It’s not a hypothetical. It’s not a loophole. It’s the law—and it’s targeting some of the most vulnerable Texans.
Every patient in the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), our state’s limited medical marijuana registry, is already in legal jeopardy under federal law. The moment a Texan with PTSD, cancer, epilepsy, or chronic pain enrolls in TCUP and begins legally using low-THC marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician, they are—under federal law—a “prohibited person” who can no longer legally own or possess a firearm.
Most of them have no idea.
Here’s why: under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance—even if that substance is legal under Texas law—loses their Second Amendment rights. No guns. No ammunition. No recourse.
This isn’t a bureaucratic technicality. It’s enforced.
Every legal gun sale in Texas requires ATF Form 4473, which explicitly warns that marijuana is still a Schedule I drug federally and that “the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”
If a TCUP patient answers “no” to the question about marijuana use, they’ve committed a felony punishable by up to five years in federal prison for lying on a government form. If they answer “yes,” they are denied the right to purchase—and could face federal charges simply for possessing the firearms they already legally owned prior to enrollment.
Veterans. Retirees. Rural Texans. People who have carried and relied on a firearm their entire adult lives. These are not criminals. They are patients who did what the state asked: registered for a tightly regulated program to access medicine recommended by their doctor.
And now? They are in the federal government’s crosshairs.
This is not a new law—it’s been on the books since the 1960s—but it has taken on new urgency as SB 3 threatens to eliminate most over-the-counter hemp-derived THC products in Texas, forcing tens of thousands of Texans to either suffer without relief or pivot into TCUP. They’ll be walking straight into a legal trap.
The hypocrisy is staggering. The same political leaders who campaign on defending gun rights and medical freedom are now backing policies that funnel citizens into a government-run marijuana registry—and in doing so, strip them of the very constitutional rights those leaders swore to protect.
No one should have to choose between relief from debilitating pain and the right to protect their home and family. But that’s exactly what Texas patients are facing.
Governor Abbott has the opportunity—and the obligation—to recognize this injustice. By vetoing SB 3, he can protect not only patient access to safe, legal hemp-derived relief, but also the constitutional rights of thousands of Texans who trusted their doctors and their state.
If he signs it, he owns it.
Because when a veteran who served his country with honor is forced to turn in his firearms simply for treating his PTSD with legal, state-approved marijuana, it won’t be Dan Patrick’s name they remember.
Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is selling Texans a fraud—and calling it reform. Senate Bill 3, his signature attempt to ban nearly all hemp-derived THC products, is nothing short of a full-spectrum assault on personal liberty, small business, patient access, and constitutional rights. With a straight face and a white coat, Patrick is using the language of public health to disguise what is ultimately a prohibitionist power grab.
Governor Abbott must veto SB 3. Here’s why:
1. They’re Coming for Your Guns, Not Just Your Gummies
When a Texan signs up for medical cannabis through TCUP, they’re unknowingly walking into a legal buzzsaw. Overnight, they become a “prohibited person” under federal law—no firearms, no ammo, no recourse. This isn’t some bureaucratic technicality. It’s disarmament disguised as medicine. And Dan Patrick knows damn well what it means. He’s banking on Texans not reading the fine print.
2. They’re Yanking Relief Right Off the Shelf
For years, Texans have had legal access to over-the-counter hemp products like Delta-8 and Delta-9. These products have helped veterans sleep, cancer patients eat, and working folks manage stress without jumping through hoops. SB 3 would rip those remedies off the shelves and toss them in the trash, forcing everyone into a system they neither asked for nor need.
3. They Shut Down the Corner Store and Opened a Toll Booth
With SB 3 outlawing OTC hemp and forcing patients into TCUP, Patrick’s plan funnels every Texan into a tightly controlled, DPS-operated monopoly. The state isn’t offering medicine—it’s charging admission. And only a select few companies, cozy with the Capitol crowd, get to collect the toll.
4. They’re Pricing Pain Relief Like It’s Platinum
Once they’ve shut down your neighborhood shop, they’ll send you to a DPS-licensed dispensary where the price tag is as steep as the red tape. Insurance won’t cover a drop, and the product selection is as sparse as a West Texas rainstorm. The folks who need it most—veterans, seniors, and working-class Texans—are left high and dry.
5. They’ll Nail You Whether You Tell the Truth or Not
Want to follow the law? Tell the ATF you’re a TCUP patient—and kiss your gun rights goodbye. Want to keep your rifle? Lie on the form—and risk a felony. Patrick’s “compassionate” policy is a legal booby trap, rigged to criminalize honest Texans either way.
6. They’re Using Junk Science to Kick in Your Door
Patrick’s DPS has been storming small businesses using discredited lab tests and manipulated data. The Texas Forensic Science Commission warned against it—three times. But instead of fixing the problem, Patrick leaned into it, letting politics override science to justify sweeping raids. That ain’t law enforcement—it’s showbiz with badges.
7. They’re Letting Their Buddies Cash In Behind Closed Doors
Under the new TCUP rules, investors can stay anonymous. That means lobbyists, donors, and political cronies can rake in the profits while Texans lose access, lose jobs, and lose everything they’ve built. It’s medicine for the rich and raids for the rest.
8. They’re Crying Wolf While Texans Suffer
Patrick stood on the Senate floor waving horror stories about vomiting, psychosis, and panic attacks. But the facts tell a different tale. These so-called dangers are rare, extreme, and usually tied to long-term heavy use. Meanwhile, Tylenol and Imodium cause more ER visits than cannabinoids ever have. It’s classic Patrick: distract, distort, and divide.
—
The Verdict: Texans Are Getting Played, Not Protected
They’re losing their guns, their medicine, their freedom to choose, and their right to run a business—all so Patrick and his allies can consolidate power, control markets, and cloak prohibition in the language of compassion.
This bill is a lie wrapped in a lab coat and tied with campaign cash.
Governor Abbott: Veto SB 3. Texans see the game. Don’t play.
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has made banning hemp-derived THC products a top priority this session, even threatening a special session if the House refused to advance the measure. Senate Bill 3, which passed the House after heavy procedural pressure, would effectively shut down Texas’ entire market for legal, consumable hemp products. But two recent polls—one from UT Austin and another from the Texas Hemp Business Council—tell the same story: most Texans don’t support this ban. And more notably, neither do most Republican voters.
The Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin found in April that a full 50% of Texans oppose outlawing cannabis-derived products, including hemp-based THC. Just 34% support such a move. And when voters were asked to rank the importance of various legislative priorities, placing limits on cannabis access came in near the bottom—15th out of 17.
