Skip to main content

Tag: featured

Bad Science, Political Raids, and the Setup Behind SB 3

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Lab Testing, News. No Comments on Bad Science, Political Raids, and the Setup Behind SB 3

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

EDITORS NOTE: Since our reporting on this last week. The Official PDF has been removed. Click Above.

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.

The Truth About Hemp Lab Testing in Texas

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Lab Testing. No Comments on The Truth About Hemp Lab Testing in Texas

 A Call for Honesty, Not Hysteria

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.

“Bad Science, Bogus Raids, and Bad Bills:

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

 

Over the past year, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has made no secret  of his disdain for the legal hemp industry in Texas. He’s called it the  “backdoor to marijuana legalization” and accused retailers of “selling  drugs to kids” under the guise of legality. At a February 2024 press  conference, he declared, “We’ve got to shut this down. These are drug  dealers hiding behind a hemp license.”

Senator Charles Perry, the author of Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), doubled down  during committee hearings, claiming, “This isn’t about regulating—this is  about stopping a problem before we end up like Colorado.” Both men  warned of a crackdown, and now, true to their word, that crackdown has  arrived—not in the form of tighter regulatory oversight or better product  labeling standards, but in pre-dawn raids, guns drawn, and headlines  accusing small business owners of felony drug trafficking.

Behind the media blitz of cash seizures and confiscated gummies lies a  quiet but consequential abuse of scientific process. The state is relying on  flawed laboratory evidence—obtained through secretive “undercover”  purchases and tested using questionable methods at Armstrong Forensic  Laboratory, a private facility in Arlington contracted by law enforcement.  The result? Lawful, state-registered hemp products, each batch  accompanied by a Certificate of Analysis (COA) from a DEA-registered and  ISO-accredited lab, are being re-tested and declared “hot” by Armstrong  using outdated and inappropriate methods. Raids follow. Arrests follow.

Then come the photos of seized product, weaponry, and headlines about  “drug busts”—all as the Legislature debates whether to ban the very  products being smeared.

The Heart of the Dispute: What Makes a Product Legal? 

Under both federal law (2018 Farm Bill) and Texas Agriculture Code, a  hemp product is legal if it contains no more than 0.3% delta-9  tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by dry weight. Importantly, that threshold  applies to delta-9 THC only—the psychoactive compound in marijuana.  The presence of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), a non-psychoactive  precursor to THC found in raw cannabis, does not make a product illegal —unless it is converted into delta-9 THC through a process called  decarboxylation.

State-licensed hemp manufacturers know the rules. That’s why their  products are tested at licensed laboratories using High Performance  Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), a method that measures delta-9 THC and  THCA separately without converting one to the other. These tests provide  a transparent, scientifically valid snapshot of the product’s compliance  before it reaches store shelves. These are the COAs issued by DEA registered labs and required by Texas Department of State Health Services  for sale.

But when those same products end up on the desks at Armstrong Labs— often acquired through undercover purchases by law enforcement—the  story changes. Armstrong frequently tests these samples using Gas  Chromatography (GC), a technique that involves heating the sample,  which automatically converts THCA into delta-9 THC, artificially inflating  the measurement and pushing otherwise compliant products above the  legal threshold.

The Forensic Science Commission Weighs In 

In April 2025, the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) issued a  final report on a complaint related to this exact practice. The case involved  a man convicted based on a GC-MS (Gas Chromatography-Mass  Spectrometry) test performed on a vape cartridge. The lab’s method  caused all THCA in the product to decarboxylate into delta-9 THC,

resulting in a THC concentration that would not exist under normal use or  storage conditions.

The Commission wrote plainly:

“GC-MS testing of cannabinoids that does not use a derivatization agent  causes decarboxylation of THCA to delta-9 THC. This is not a limitation of  the instrument—it is a result of the methodology.”

They further concluded: 

“In this case, the reported result is based on a method that converted  THCA to THC, and therefore reflects ‘total THC’ rather than just delta-9  THC… Prosecutors and courts must be made aware that testing  conducted in this manner does not distinguish THCA from THC.”

