Skip to main content

Tag: Sb 3

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

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

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.

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.

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/

Lt Dan. Making House Calls

Written by texashempreporter on . Posted in News.

In an effort to remain vigilant and true to his word Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is now making house calls to area store owners in a measure of enforcement that goes right to the top!

Employees of south Austin store owner Todd Harris of the Happy Cactus were greeted with questions about products his stores sell and legal dosing and compliance concerns as any grandmother might before making a legal purchase of CBD cream, or maybe a Texas Veteran who was looking for a gummy for a better night’s sleep.

Only this “house-call” was made by none other than Mr. SB 3 himself, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. 

Happy Cactus, like many industry retailers are following a set of best compliance practices which are part of a statewide effort led by organizations such as (CRAFT) Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas.

According to Harris, Dan Patrick came in and asked about gummies and how many milligrams he had on certain legal-hemp products. Staff members provided info on one such item that was 50mg to the Lt. Governor as more questions ensued. Harris explained that products over 50mg are not available at his stores.

The Texas lawmaker also entered a line of questioning to Harris that alleged that students from nearby Crockett High School had come into the Happy Cactus when Happy Cactus staff insured Patrick that they not only card everyone that attends its establishment, but under his attorney’s advice they have sent the school a trespass warning so students know not to visit. That notice was delivered over six months ago.

“Lieutenant governor Patrick came into our Client store and found out that we do things the right way. He was even carded. He learned that we had sent a no trespass letter to Crockett high school because we don’t want their students in our store and he also learned that their students no longer attempt to come into our store and that we do things right like most of the rest of our industry. ” – Stated David Sergi the attorney of record for the south Austin retailer.

AUDIO FILE OF PART OF VISIT

Security Video of Happy Cactus shows Patrick and his staffers coming into the south Austin store for an official visit.  Unresponsive to Happy Cactus employees request for ID the Lt. Governor of Texas went on to explain that he was “Dan Patrick”. The Employee still demanded the identification. Afterwards, Todd Harris was notified by staff of the cordial visit by the top Texas lawmaker.

Harris and Sergi both emphasized that  “we are grateful that Lieutenant governor Patrick decided to investigate stores on his own and very pleased that he chose Happy Cactus because they are one of the best examples of how to do how to run a store properly. It’s obvious that they carry quality products for people in need and take extreme precautions to ensure their products dont fall into the wrong hands. They even carded lieutenant governor Patrick without knowing who he was.” stated David Sergi of Sergi & Associates.

 

Details of the Call can be heard here, and the security tape recorded the visit.

The Happy Cactus is located at 5700 Menchaca Rd Ste # 520 and is owned by brothers Mickey & Todd Harris from Austin TX.

[ Happy Cactus was profiled on the Texas Hemp Reporter website last year after a hit-piece questioning testing methods of the hemp industry made waves in Texas Monthly last August.] – links to article –

The Economic Toll of SB 3: How Restrictive Hemp Legislation Could Devastate Texas’ Economy

Written by Jay Maguire on . Posted in Business, Legislative.

Texas, as the state anthem says, is “supremely blessed“ as the nation’s second largest economy—in the top ten in the world if it were considered an independent nation surpassing nations like Canada and Russia, with businesses relocations and startups benefitting from low taxes and regulations, economic miracles happen here every day.

 

But, With Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) looming on the legislative horizon, the fate of thousands of businesses, tens of thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars in economic activity hang in the balance. According to a recent report by Whitney Economics, the proposed restrictions on hemp-derived cannabinoids would not only cripple the state’s booming hemp industry but also trigger a chain reaction of economic downturns that would reverberate throughout Texas.

 The Numbers Speak Volumes

The hemp-derived cannabinoid market in Texas is no small enterprise. It generates an estimated $5.5 billion in revenue annually, with retail sales alone contributing $4.3 billion. The overall economic impact of the industry, when factoring in supply chains and related economic activity, is pegged at a staggering $10.2 billion. In addition, the industry provides over 53,000 jobs, paying out $2.1 billion in wages and contributing $267.7 million in state sales tax revenue.

These figures highlight the significant role hemp plays in the state’s economy. Unlike traditional cannabis markets, hemp-derived cannabinoids operate under legal protections established by the 2018 Farm Bill, allowing Texas businesses to engage in interstate commerce. This has led to thriving local supply chains, with most Texas hemp businesses sourcing materials from multiple states while prioritizing in-state suppliers.

 

What SB 3 Would Mean for Texas

If SB 3 is enacted in its current form, the consequences would be severe:

 

6,350 businesses would be forced to close, including retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers

40,201 workers would lose their jobs, leading to $1.6 billion in lost wages .

A $10.2 billion decline in economic activity, affecting not just hemp businesses but adjacent industries, including agriculture, packaging, and distribution.

A loss of $267.7 million in annual sales tax revenue, directly impacting Texas’ ability to fund essential services.

The bill would effectively outlaw or heavily restrict many of the most popular hemp-derived cannabinoid products, such as CBD, Delta-8 THC, and Delta-9 THC derived from hemp. These products have been a lifeline for many businesses, particularly as consumer demand for alternative wellness products continues to grow.

 

Public Safety vs. Economic Stability: The False Choice

Proponents of SB 3 argue that stricter regulations are needed to address public safety concerns related to hemp-derived cannabinoids. However, the FDA has stated publicly that there is no public safety crisis justifying the outright banning of converted cannabinoids. While concerns about youth access and product consistency are valid, these can be addressed through targeted regulations rather than blanket prohibitions.

The unintended consequences of prohibition-based approaches have already played out in other states. In Oregon, for example, legislative overreach in hemp restrictions led to a $50-75 million annual loss in CBD processor revenues and a disrupted supply chain that impacted multiple industries. Similar legislation in Colorado would have wiped out an estimated $500 million per year in product manufacturing sales had it not been reconsidered.

 

 A Call for Common-Sense Regulation

Rather than stifling an industry that is generating billions in revenue and supporting tens of thousands of Texas jobs, lawmakers should consider alternative approaches:

 

Implementing clear, standardized regulations for product testing, labeling, and age restrictions.

Establishing a regulatory framework that ensures consumer safety while allowing businesses to continue operating.

Working with industry stakeholders to develop practical policies that balance economic growth with public health concerns.

 

Texas has an opportunity to be a leader in the hemp industry rather than a cautionary tale of regulatory overreach. By choosing sensible regulation over prohibition, the state can continue reaping the economic benefits of hemp while addressing legitimate safety concerns.

 

 

The Bottom Line

SB 3, if passed as currently written, would decimate an industry that has become a cornerstone of Texas’ economy. The loss of jobs, tax revenue, and economic opportunity would far outweigh any perceived public safety benefits. As Texas lawmakers deliberate on the future of hemp-derived cannabinoids, they must consider the real-world economic consequences of their decisions.

 

For Texas to remain an economic powerhouse, the path forward must be one of regulation, not eradication.