Now, new June polling from Ragnar Research on behalf of the Texas Hemp Business Council drills into Republican primary voters specifically. The findings challenge the assumption that a THC ban plays well with the GOP base:
Just 35% of likely Republican primary voters support banning THC. 45% oppose.
On banning consumable hemp products, support and opposition are similarly split: 37% support vs. 47% oppose.
Among Republicans who align with Donald Trump, opposition to the ban grows: 47% oppose; 38% support.
72% of Republican voters say veterans should be allowed to access THC products as a non-opioid treatment option.
68% want law enforcement focused on violent crime and border security—not adults using legal hemp.
Perhaps most revealing, majorities also believe the policy itself is counterproductive: 53% agree a THC ban would create opportunities for drug cartels, and 55% say it would lead to more unregulated and dangerous synthetic products on the market.
So why is this prohibition moving forward? Why is Texas advancing a bill that’s unpopular even with Republican voters?
The answer lies not in the data—but in the dynamics of Texas politics.
Patrick has long shown a talent for mobilizing the most ideologically committed conservative voters in Republican primaries. These voters—often older, rural, and socially conservative—don’t constitute a majority, but they reliably turn out in low-participation primaries. And that turnout reality gives them disproportionate influence over Republican lawmakers, many of whom fear a challenge from their right more than any general election.
Even among these voters, the polling shows growing ambivalence toward prohibition. Just 31% of self-identified “extremely conservative” Republicans say marijuana should be completely illegal—down from 39% in 2010. Support for medical-only use and strict regulation continues to grow, even as public opinion shifts away from zero-tolerance approaches.
Yet Patrick is doubling down. Not because the policy is popular. But because the political calculus is familiar: cater to the base, use procedural leverage to force the House to comply, and count on silence from the Governor’s Mansion.
Governor Abbott has yet to take a clear position on SB 3. But he should consider the broader picture. There’s no groundswell for this bill. Its most persuasive arguments—protecting children, ensuring safety—could be achieved through regulation. Instead, a full ban would wipe out a legal industry, harm veterans seeking non-opioid therapies, and push consumers into unregulated gray markets.
More and more Texans—including Republican voters—see this for what it is: an overcorrection driven by political positioning, not public demand.
Texas doesn’t need to criminalize hemp to fix it. We need to regulate it with clarity, consistency, and respect for the law-abiding adults who use it—and the veterans whose quality of life depends on it.
A veto of SB 3 wouldn’t just correct a policy mistake. It would send a message: that governing in Texas still means listening to the people.
Dan Patrick’s Political Theater Has Real Victims—and Texans Are Paying the Price.
SB 2024: The Vape Bait-and-Switch
Sold as a defense against youth vaping, SB 2024 instead criminalizes flavored disposable vape products made in China or not FDA-authorized—effectively banning almost all available products in Texas. No grace period. No inventory relief. No respect for small retailers.
But global manufacturers shifted production months ago to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The “China ban” doesn’t block supply—it just cripples Texas retailers, while larger players quietly retool abroad.
Meanwhile, the packaging provisions are so vague and subjective that enforcement will depend entirely on perception, not fact. This creates a legal gray zone ripe for selective prosecution and abuse—with consequences borne disproportionately by minority-owned businesses and communities already over-policed.
A Blow to Liberty—and the Truth
What do you get when you pair bad science with political ambition, amplify it through law enforcement spectacle, and suppress the only agency qualified to call it out?
You get SB 3 and SB 2024.
You get a government that requires untrained officers to make felony arrests based on inaccurate lab results. You get “probable cause” traffic stops based on smell, suspicion, and outdated testing methods—the very ingredients that have driven racial disparities in policing for decades. You get executive overreach disguised as legislative prudence. You get governance by grievance, not by principle.
Dan Patrick plays MAGA, but his playbook is from the swampiest parts of the Deep State playbook: manufacture a threat, consolidate authority, and eliminate competition—then wrap it in MAGA red.
Texas Values Demand Better
Texas lawmakers have long claimed they don’t want to “pick winners and losers”—that they believe in free markets and level playing fields. But Dan Patrick turns that principle on its head. With bills like SB 3 and SB 2024, he handpicks the winners, criminalizes the rest, and blames the casualties on “the children.”
Texas values demand something better. We demand cannabis policy built on science, not superstition. We demand regulatory oversight from independent experts—not puppet labs with a financial stake in every conviction. We demand a free market—not a rigged cartel. And we demand leaders who tell the truth—not ones who choreograph its suppression.
Dan Patrick’s final act may be complete—but the damage is ongoing. Businesses are being raided. Lives upended. Patients are being abandoned. And trust in Texas government is being shredded for the sake of applause lines and power plays.
The show is just about over. The consequences are just beginning.
WARNING: THE REPORT DAN PATRICK DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE!
In Texas, we’ve seen this before: a political agenda dressed up as public safety, a compliant bureaucracy, and the weaponization of bad science to justify bad law. But this time, it’s not marijuana. It’s legal hemp—and the state’s own forensic watchdog warned them not to do it.
The Science Was Clear
In July 2021, the Texas Forensic Science Commission (FSC) issued a report questioning the reliability of gas chromatography (GC) testing methods—specifically the kind used by Armstrong Forensic Laboratory—in determining THC levels in cannabis samples. The problem? GC destroys the chemical integrity of the sample by heating it, converting non-psychoactive THCa into delta-9 THC. The result: legal hemp often appears “hot” when tested this way.
By April 2025, the Commission had grown more urgent. In a formal warning, it told prosecutors and law enforcement not to rely on GC-MS without derivatization—the exact method Armstrong was using—because it does not distinguish between THCa and delta-9 THC in processed products like vape pens and edibles. The Commission’s position was clear: GC is not scientifically valid for the enforcement of Texas hemp laws. The right tool? High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), which preserves the cannabinoid profile without artificially inflating THC levels.
DPS Didn’t Just Ignore the Science—They Sought Out Bad Results
Despite having access to state-run, accredited labs that used validated HPLC methods, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) chose Armstrong Labs. Why? Because Armstrong’s flawed GC testing produced the kind of “hot” results that could turn lawful retail inventory into felony contraband on paper.
