Tag: Sen. Charles Perry
Texas SB 3 Hearing: Industry Advocates Challenge “Reefer Madness” Tactics…
‘Reefer Madness’ Rhetoric vs. Industry Response
A contentious Texas Senate hearing on Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) – a proposal to ban all consumable forms of THC – erupted into a fierce debate between prohibition advocates and a broad coalition of industry experts, medical patients, and veterans calling for sensible regulation rather than outright prohibition. The March 3, 2025 Senate State Affairs Committee hearing pitted Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) and Chief Steve Dye of the Allen Police Department against hemp industry representatives who accused SB 3’s backers of employing intellectual dishonesty and fear-mongering rhetoric reminiscent of “Reefer Madness” propaganda.
From the outset, Sen. Perry and Chief Dye set a dire tone. Perry blasted the hemp industry as untrustworthy and accused it of exploiting legal loopholes “to the point that it has endangered public health.” He asserted that “high-potency synthetic THC products have flooded the marketplace,” deliberately conflating Delta-8 THC (a naturally occurring cannabinoid typically synthesized from legal CBD) with truly synthetic drugs like K2/Spice. By branding Delta-8 a “synthetic THC,” Perry implied it is on par with those dangerous street drugs – a misleading equivalence that industry advocates repeatedly challenged.
Chief Dye amplified this alarm, representing a coalition of law enforcement groups supporting the ban. He cited undercover operations in his city that supposedly found some “hemp” products with THC levels up to 78% – far above the 0.3% legal limit. Dye warned senators that product labels “do not reflect” actual contents, leading to “accidental intoxications, overdoses and increased addiction…particularly in our youth.” This choice of words – invoking overdoses and youth addiction – appeared calculated to provoke fear of a looming public health disaster.
Industry Advocates Call for Regulation Over Prohibition
Industry representatives, veterans, and medical patients united in opposition to the ban, emphasizing that regulation rather than prohibition would better serve public interests. Among them was Jay Maguire of the Texas Hemp Federation, alongside numerous business owners and cannabis advocates who presented a united front against SB 3.
Multiple witnesses highlighted the choice lawmakers face: continuing to allow access to regulated hemp products or pushing demand underground. As the Texas Hemp Reporter’s own Jay Maguire, testifying on behalf of the Cannabis Retailers Association of Texas (CRAFT) testified, “Your decision today will mean that future generations to come will thank you for allowing them access to relief readily available through over-the-counter wellness products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids, or, by banning it and handing over the enormous demand to those we are working so hard to stop at our border, creating a black market and empowering future generations of El Chapos.”
This stark warning encapsulated a core message from industry representatives: banning legal hemp-derived THC will not stop demand – it will simply empower criminal organizations and cartel-style illicit traffickers to fill the void, undermining public safety far more than regulated sales ever would.
Multiple industry experts argued that the state can solve youth access issues through technology and training without dismantling the entire hemp market. They emphasized that modern “age-gating” solutions (already used by reputable CBD shops) can electronically verify IDs and block under-21 sales, just as liquor stores or vape shops do. Some industry organizations have been developing standards for age-gating since 2020, well before any legal mandate.
“We’ve built a transparent, regulated industry that protects consumers,” stated one industry representative. “Dismantling it would only benefit illegal operators.” In other words, a ban would drive demand to the black market (where no one asks for ID), whereas enforcing ID checks in legal shops keeps kids out.
Data vs. Fear: Challenging Misleading Claims
Central to Chief Dye’s argument for the ban was that hemp-derived THC poses a growing public safety hazard, evidenced by more kids ending up intoxicated or in emergency rooms. A chief concern raised was a supposed spike in calls to poison control centers due to Delta-8. Dye and a supportive witness, Dr. Matthew Rossheim (a public health professor), both suggested that pediatric exposures were sharply rising. Rossheim claimed Texas has “seen sharp increases in emergency room visits for pediatric poisonings” from these products.
However, industry advocates provided data and context that significantly undercut these claims. They pointed out that reports to poison control have not dramatically increased since Delta-8 entered the market, contrary to the narrative of a crisis. In fact, no one at the hearing could cite evidence of a Texas-specific surge in serious adverse incidents.