In a just system, this warning would stop prosecutors cold. Instead, law  enforcement agencies—coordinated by the Texas Department of Public  Safety (DPS)—are proceeding with search warrants and prosecutions  based on these flawed lab reports. And when asked by reporters whether  they are concerned about the reliability of the THC testing methods used,  one senior officer reportedly replied, “We’re not getting into a scientific  debate.”

The Real Strategy: Prohibition by Perception 

This isn’t about public safety or scientific certainty. It’s a political  operation, coordinated from the top, timed to influence legislative  decision-making as Senate Bill 3 advances through the House. With the  session set to adjourn in mere weeks, raids across the state are producing  splashy headlines, SWAT-style photos, and allegations of criminality meant  to cast all hemp retailers as bad actors.

The formula is familiar:

  1. Conduct a raid on a registered hemp business based on  flawed lab data.
  2. Seize product, firearms, and cash, regardless of legality or  context.
  3. Issue a press release using terms like “drug trafficking,”  “distribution network,” and “organized crime.”
  4. Let the mugshots and media coverage do the rest.

But the reality is very different. These are not cartel fronts. These are law abiding small business owners, operating under the rules the state gave  them, selling lab-tested and labeled products to adult consumers. Their

crime? Selling something that looks like marijuana but meets the legal  definition of hemp—unless it’s retrospectively declared illegal through  laboratory alchemy.

“As a chemical engineer and hemp entrepreneur, I can tell you flatly: relying on gas chromatography to test post-harvest products like vapes and gummies is not just inappropriate—it’s bad science,” said Nicholas Mortillaro, Co-Founder of CRAFT. “Gas Chromatography (GC) methods always alter the chemical composition of the sample, converting THCA into delta-9 THC during analysis. That’s not measurement—that’s transformation. It’s the analytical equivalent of cooking your evidence. If you’re trying to find the truth, you use a method like High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC,) which keeps the cannabinoids intact and tells you what’s actually in the product. Anything else misleads courts, misleads prosecutors, and criminalizes legal commerce based on lab error. That’s not forensics—it’s fiction.”

The Industry Must Speak 

The state’s actions are not just punitive—they’re pretextual. The goal is to  ban all forms of legal THC, especially THCA flower, by first creating a  public perception of widespread criminality. If the Legislature cannot be  convinced with policy, then perhaps it can be stampeded by sensational  headlines.

But science still matters. Due process still matters. And for the hemp  industry—and every citizen who expects government to wield power  lawfully—it’s time to say: enough. The evidence is flawed. The raids are  political. And the bills being pushed are based on fear, not fact.

⸻

Bad science is being used to justify bad bills, enforced through bad faith  raids. Texas deserves better—and the hemp industry must stand up before  it’s too late.

—END—

OPEN LETTER TO STOP SB 3 & CSSB 3

Written by texashempreporter on . Posted in Legislative. No Comments on OPEN LETTER TO STOP SB 3 & CSSB 3

OPEN LETTER TO STOP SB 3 & CSSB 3

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.

It goes against core Texas values of freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. I own a magazine covering these Hemp products for the last 5 years! THE TEXAS HEMP REPORTER I also Host the TEXAS HEMP SHOW PODCAST ON ESPN IN AUSTIN!

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.

Texas should lead in this industry not fall victim to Dan Patrick’s tactics of Jim Crow Reefer Madness era claims. He, after all, allowed these products to be legal 6 years ago, and now calls Texas retailers “drug pushers” and “dealers”.

It’s time for Texas to lead in Hemp not fall back into further criminalization and discrimination of a bygone era. Texas Want these Products!

Texas Hemp Reporter
Russell Dowden I Publisher I Host
1104 S. Mays, Suite 208, Round Rock, TX 78664
512-897-7823c.|512-387-3377o.

Gruene Botanicals Lab Tested & Transparent

Written by Clay Moore on . Posted in Business. No Comments on Gruene Botanicals Lab Tested & Transparent

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 hemp industry 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 Governor Initiates Attack on Legal Hemp Products

Written by Rod Kight on . Posted in Legislative. No Comments on Oklahoma Governor Initiates Attack on Legal Hemp Products

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.

Here is Governor Stitt’s letter:

CLICK HERE:

 

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

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative.