This wasn’t just negligence—it was selective science-shopping. DPS bypassed better labs and used the one that would give them the numbers needed to justify search and arrest warrants. Those warrants led to a coordinated series of raids in August 2024 across North Texas, most prominently in Allen, where nine hemp retailers—nearly all minority-owned—were raided. Doors were kicked in. Products were seized. People were arrested. Lives were disrupted.
And when asked about the scientific controversy, DEA Special Agent Eduardo A. Chávez, standing behind a row of local police chiefs, said the quiet part out loud:
“We’re not going to get into a scientific debate.”
That’s because there was no debate. The science was already settled—just not in their favor.
Dan Patrick’s Fingerprints
The timing and utility of these raids are no coincidence. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, a long-time prohibitionist, has made clear his desire to eliminate the hemp-derived THC market. Along with Senator Charles Perry, he introduced Senate Bill 3, a sweeping measure to criminalize and regulate hemp in ways that would effectively shut down thousands of small businesses statewide.
But Patrick’s proposals needed fuel—a sense of public danger. That’s where the Allen raids came in. News coverage of the raids, complete with sensational claims about high-THC products and cash seizures, created the illusion of widespread criminality. Those raids—and the test results behind them—became Exhibit A in the Senate’s push for SB 3.
In reality, the entire operation was built on sand. The lab method was known to be invalid. The warrants were based on forensically unsound evidence. The prosecutions have largely stalled or gone unfiled. But the political damage was done—and the policy momentum created by those raids is still being used to push bans, criminal penalties, and massive regulatory overreach.
The Consequences
Dozens of stores have closed. Millions in assets have been seized. Texas entrepreneurs—many from immigrant and minority communities—have been branded criminals for selling federally legal hemp products. Some of the retailers caught in this net can’t even afford legal counsel; their bank accounts are frozen, their reputations destroyed.
All because DPS chose the wrong lab on purpose.
If It’s Not Illegal, It’s Worse
Some may argue no laws were broken. But that’s the problem. When law enforcement uses scientifically invalid methods, even after being formally warned twice by the state’s own scientific authority, it isn’t just a technical error. It’s an abuse of power. Under Texas Penal Code §39.03, this pattern begins to resemble official oppression—public servants using their authority to target people unjustly under the color of law.
And the Fourth Amendment may also come into play. Raids based on scientifically discredited probable cause are ripe for constitutional challenge. The state didn’t just bend the law—it bent science, and it bent justice.
The Big Lie, Texas Edition
Dan Patrick’s prohibitionist crusade depends on the belief that hemp stores are fronts for drug dealers. But the science doesn’t support that claim, and neither do the facts. What we’re seeing is the deliberate manufacture of criminality using rigged lab results and coordinated enforcement—all to push a bill that benefits entrenched political allies and clears the market for the few operators who can afford to comply.
This is Reefer Madness 2.0—driven by bad labs, bad busts, and big lies.
By Nicholas Mortillaro, and Jay Maguire Co-Founders, CRAFT (Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas)
In recent months, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and Senator Charles Perry have repeatedly pointed to a series of lab tests as justification for banning hemp-derived THC products in Texas. They claim these products violate the law and pose a danger to public health. But the truth—buried beneath layers of politicized rhetoric and scientific misrepresentation—is that these lab results are a dangerous distortion, not a reflection of reality.
The Lab at the Center of the Storm
The lab being cited most frequently—Armstrong Forensic Laboratory—has come under intense scrutiny following a bombshell report from the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The Commission, which oversees forensic testing across the state, warned prosecutors and law enforcement that the methods used by Armstrong to test for THC content in hemp products are unreliable, unaccredited, and dangerously misleading.
Let me be blunt: Armstrong’s method is not standard, not validated, and not legally appropriate for determining compliance with Texas hemp law. In fact, Armstrong itself admitted in email correspondence with a senior DPS official that their method guarantees any sample will test above the legal limit of 0.3% Delta-9 THC—whether it’s compliant or not. That’s not science. That’s sabotage.
Weaponized Testing
Texas law is clear: hemp is legal if it contains no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC by dry weight. The only federally accepted method for determining this is post-decarboxylation testing using liquid chromatography, which distinguishes between active THC and its acidic precursor, THCa. Armstrong, however, uses a method designed to simulate smoking—a process that converts all THCa into Delta-9 THC, regardless of whether the product would ever be consumed in that way.
This “smoke conversion” method is not used by any credible lab for regulatory compliance because it doesn’t reflect the actual chemical state of the product at the time of sale. Worse, it has not been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper scientific scrutiny. Yet, Patrick and Perry wave these results around like a smoking gun.
They’re not. They’re junk science—weaponized to create fear and justify overreach.
Political Games, Real Consequences
We’ve seen this before. The history of cannabis prohibition in the United States is a story of misinformation and racialized fearmongering dressed up as public safety. What’s happening now is no different. Members of the Texas Legislature are being manipulated into supporting a policy based not on fact, but on a fiction concocted by an anti-hemp agenda.
Retailers across Texas—many of them family-owned, law-abiding small businesses—have invested heavily in compliance, safety, and consumer transparency. Products are labeled, lab-tested, and age-gated. Yet they now find themselves accused of criminal conduct based on faulty lab tests that wouldn’t hold up in any honest court of law.
Meanwhile, consumers—veterans, cancer patients, people suffering from anxiety, PTSD, and chronic pain—are being told their medicine is somehow a menace.
A Call to Action
It’s time for the Texas Legislature to reject this manipulation. The science is clear. The law is clear. And the motives behind this attack on the hemp industry are becoming clearer by the day.
CRAFT is calling on all elected officials to denounce the use of these illegitimate lab tests as justification for recriminalizing hemp. We urge lawmakers to consult with real scientists, understand the testing standards used by accredited labs across the country, and resist the pressure to ban what should be regulated responsibly.
Texas can lead the way in safe, science-based cannabis policy—or it can double down on fear, fraud, and failure.
The choice is yours.
Nicholas Mortillaro holds a degree in chemical engineering and is the co-founder of CRAFT, a statewide industry alliance promoting education, compliance, and accountability in the hemp retail sector. Learn more at joincraft.org.
Over the past year, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has made no secret of his disdain for the legal hemp industry in Texas. He’s called it the “backdoor to marijuana legalization” and accused retailers of “selling drugs to kids” under the guise of legality. At a February 2024 press conference, he declared, “We’ve got to shut this down. These are drug dealers hiding behind a hemp license.”
