familiar: cater to the base, use procedural leverage to force the House to comply, and count on silence from the Governor’s Mansion.

 

Governor Abbott has yet to take a clear position on SB 3. But he should consider the broader picture. There’s no groundswell for this bill. Its most persuasive arguments—protecting children, ensuring safety—could be achieved through regulation. Instead, a full ban would wipe out a legal industry, harm veterans seeking non-opioid therapies, and push consumers into unregulated gray markets.

 

More and more Texans—including Republican voters—see this for what it is: an overcorrection driven by political positioning, not public demand.

 

Texas doesn’t need to criminalize hemp to fix it. We need to regulate it with clarity, consistency, and respect for the law-abiding adults who use it—and the veterans whose quality of life depends on it.

 

A veto of SB 3 wouldn’t just correct a policy mistake. It would send a message: that governing in Texas still means listening to the people.

Dan Patrick’s Political Theater

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative.

Dan Patrick’s Political Theater Has Real Victims—and Texans Are Paying the Price.

 

SB 2024: The Vape Bait-and-Switch

 

Sold as a defense against youth vaping, SB 2024 instead criminalizes flavored disposable vape products made in China or not FDA-authorized—effectively banning almost all available products in Texas. No grace period. No inventory relief. No respect for small retailers.

 

But global manufacturers shifted production months ago to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The “China ban” doesn’t block supply—it just cripples Texas retailers, while larger players quietly retool abroad.

 

Meanwhile, the packaging provisions are so vague and subjective that enforcement will depend entirely on perception, not fact. This creates a legal gray zone ripe for selective prosecution and abuse—with consequences borne disproportionately by minority-owned businesses and communities already over-policed.

 

A Blow to Liberty—and the Truth

What do you get when you pair bad science with political ambition, amplify it through law enforcement spectacle, and suppress the only agency qualified to call it out?

 

You get SB 3 and SB 2024.

You get a government that requires untrained officers to make felony arrests based on inaccurate lab results. You get “probable cause” traffic stops based on smell, suspicion, and outdated testing methods—the very ingredients that have driven racial disparities in policing for decades. You get executive overreach disguised as legislative prudence. You get governance by grievance, not by principle.

 

Dan Patrick plays MAGA, but his playbook is from the swampiest parts of the Deep State playbook: manufacture a threat, consolidate authority, and eliminate competition—then wrap it in MAGA red.

Texas Values Demand Better

 

Texas lawmakers have long claimed they don’t want to “pick winners and losers”—that they believe in free markets and level playing fields. But Dan Patrick turns that principle on its head. With bills like SB 3 and SB 2024, he handpicks the winners, criminalizes the rest, and blames the casualties on “the children.”

 

Texas values demand something better. We demand cannabis policy built on science, not superstition. We demand regulatory oversight from independent experts—not puppet labs with a financial stake in every conviction. We demand a free market—not a rigged cartel. And we demand leaders who tell the truth—not ones who choreograph its suppression.

 

Dan Patrick’s final act may be complete—but the damage is ongoing. Businesses are being raided. Lives upended. Patients are being abandoned. And trust in Texas government is being shredded for the sake of applause lines and power plays.

 

The show is just about over. The consequences are just beginning.

 

‍

 

⸻