God’s Poor and the Devil’s Poor:

 

As Holy Week calls millions to reflection on the meaning of suffering, mercy, and redemption, it’s worth examining how these sacred themes are distorted when transposed into public policy—particularly in how we legislate access to cannabis in Texas.

At the heart of Christianity—and especially the Holy Week narrative—is the radical idea that no one is beyond grace, that the suffering Christ stood with the outcast, the criminal, the leper, and the sinner—not because they were blameless, but because mercy is not earned. It is given.

Yet in cannabis policy, we see a stark betrayal of that principle, rooted in a theological artifact that has no place in modern governance: the ancient Protestant moral distinction between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor—what historians have called God’s Poor vs. the Devil’s Poor.

This moral sorting lives on in the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), a system so deliberately narrow that it reflects not medical caution but moral gatekeeping. A cancer patient? They pass the test. A veteran with PTSD or a laborer with chronic pain? Denied. Not because they won’t benefit from cannabis—they will—but because they fall on the wrong side of an unspoken, unscientific moral line.

We saw this attitude in 2021, when Sen. Charles Perry opposed including chronic pain in TCUP, claiming “they’d just lie to get high.” That statement didn’t come from science or compassion—it came from a worldview that sorts suffering into categories: sanctified versus suspect. It’s not just stigmatizing—it’s theological in origin and punitive in practice.

And that’s the heresy.

Not religious heresy—but civic heresy. A betrayal of the founding principles that guide our pluralistic democracy. In this country, we do not make law according to theology. We do not ration compassion based on virtue. And we certainly do not let the state decide who is worthy of healing.

This Holy Week, as we remember Christ persecuted by political and religious authorities alike, we must ask: Are we repeating that mistake in our own time, in our own Capitol? Are we denying aid and relief to people who suffer—not because we doubt the medicine, but because we judge the person?

The Christ of Holy Week was not crucified because he helped the righteous. He was crucified because he stood with the condemned and refused to play the sorting game. He broke bread with sinners. He healed without asking for credentials. And he warned us, over and over, about the danger of confusing moral authority with political power.

When we legislate as though some people “deserve” access to cannabis while others are morally suspect for needing the same relief, we are doing the very thing Holy Week condemns: dressing punishment up as justice and withholding mercy from those who need it most.

We need to end this civic heresy—not just to fix cannabis law, but to uphold the Constitution and the moral integrity of our public institutions. If we believe all Texans are equal under the law, then all Texans should have equal access to relief, dignity, and care.

This week above all weeks, let’s remember: Mercy is not a reward for virtue. It is the obligation of power.

Happy Cactus Owner Todd Harris Testifies at Texas House Hearings on Hemp

Written by Todd Harris on . Posted in CBD News & Business.

(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.

 

A copy of Harris’ testimony is available below. It has been edited for clarity and space. The video of Harris’ testimony is available at: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIMMlq5OJC0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Todd Harris

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.

 

-30-

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

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative.

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.

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

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative.

In just days, the Texas hemp industry faces what may be its defining moment since legalization in 2019. The House State Affairs Committee, chaired by Representative Ken King, will convene Monday morning to hear testimony on two bills with starkly different visions for the future of hemp in Texas.

The hearing, scheduled for 8:00 AM on April 7 in room JHR 120, will feature two competing approaches to hemp regulation that could not be more different in their impact on the thousands of businesses and workers in this growing sector.

A Tale of Two Bills

House Bill 28, authored by Chairman King himself, represents a regulatory path forward. While imposing new restrictions—including age verification requirements, licensing standards, and quality controls—it allows the industry to continue operating under enhanced oversight. This approach acknowledges the economic reality that the hemp industry has become a significant contributor to the Texas economy.

In stark contrast stands Senate Bill 3, championed by Senator Perry and already passed by the Senate with Lieutenant Governor Patrick’s backing. This bill takes a prohibitionist stance, effectively banning most hemp-derived products beyond CBD and CBG. The practical effect would be the criminalization of businesses that have been operating legally since hemp was federalized and then legalized in Texas.