Senator Charles Perry, the author of Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), doubled down during committee hearings, claiming, “This isn’t about regulating—this is about stopping a problem before we end up like Colorado.” Both men warned of a crackdown, and now, true to their word, that crackdown has arrived—not in the form of tighter regulatory oversight or better product labeling standards, but in pre-dawn raids, guns drawn, and headlines accusing small business owners of felony drug trafficking.
Behind the media blitz of cash seizures and confiscated gummies lies a quiet but consequential abuse of scientific process. The state is relying on flawed laboratory evidence—obtained through secretive “undercover” purchases and tested using questionable methods at Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, a private facility in Arlington contracted by law enforcement. The result? Lawful, state-registered hemp products, each batch accompanied by a Certificate of Analysis (COA) from a DEA-registered and ISO-accredited lab, are being re-tested and declared “hot” by Armstrong using outdated and inappropriate methods. Raids follow. Arrests follow.
Then come the photos of seized product, weaponry, and headlines about “drug busts”—all as the Legislature debates whether to ban the very products being smeared.
The Heart of the Dispute: What Makes a Product Legal?
Under both federal law (2018 Farm Bill) and Texas Agriculture Code, a hemp product is legal if it contains no more than 0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by dry weight. Importantly, that threshold applies to delta-9 THC only—the psychoactive compound in marijuana. The presence of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), a non-psychoactive precursor to THC found in raw cannabis, does not make a product illegal —unless it is converted into delta-9 THC through a process called decarboxylation.
State-licensed hemp manufacturers know the rules. That’s why their products are tested at licensed laboratories using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), a method that measures delta-9 THC and THCA separately without converting one to the other. These tests provide a transparent, scientifically valid snapshot of the product’s compliance before it reaches store shelves. These are the COAs issued by DEA registered labs and required by Texas Department of State Health Services for sale.
But when those same products end up on the desks at Armstrong Labs— often acquired through undercover purchases by law enforcement—the story changes. Armstrong frequently tests these samples using Gas Chromatography (GC), a technique that involves heating the sample, which automatically converts THCA into delta-9 THC, artificially inflating the measurement and pushing otherwise compliant products above the legal threshold.
The Forensic Science Commission Weighs In
In April 2025, the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) issued a final report on a complaint related to this exact practice. The case involved a man convicted based on a GC-MS (Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) test performed on a vape cartridge. The lab’s method caused all THCA in the product to decarboxylate into delta-9 THC,
resulting in a THC concentration that would not exist under normal use or storage conditions.
The Commission wrote plainly:
“GC-MS testing of cannabinoids that does not use a derivatization agent causes decarboxylation of THCA to delta-9 THC. This is not a limitation of the instrument—it is a result of the methodology.”
They further concluded:
“In this case, the reported result is based on a method that converted THCA to THC, and therefore reflects ‘total THC’ rather than just delta-9 THC… Prosecutors and courts must be made aware that testing conducted in this manner does not distinguish THCA from THC.”
In a just system, this warning would stop prosecutors cold. Instead, law enforcement agencies—coordinated by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)—are proceeding with search warrants and prosecutions based on these flawed lab reports. And when asked by reporters whether they are concerned about the reliability of the THC testing methods used, one senior officer reportedly replied, “We’re not getting into a scientific debate.”
The Real Strategy: Prohibition by Perception
This isn’t about public safety or scientific certainty. It’s a political operation, coordinated from the top, timed to influence legislative decision-making as Senate Bill 3 advances through the House. With the session set to adjourn in mere weeks, raids across the state are producing splashy headlines, SWAT-style photos, and allegations of criminality meant to cast all hemp retailers as bad actors.
The formula is familiar:
Conduct a raid on a registered hemp business based on flawed lab data.
Seize product, firearms, and cash, regardless of legality or context.
Issue a press release using terms like “drug trafficking,” “distribution network,” and “organized crime.”
Let the mugshots and media coverage do the rest.
But the reality is very different. These are not cartel fronts. These are law abiding small business owners, operating under the rules the state gave them, selling lab-tested and labeled products to adult consumers. Their
crime? Selling something that looks like marijuana but meets the legal definition of hemp—unless it’s retrospectively declared illegal through laboratory alchemy.
“As a chemical engineer and hemp entrepreneur, I can tell you flatly: relying on gas chromatography to test post-harvest products like vapes and gummies is not just inappropriate—it’s bad science,” said Nicholas Mortillaro, Co-Founder of CRAFT. “Gas Chromatography (GC) methods always alter the chemical composition of the sample, converting THCA into delta-9 THC during analysis. That’s not measurement—that’s transformation. It’s the analytical equivalent of cooking your evidence. If you’re trying to find the truth, you use a method like High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC,) which keeps the cannabinoids intact and tells you what’s actually in the product. Anything else misleads courts, misleads prosecutors, and criminalizes legal commerce based on lab error. That’s not forensics—it’s fiction.”
The Industry Must Speak
The state’s actions are not just punitive—they’re pretextual. The goal is to ban all forms of legal THC, especially THCA flower, by first creating a public perception of widespread criminality. If the Legislature cannot be convinced with policy, then perhaps it can be stampeded by sensational headlines.
But science still matters. Due process still matters. And for the hemp industry—and every citizen who expects government to wield power lawfully—it’s time to say: enough. The evidence is flawed. The raids are political. And the bills being pushed are based on fear, not fact.
⸻
Bad science is being used to justify bad bills, enforced through bad faith raids. Texas deserves better—and the hemp industry must stand up before it’s too late.
I’m an adult who uses legal hemp products. These bills would ban the very products I rely on for my well-being. I choose not to enroll in the Texas Compassionate Use Program because it’s restrictive, costly, and inconvenient— it’s a state-sanctioned monopoly that limits my options.
In our early 50s; my wife and I occasionally use hemp products in my household for inflammation, my wife Jennifer has Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis, these hemp products provide the needed relief which are NOT COVERED on TCUP, AND if they were, would not be effective in her treatment given the current legal THC levels offered anyway!
Eliminating my family’s options would cause our family to resort back to gabapentin, Oxycontin, and other narcotics. Lawmakers should not take away natural, plant-based options from responsible adults. Hemp products are already legal under federal and Texas law, regulated by the Texas Department of State Health Services and several federal agencies.
Dan Patrick is playing games with SB 3 and CSSB 3 and his marijuana, alcohol backed money is no SECRET. These lies that Sen. Perry and Dan Patrick and their law enforcement bulldogs have gone on long enough. A recent Report on Forensic Lab Testing: The Schutte Report Expose DPS misconduct or willful ignorance in THCa testing and put the House on notice that convictions based on faulty presumptions are invalid and legally radioactive.
We have interviewed countless Texans on these incredible benefits of this plant in the last 5 years on our shows and in our magazines.
Covering this industry as the main media outlet for Hemp in Texas employs me and my small staff and our families. I will be out of business, and so will 50,000 of my fellow Texans! BUT MOST OF ALL, THE TEXAS COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE IN YOUR DISTRICTS will also take a huge hit if these bills are passed!
Nothing works like hemp —for my fellow Texans and no one has ever died from using legal hemp products. If CSSB 3 or SB 3 becomes law, Texas stands to lose over $764 million in sales tax revenue and over 53,000 jobs —triggering massive unemployment costs.
Transparency and Quality Assurance Through Lab Testing
In a competitive market, maintaining transparency and quality assurance is paramount. Gruene Botanicals has set their own stringent standards for lab tests, including how long they are valid. “Every single product we carry has QR codes that lead to their complete lab analysis to ensure it has been tested and is legal,” they explain.
This meticulous attention to detail not only complies with legal requirements but also builds trust with customers. By providing easy access to lab results, customers can feel confident about the safety and efficacy of the products they purchase.
Success Stories: Transforming Lives Gruene Botanicals has countless success stories from customers whose lives have been positively impacted by their products. “We have consumer success stories ranging from people that couldn’t leave their house due to anxiety or pain, to people that couldn’t sleep or eat who now have their regular routines back,” they share.
Many have even reported lowering or discontinuing their use of pharmaceutical drugs, finding natural relief through hemp products. These testimonials highlight the profound effect Gruene Botanicals has had on individual well-being within the community.
Looking Ahead: Expansion and Continued Excellence
As the hempindustry evolves, Gruene Botanicals plans to grow alongside it. “We continue to strive to be the best in the industry and provide a range of top-quality products,” they affirm. With plans to have six stores open by the end of 2024 and ten by the end of 2025, the company is poised to extend its reach and impact even more lives.
The Benefits of Hemp Flower
Gruene Botanicals is passionate about educating customers on the numerous benefits of hemp flower, which could potentially include:
•Reducing muscle and joint pain
•Mitigating menstrual pain and reducing swelling
•Combating certain infections and fighting inflammation
•Reducing nausea
•Alleviating anxiety in stressful situations
•Promoting sleep for those with insomnia
•Calming withdrawal symptoms from harmful substances like
tobacco
•Providing neuroprotective functions that may help with diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s
•Offering antitumor and immunomodulatory properties beneficial for people with cancer
•Acting as anticonvulsants, aiding in the treatment of some types of epilepsy Ensuring Safety and Peace of Mind
A common question is, “How do I know this is safe?” Gruene Botanicals addresses this concern head-on. “All of our products are lab-tested; without these tests, we would not be able to legally sell our hemp flower in the state,” they explain.
Each product is labeled with a QR code that customers can scan to view detailed lab results, ensuring transparency and building trust. “We try our best to keep the phrase ‘buyer’s remorse’ out of our customers’ vocabulary,” the team emphasizes. Experience Gruene Botanicals
Gruene Botanicals isn’t just a retailer; it’s a community partner dedicated to improving lives through quality hemp products and education. Whether you’re seeking relief from pain, looking to improve sleep, or simply curious about the benefits of hemp, their knowledgeable staff is ready to assist.
Visit their website at www.gruenebotanicals.com or stop by any of their locations for a free consultation. Experience the difference that compassion, quality, and community focus can make in your wellness journey.
Oklahoma used to be a hemp-friendly state. Until recently, it was home base to several of the most well-known and respected hemp businesses in the country. That has changed recently, but not due to changes in the law, which is mostly hemp-friendly. Rather, the change has come from overzealous and under-informed politicians who either don’t understand the law or who choose to ignore it. The most recent public example is a letter from Governor Kevin Stitt to several state agencies in which he request that they, “coordinate closely with one another to strengthen enforcement and regulatory action…. to effectively combat the unlawful manufacturing, distribution, and sale of [psychoactive marijuana byproducts] across Oklahoma.” The full letter is below.
The “psychoactive marijuana compounds” that Governor Stitt refers to are “typically synthesized or chemically altered from hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD)“. To that end, he asks the agencies to focus on “Delta-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC), Delta-10 Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ10-THC), Hexahydrocannabinol (HHC), Tetrahydrocannabinol-O Acetate (THC-O), Tetrahydrocannabiphorol (THCP), Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV).” None of these compounds are actually controlled substances under Oklahoma law when they are derived from hemp. Additionally, multiple federal courts have also concluded that they are not controlled under federal law. The most recent opinion is from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that THCO from hemp is not controlled, contrary to the DEA’s position. (You can read about that case here.)
Tellingly, Governor Stitt implies that he knows that these compounds are not actually illegal when he states, “I request that your agencies collaboratively identify gaps in the current regulatory and enforcement framework, if any, and provide recommendations for statutory or administrative changes to my office if additional action is needed.” This is a tacit admission that these compounds are not illegal. If they are already illegal then there is no need to identify “gaps” to correct with a new statute or administrative regulation.
Regardless of what the law actually states, Governor Stitt’s letter inserts new risk into the possession, distribution, and marketing of products in Oklahoma that contain these cannabinoids. I anticipate a chilling effect on the Oklahoma hemp market. The bigger question is whether or not Governor Stitt will eventually be bucked off of his hemp high horse. It’s certainly a possibility. We’ve seen similar actions by state Governors and Attorneys General who ended up on the losing end of their war against hemp.
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.
(Austin, TX) Todd Harris, co-owner of Austin, Texas-based The Happy Cactus Apothecary, testified in opposition to the anti-hemp bill Texas SB3. Harris spoke out against the bill during hearings conducted by the State Affairs Committee of the Texas House of Representatives on April 7, 2025.
Harris introduced his family-owned and legal hemp business to the committee. He explained in his testimony that:
All customers must prove they are 21+, even if they are the Lieutenant Governor of Texas.
Happy Cactus has passed each of four inspections by the Texas Department of Health Services during the past 18 months.
The legal hemp industry in Texas is a much more effective program for Texans than the Texas Compassionate Use Program. (TCUP)
Packaging is marketed to adults, not children. Look-alike products are not allowed.
QR codes are available for customers to view test results and analysis.
The local high school was informed by three letters that students are not allowed in the Happy Cactus.