The Texas hemp industry must recognize this hearing as a truly existential moment. The difference between these bills is the difference between a future for hemp in Texas and no future at all.

The Stakes for Texas Businesses

For hemp entrepreneurs across Texas who have invested everything in building compliant businesses, Monday’s hearing represents a crossroads. Many have implemented strict age verification, comprehensive product testing, and responsible marketing practices that avoid targeting young people. Despite these efforts, SB 3 would shut down operations overnight, resulting in job losses throughout the supply chain.

These business owners aren’t alone. Thousands of Texans now work in hemp-related businesses across the state, from cultivation to manufacturing to retail. Many industry stakeholders emphasize they’re not opposed to reasonable regulation.

The hemp industry broadly acknowledges the need for age restrictions, quality control standards, and responsible business practices. The objection is to prohibition disguised as regulation—the difference between workable rules and an outright ban that destroys livelihoods.

Two Minutes to Make a Difference

Those planning to attend Monday’s hearing should note that public testimony will be limited to just two minutes per person—barely enough time to introduce oneself and make a few key points. This limitation makes preparation essential.

Industry advocates recommend business owners focus their brief testimony on concrete facts: business location, number of employees, economic impact, and specific measures implemented to prevent youth access. Those unable to attend in person can submit written comments electronically through the House website until the hearing concludes.

Experienced observers of the legislative process note that lawmakers respond best to personal stories with specific details. Effective testimony should explain exactly how SB 3 would affect individual businesses, employees, and communities while emphasizing support for appropriate regulation rather than prohibition.

Regulation vs. Prohibition

The fundamental question before the committee is whether Texas will embrace a regulated hemp market or attempt to put the genie back in the bottle through prohibition.

Historical evidence suggests prohibition rarely works as intended. Rather than eliminating products, prohibition typically drives markets underground, removing quality controls and age verification while enriching illicit operators. Meanwhile, legitimate businesses close, tax revenue disappears, and products simply flow in from neighboring states with more permissive laws, not to mention empowering drug cartels by creating a supply vacuum.

Economic analysts point out that prohibition doesn’t eliminate demand—it just changes who profits from it and removes safeguards for consumers.

The Time for Action

As Monday approaches, the Texas hemp industry faces its most significant challenge yet. The businesses that have operated transparently and responsibly since 2019 must now make their case directly to lawmakers that regulation, not prohibition, is the path forward.

Whether through in-person testimony, written comments, or direct outreach to committee members, every voice matters in this crucial debate about the future of hemp in Texas. For thousands of business owners and their employees, Monday’s hearing may well determine whether they have a future in this industry at all.

Committee Hearing Information

Time: 8:00 AM, Monday, April 7, 2025
Location: JHR 120, Texas Capitol
Committee: House State Affairs
Chair: Rep. Ken King

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

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

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

SB3 to be heard in Texas House State Affairs Committee

Written by Jesse Williams on . Posted in Legislative, Texas Legal & Regulatory News.

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:

SB3 to be heard in Texas House State Affairs Committee

CRAFT Leads the Way in Hemp Compliance as SB 3 Threatens Industry

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative, Texas Legal & Regulatory News.

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.

 

 

 

Best regards,

Jay Maguire

CRAFT Co-founder and Spokesperson

📧 maguire@joincraft.org

📞 512-954-8054

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.

“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.

Large Majority of Texas Voters want THC to Remain Legal

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Pop Culture.

A survey of likely Texas voters indicates 68% support keeping THC legal in Texas, but strictly regulated.
Only 20% prefer an outright ban of consumable THC. The actual survey question was presented as
shown below:

__________________________________________________________________________________
Which of these two viewpoints are closer to your own? (rotate options)
68% Hemp-derived consumable THC, which offers alternatives to alcohol for responsible
adults and has other medicinal purposes, should remain legal in Texas but strictly
regulated with measures like age restrictions and warning labels.
20% Consumable THC derived from the Hemp cannabis plant can produce a high similar
to marijuana and its psychoactive effects can be harmful to kids and therefore
should be banned outright in the state of Texas.
12% Unsure


__________________________________________________________________________________
• Support for allowing THC to remain legal is lower among senior citizens (55% legal, 27%
ban) than it is among voters 18-34 years old (76% legal, 18% ban) and voters 35-44 years old.
• Republican voters support allowing THC to remain legal (57%) at double the rate at which
they want it banned (29%). In comparison, Democratic voters prefer THC to remain legal
(80%) over banning it (10%) by an eight-to-one ratio, while Independents are close to the
statewide average at 72% remain legal versus 17% ban outright.