Good morning. Thank you all so much for volunteering your time to be here and listen to us. That’s an amazing thing, and we appreciate that. I do want to discuss a few points on why I am against SB3 and the three issues that I see with our current situation in Texas; I think we have at our shop (have a) slightly interesting perspective for three reasons. We have been inspected by DSHS (Texas Department of Health Services) four times in the last year and a half. The Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has visited our shop as well as we are across from a high school. If you have any questions about those, happy to answer; like I said, our shop has been inspected by DSHS four times in the last one and a half years, and we have passed with flying colors every time. I told the Lieutenant Governor this when he came into our shop, and he even said, it sounds like you guys are doing it right; we carded Dan Patrick.
We showed him we have our testing in (our) shop or via QR codes on each product we sell. We showed him we do not have packaging tailored towards children and showed him we don’t have any products over 25 milligrams per serving. So we were able to squash all the issues he has with the hemp industry all in one visit from just one of the amazing family-owned hemp business businesses here in Texas; Dan Patrick told me that he supports shops like ours that are doing it right. Feels very different from his attitude about it in the media.
One of the reasons we have been inspected so often is because TCUP (Texas Compassionate Use Program) did a piece with Texas Monthly last summer. This article called out eight shops in Texas, including ours, saying they tested our products and that we are selling illegal products. DSHS came to our shop the following week; we passed the inspection easily again. So why is TCUP trying to mess with businesses like ours? Probably because they know the hemp industry is a much more effective program for Texans than the Compassionate Use Program.
Additionally, the inspector, Mr. Chambers, told us that there are only eight inspectors in the entire state of Texas. How are eight people supposed to enforce the regulations already set in place, and why, especially with 8,000 shops, and he said he only goes to one shop or two, maybe a week. And why are they visiting our shop so often when we have shown we are in compliance?
State Representative John McQueeney asks a question
You said that your products had no more than 25 milligrams per serving indeed. How does that correlate to this .03 that we that is in the regulations?
Todd Harris
The 0.3%?
State Representative John McQueeney
Yes.
Todd Harris
The 0.3% is per dry weight. So, with an edible, you just have to make sure the edible is heavy enough or big enough that you can fit 25 milligrams in there and still be under 0.3% per dry weight. It’s actually very easy to do. They’re actually are very close to that already in Colorado, and California. We use Vegan gummies that are a little heavier.
State Representative John McQueeney
Is that an intoxicating dose, or is that I’ve got PTSD, and it’s gonna make me calm down?
Todd Harris
So I think intoxicating is objective.
State Representative John McQueeney
Is it comparable to having a couple beers?
Todd Harris
Me and my wife take around 50 milligrams every time and or when we need to just have relief. For some people, 25 milligrams can just be relief. And for some people, it’s, you know, they can’t even feel it.
State Representative John McQueeney
There are some people that would get a euphoric feeling from that dosage, and some people that would not. Is what you’re saying?
Todd Harris
I agree.
State Representative John McQueeney
Yeah. Thank you
Todd Harris
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to mention, so I passed out a letter that we actually sent to the high school that we’re across from, letting them know that it’s trespassing for their students to enter our shop as well. And we sent that six months ago. We sent them three letters, and we actually have a meeting with the principal now, and that is something we’ve done before he even mentioned SB3. It’s something we’ve been doing for four years, keeping carding everyone in our shop.
For media interviews with Todd and Mickey Harris, Happy Cactus Owners, please contact Kevin Lampe at (312) 617-7280 or kevin@kurthlampe.com.
In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation of a growing danger:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
He was speaking of the dangerous entanglement between government and defense contractors—an alliance that risked turning war into an economic necessity. But Eisenhower’s words apply just as powerfully to another, quieter behemoth that emerged within our borders over the decades: the enforcement-industrial complex—a system built not on defending national security, but on policing and punishing domestic populations.
This sprawling network of police unions, private prison operators, surveillance companies, drug testing firms, and aligned legislators has, for decades, thrived on one thing: the criminalization of human behavior. Most notably, it has flourished under the banner of the War on Drugs—a campaign that has devastated communities, cost taxpayers billions, and produced little measurable public safety or public health benefit.
And now, in Texas, it’s reasserting itself through Senate Bill 3 (SB 3)—a sweeping ban on consumable hemp-derived THC products like Delta-8, Delta-10, and even hemp-based Delta-9. If passed, SB 3 would not only erase a thriving, consumer-driven industry—it would reignite a failed model of prohibition and control, wrapped in new political packaging.
From the War on Drugs to the Politics of Control
The foundation of America’s modern drug policy was laid during the Nixon administration with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, which created the federal drug scheduling system still in use today. Despite recommendations from experts to treat cannabis as a low-risk substance, Nixon’s administration deliberately placed it in Schedule I—alongside heroin—declaring it had “no accepted medical use” and a high potential for abuse. This move was not grounded in science, but in politics.
This legal framework helped spawn the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and ushered in a new era of militarized policing, mass incarceration, and stigma-driven policy. SB 3 in Texas is a direct descendant of this legacy: it seeks to criminalize legal, hemp-derived cannabinoids using the same fear-based rhetoric and enforcement-first logic, despite widespread public use, minimal harm data, and clear economic benefit. It represents a return to prohibitionist policymaking—rooted in control, not public health.
The mythos of the War on Drugs has long claimed that harsh penalties and aggressive enforcement were necessary to protect Americans from the scourge of addiction. But internal admissions from key figures have exposed a far different reality.
In a 1994 interview, John Ehrlichman, a top domestic advisor to President Richard Nixon, admitted:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people… By getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”
What Ehrlichman revealed was not policy—it was strategy. Criminalization was weaponized for political ends: to break up organizing power, discredit opposition, and institutionalize social control. The resulting machinery—fueled by fear, racism, and misinformation—continues to operate today under new pretenses.
Texas’s SB 3 is not a break from that legacy. It is an extension of it.
SB 3: The Return of Reefer Madness
SB 3 seeks to criminalize the manufacture, sale, and possession of virtually all hemp-derived cannabinoid products that contain anything beyond CBD or CBG. This includes compounds like Delta-8 THC, which are already regulated under Texas’s existing hemp laws and widely used by veterans, cancer patients, and ordinary Texans seeking relief from anxiety, pain, and insomnia.
Supporters of SB 3 argue that these products pose a danger to youth and public safety. But their evidence is shockingly thin.
During legislative hearings, Allen Police Chief Steve Dye declared that these products are “poisoning our kids.” Yet neither he nor other supporters offered any credible data—no Department of Health reports, no emergency room spikes, no controlled studies. Instead, they relied on anecdotes and sensational headlines.
This kind of rhetoric—unsubstantiated, emotional, and politically convenient—is Reefer Madness reincarnated. And like the original, it obscures far more than it reveals.
The Role of Law Enforcement: Interests Over Integrity
SB 3 has received heavy backing from police associations, prosecutors, and law enforcement lobbyists. That alone should raise questions. Who benefits from the recriminalization of legal products?
The answer is clear: police departments gain new enforcement powers, jail populations grow, drug testing firms profit, and court systems collect more fines and fees. In short, the entire enforcement-industrial complex stands to profit—just as it always has when new crimes are created.
This isn’t public safety policy. It’s institutional self-preservation. It’s prohibition repackaged for 2025.
Medical Marijuana: A Convenient Shield
Proponents of SB 3 often argue that Texans who need cannabis for medical reasons can simply go through the state’s Compassionate Use Program (CUP). On the surface, this seems like a reasonable alternative. But in reality, CUP is inaccessible, inadequate, and deeply monopolistic.
Only a tiny fraction of Texans qualify under CUP’s narrow medical eligibility list.
The products are expensive, low in THC, and less effective than widely available hemp alternatives.
Only three companies currently hold licenses to grow and sell cannabis under CUP—licenses that are extremely valuable and tightly guarded.
If SB 3 passes, it will eliminate hemp-derived alternatives that have helped thousands of Texans manage pain, trauma, and illness—leaving only a state-sanctioned oligopoly to serve a small, privileged market.
This isn’t regulation. It’s market capture.
Two Legal Systems, One Plant
If SB 3 becomes law, Texas will establish two entirely different legal frameworks for the exact same compound:
Hemp-Derived THC
CUP-Derived Medical Marijuana
Grown and processed under 2019 Texas hemp law
Licensed under strict state program
Sold at independent, small businesses
Sold by a few state-authorized companies
Used by veterans, seniors, cancer patients
Available to select patients only
At risk of being banned under SB 3
Protected under existing medical cannabis law
This isn’t about chemistry. It’s about who profits—and who is punished.
Prohibition 2.0: Greenwashed, Institutionalized, and Still Failing
Eisenhower warned that entrenched interests would distort democracy and hijack public policy for their own ends. The military-industrial complex he named has been joined by a domestic counterpart—one that builds power not through conflict abroad, but through enforcement at home.
SB 3 is not a policy rooted in science or safety. It is a political maneuver designed to restore criminalization, protect monopolies, and entrench a set of institutions that benefit from punishment over care.
The victims—again—will be working-class people, patients, small business owners, and communities of color. The beneficiaries will be those who already hold economic and institutional power.
“Nixon’s War On Drugs”
A Test of Texas Values
At its core, SB 3 is a moral question disguised as a legislative proposal. Do we believe in evidence-based policy, small business freedom, personal autonomy, and the right to choose non-addictive alternatives to pharmaceuticals? Or do we believe in fear-based control, criminal punishment, and economic protectionism?
We cannot continue to criminalize plant-based compounds while ignoring alcohol-related deaths, skyrocketing fentanyl overdoses, and a failing mental health infrastructure. We cannot afford to keep reviving a failed war in the name of protecting people it never protected.
SB 3 must be seen for what it is: a reboot of the War on Drugs, disguised as reform, designed to serve prohibitionists, monopolists, and those politicians who profit from fear.
So let’s call this for what it is—Texas own version of the Deep State. The time to dismantle the enforcement-industrial complex is now. Texans deserve better.
In just days, the Texas hemp industry faces what may be its defining moment since legalization in 2019. The House State Affairs Committee, chaired by Representative Ken King, will convene Monday morning to hear testimony on two bills with starkly different visions for the future of hemp in Texas.
The hearing, scheduled for 8:00 AM on April 7 in room JHR 120, will feature two competing approaches to hemp regulation that could not be more different in their impact on the thousands of businesses and workers in this growing sector.
A Tale of Two Bills
House Bill 28, authored by Chairman King himself, represents a regulatory path forward. While imposing new restrictions—including age verification requirements, licensing standards, and quality controls—it allows the industry to continue operating under enhanced oversight. This approach acknowledges the economic reality that the hemp industry has become a significant contributor to the Texas economy.
In stark contrast stands Senate Bill 3, championed by Senator Perry and already passed by the Senate with Lieutenant Governor Patrick’s backing. This bill takes a prohibitionist stance, effectively banning most hemp-derived products beyond CBD and CBG. The practical effect would be the criminalization of businesses that have been operating legally since hemp was federalized and then legalized in Texas.
The Texas hemp industry must recognize this hearing as a truly existential moment. The difference between these bills is the difference between a future for hemp in Texas and no future at all.
The Stakes for Texas Businesses
For hemp entrepreneurs across Texas who have invested everything in building compliant businesses, Monday’s hearing represents a crossroads. Many have implemented strict age verification, comprehensive product testing, and responsible marketing practices that avoid targeting young people. Despite these efforts, SB 3 would shut down operations overnight, resulting in job losses throughout the supply chain.
These business owners aren’t alone. Thousands of Texans now work in hemp-related businesses across the state, from cultivation to manufacturing to retail. Many industry stakeholders emphasize they’re not opposed to reasonable regulation.
The hemp industry broadly acknowledges the need for age restrictions, quality control standards, and responsible business practices. The objection is to prohibition disguised as regulation—the difference between workable rules and an outright ban that destroys livelihoods.
Two Minutes to Make a Difference
Those planning to attend Monday’s hearing should note that public testimony will be limited to just two minutes per person—barely enough time to introduce oneself and make a few key points. This limitation makes preparation essential.
Industry advocates recommend business owners focus their brief testimony on concrete facts: business location, number of employees, economic impact, and specific measures implemented to prevent youth access. Those unable to attend in person can submit written comments electronically through the House website until the hearing concludes.
Experienced observers of the legislative process note that lawmakers respond best to personal stories with specific details. Effective testimony should explain exactly how SB 3 would affect individual businesses, employees, and communities while emphasizing support for appropriate regulation rather than prohibition.
Regulation vs. Prohibition
The fundamental question before the committee is whether Texas will embrace a regulated hemp market or attempt to put the genie back in the bottle through prohibition.