• Hispanic respondents (75%) are slightly more supportive than Anglos (68%) or African-
Americans (64%) of allowing THC to remain legal.

• There is little difference in the levels of large majority support for keeping THC legal based on
one’s education: No college (68% legal), Some college (68%), College graduate (71%),
Postgraduate (64%). Similarly, seven out of ten voters at various income levels support keeping
THC legal.

Interviewing was conducted March 10-12, 2025, among N=600 likely Texas voters. The margin of error of the
results of the 600 interviews is + 4.0 at the .95 confidence interval. Baselice & Associates, Inc. utilized a mixed
methodology with respondents surveyed via live interviewers by phone as well as by text-to-cell invites.

Lies, Damned Lies, and “Loopholes

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Legislative.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real “Loophole” Is Their Own Failure to Clarify

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

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

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

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

This is a classic moral panic playbook:

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

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

• Use law enforcement disinformation to push a political agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

ricky williams

Ricky Williams Joins SB3 Fight

Written by Rachel Nelson on . Posted in Business, Football.

Will $475,000 Campaign Help Bring a 4th Quarter Win?

Former Longhorn and Heisman winner Ricky Williams hopes to sway Texas lawmakers on cannabis legislation. He co-founded Project Champion with former NFL athletes Jim McMahon and Kyle Turley. Together, the trio hopes to use their influence — and a $475,000 campaign — to stop Senate Bill 3 in its tracks. 

SB3 passed with bipartisan support through the Texas Senate on March 19. If the House passes the bill, it will ban THC in the state and kill an $8 billion industry. 

“As former professional athletes, we’ve experienced firsthand the physical and mental toll of high-impact sports,” Project Champion’s website states. “Many of us have turned to cannabis as a natural solution for pain management and overall well-being.

“Recognizing the need for safe, effective and accessible cannabis products, we’ve joined forces to advocate for fair legislation and shatter the stigma surrounding this powerful plant.”

Williams is no stranger to cannabis activism, as he was suspended from the NFL multiple times during his career for positive drug tests. In recent months, the league has loosened regulations surrounding cannabis. In 2023, Chiefs’ Travis Kelce told Vanity Fair that he estimates 80% of players use the substance.

On episode 134 of The Texas Hemp Show Podcast, Williams shared that he wished more pro-cannabis athletes would speak out – a mission Project Champion facilitates.

“The stigma is still strong,” he said. “I think people are afraid of it tarnishing their reputation. But to me, a reputation of being something that you’re not and pretending to that you are – not really worth it.”

Project Champion

With their NFL days behind them, Williams, McMahon and Turley have turned over new leaves as cannabis entrepreneurs. In recent years, Williams launched his Highsman brand, while McMahon and Turley have a joint venture called Revenant.

“To me, being an athlete is temporal, and people forget about you – unless you’re the best ever – people forget about you in a generation,” Williams told The Texas Hemp Show in 2023. “What I tell young athletes, I say, ‘Being a professional athlete in the long scheme of your life, it just gives you a platform to do something. But how are you going to use that platform?’ I feel very fortunate that I’ve been able to utilize my platform to touch and help and inspire a lot of people who don’t have any interest in football.”

The athletes work alongside the organization’s president, Gretchen Gailey, a seasoned Washington D.C. journalist who worked in the public affairs space and served as communications director for Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA). 

As part of their nationwide efforts, Project Champion lands earned media telling powerful cannabis stories. They have secured headlines on Forbes, MJBizDaily, Benzinga and Chron (to name a few).

Texas’ 89th Legislative Session ends June 2, and it is not yet clear when the House will vote on SB3. In the meantime, Project Champion plans to launch a digital advocacy campaign, host high-impact events and build coalitions. 

For more information, visit projectchampion.org.