Historical evidence suggests prohibition rarely works as intended. Rather than eliminating products, prohibition typically drives markets underground, removing quality controls and age verification while enriching illicit operators. Meanwhile, legitimate businesses close, tax revenue disappears, and products simply flow in from neighboring states with more permissive laws, not to mention empowering drug cartels by creating a supply vacuum.
Economic analysts point out that prohibition doesn’t eliminate demand—it just changes who profits from it and removes safeguards for consumers.
The Time for Action
As Monday approaches, the Texas hemp industry faces its most significant challenge yet. The businesses that have operated transparently and responsibly since 2019 must now make their case directly to lawmakers that regulation, not prohibition, is the path forward.
Whether through in-person testimony, written comments, or direct outreach to committee members, every voice matters in this crucial debate about the future of hemp in Texas. For thousands of business owners and their employees, Monday’s hearing may well determine whether they have a future in this industry at all.
Committee Hearing Information
Time: 8:00 AM, Monday, April 7, 2025 Location: JHR 120, Texas Capitol Committee: House State Affairs Chair: Rep. Ken King
Monday morning at 8am the Texas House State Affairs Committee will begin, and will include SB3 on their agenda for the day along with HB 28.
This does not mean that the committee will hear the bill the first thing in the morning. It is possible that other bills may be added and heard first with minimal testimony, just to get them out of the way.
At the time of writing though only the two hemp bills sit on the agenda for the committee that day. It could be expected that many people show up and something similar to what Texans saw in the Senate committee hearing could take place with it being an all day hearing of testimony.
THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE FOR TEXANS TO VOICE ON THE RECORD WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE WITH SB3
If you are a shop owner and your livelihood is on the line because of this bill, this hearing should be priority for you. This is the last time and only time in the House that your testimony can go on the official record and everyone gets a chance to testify.
The hearing will take place in the Reagan building in room JHR20. That’s on the 2nd floor of the Reagan Building which can be located on the map above circled in red. You must register at the capitol the day of the hearing to testify. Testimony will be limited to 2 min and the House hearing are usually strict on the 2 min time limit unlike the Senate which gives some leniency.
To submit written testimony to the Texas House, prepare a concise document (ideally under 3-5 minutes worth of reading try to stay within 1 to 2 pages max) and submit it to the committee clerk, along with 20 copies for the committee members, before or during the hearing.
TIPS ON CRAFTING and GIVING TESTIMONY
Stories that are common are not bad, but get repetitive and implicitly unwanted as they become memorable in a more negative light than positive. Give your original perspective, listen to other testify and mold your own verbal testimony to what others have noted as to not overlap so much. It is not advised that one speak on medical topics as though they are medical experts unless they are a medical expert, the Senate is using this against the industry in that it proposed they should be in the medical program (despite its gross limitations).
To go over this again, this is meaning don’t talk like a medical expert or the medical relief it gives you or your clients. Therapeutics is one thing, but discussing THCa like its the fuel for healing everything is not a good move.
If you have any questions, feel free to message us through our contact page, social media accounts Facebook and Instagram, or even on LinkedIn. We want to be organized and professional.
And last but not least, dress business casual or business professional. A good rule of thumb is dress LIKE YOU ARE GOING TO COURT AND GOING TO BE IN FRONT A JUDGE. The Capitol is an official court house and the attire of such meetings is expected to be approximate as such. Dressing as though you are going to a grunge concert in the middle of Iowa give an impression of a lack of concern or care for your attendance and the gravity of the matter at hand.
Just relax and be calm
It is an emotional hell ride at times and the mileage of what you feel may vary. That’s okay. Anger and Sadness are not uncommon, but it is not justification to go into a physical tantrum. It can get you removed from the building and it doesn’t look good. And do not use foul language, it isn’t classy to sound like a salty sailor pulling into Baltimore.
Texas, lets go defend our market and get the right moves made to make our market even better with proper regulations.
Story originally appeared on our with colleagues website at Texas Cannabis Collective:
CRAFT Leads the Way in Hemp Compliance as SB 3 Threatens Industry
As the Texas Legislature debates SB 3—a bill that would ban all THC products—responsible hemp retailers across the state are stepping up to protect their businesses, their customers, and their communities.
For the past 18 months, Texas hemp industry advocates, business owners, policy and legal experts have worked to create a set of training modules, model store manuals, SOPs and other compliance-related business standards that can be adopted statewide to assist small businesses with building their compliance and sales capacity while pushing back against the false narratives being used to push the Prohibitionist ban agenda. The Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas (CRAFT) is a multi-sector industry-led effort to prove that the hemp industry is capable of self-regulation. Our members have voluntarily implemented a 21+ age policy, adopted rigorous product sourcing and testing standards, and developed a comprehensive Retailer Playbook to help businesses stay compliant in a shifting legal environment.
Our members didn’t wait for politicians to tell them what’s right,” said Jay Maguire, CRAFT co-founder and spokesperson. “Moral panics don’t start with facts—they start with fear. And that’s exactly what Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and Senator Charles Perry relied on: Reefer Madness-style scare tactics and cherry-picked anecdotes. Even when the stories were true, they were outliers—not the norm. The vast majority of retailers are doing the right thing. CRAFT members voluntarily enforce a 21+ age policy and card every customer at the point of sale—just like alcohol and tobacco. That’s what responsible businesses do.”
When Lt. Governor Dan Patrick visited Happy Cactus shop in Austin last week unannounced and looking for evidence of super-high THC products, he was expecting a political “gotcha” moment. What he found instead was a professional, compliant business, stocked with compliant products and operated with trained staff following company policy, carding customers and following best practices. That’s not politics—that’s policy in action.
Key leaders in the hemp space are weighing in:
• Rhiannon Yard, owner of Hemp Gaia, says: “We teach retailers how to verify COAs match the products on their shelves and ensure lab tests were done using the correct methods at accredited labs. That’s how we protect our customers and our licenses.”
• Nick Mortillaro, owner of Lazydaze Coffeeshops, adds: “Retailers need to cut through the buzz and noise with real, evidence-based education. That’s what CRAFT provides.”
• Brian Dombrowsky, owner of Aim High Distro, says: “CRAFT helps business owners stay licensed and build trust by educating their communities about what they do.”
The public already supports this approach. Polls show that 68% of Texans favor safe, regulated access to THC—and the $8 billion Texas hemp market proves they’re voting with their wallets.
📣 To read the full press release or to join the movement, visit joincraft.org
If you’d like to learn more, speak with a CRAFT spokesperson, or schedule a visit to one of our member retailers, feel free to reach out directly.