Several industry representatives explained that many cases labeled as “poisonings” were actually instances where novice users simply “freaked out” after eating a strong Delta-8 gummy, leading them or their parents to seek help – an anxiety reaction, not a toxic overdose. With proper dosing education, they argued, these incidents are preventable and inherently less dangerous than portrayed.
Furthermore, state officials at the hearing quietly acknowledged that quality-control issues, while real, have been limited in scope. When pressed, a Department of State Health Services expert conceded there have only been a handful of instances of hemp products exceeding the 0.3% THC limit or being mislabeled – “not many and not a significant problem” based on their reports. This directly contradicted Perry’s portrayal of an out-of-control market flooded with potent contraband.
Industry, Patients, and Veterans Push Back
The vast majority of the nearly 170 people who signed up to testify were opposed to SB 3. Business owners, cannabis advocates, veterans, medical patients, and even some healthcare professionals testified that the answer is regulation, not prohibition.
Lukas Gilkey, co-founder of Austin-based Hometown Hero CBD (one of Texas’s largest Delta-8 retailers) and a U.S. Coast Guard veteran, was a prominent witness against the bill. Gilkey emphasized that Texas’s hemp businesses are not underground drug dealers, but licensed retailers contributing to the economy and serving consumers’ needs. By outlawing all THC products, lawmakers would be “pulling the rug out from under” an entire small-business sector that employs around 50,000 Texans and includes 7,000+ licensed shops statewide.
Multiple veterans – some in military uniforms – spoke out to oppose SB 3, emphasizing how accessible hemp-derived THC products have been life-changing for veterans dealing with PTSD, chronic pain, and other service-related injuries. They contrasted the ease of walking into a local shop for a therapeutic gummy with the bureaucratic hassle and expense of Texas’s restrictive Compassionate Use Program (CUP) for medical marijuana.
One emotional moment came when a mother, Piper Lindeen, described how low-THC cannabis kept her epileptic son’s seizures at bay; she pleaded not to take away the only thing giving her child a normal life.
Other witnesses provided pragmatic solutions that directly countered Perry and Dye’s points. Several suggested Texas implement testing and labeling standards (for potency, purity, child-resistant packaging, etc.) similar to states with legal cannabis, rather than ban products outright. Mark Bordas, a hemp business owner, used a memorable analogy: “You don’t cure alcoholism by banning light beer. Hemp is the light beer of cannabis…If Texas has a THC problem, isn’t the source the high-potency marijuana?” His point neatly flipped Perry’s logic, arguing that hemp products are actually a milder alternative to illicit high-THC cannabis.
Regulation vs. Prohibition: A Better Path Forward
Throughout the hearing, industry stakeholders emphasized that they acknowledge the need for tough standards to keep bad actors in check and kids out of harm’s way. They insisted those goals can be met without destroying a legitimate industry and criminalizing countless Texans.
Retailers like Shayda Torabi, co-owner of Restart CBD in Austin, testified that her store strictly age-verifies every purchaser. “As a retailer I am age-gating product sales…Knee-jerk reactions are not the way to eliminate bad actors,” Torabi told senators, urging them to punish those who sell to minors rather than all businesses wholesale.
“If stores around this state are selling to children, it’s the Legislature’s fault for not adding that verbiage into the bill,” said Nicholas Gresham, owner of East Texas Hemp Company, referring to the lack of explicit age restrictions in the original 2019 hemp law.
Multiple advocates stressed that Texas has the capability to regulate sales through common-sense measures – from requiring child-resistant packaging and clear labeling to restricting marketing that targets minors – all without resorting to prohibition. Their testimony underscored the point that responsible businesses already voluntarily enforce age limits, knowing it’s in their best interest to prevent youth access. They urged the committee to codify these practices statewide.
Critical Moments and Outcome
The SB 3 hearing had several flashpoints that illustrated the intensity of this debate. One striking moment came when the audience’s reaction led to the entire Senate gallery being cleared. As multiple witnesses passionately rebuked the ban and defended legal THC, supporters in the gallery clapped and cheered – defying the chairman’s warnings to remain quiet. After a few such outbursts of applause, state troopers were ordered to empty the gallery for roughly 30 minutes. Seasoned advocates noted they had “never seen the full gallery cleared” before. This incident underscored the high emotions on display and the overwhelming sentiment in the room, which appeared to favor regulation over an outright ban.
Another pivotal moment was Sen. Perry’s closing remarks. After hours of being on the defensive, Perry doubled down on his stance and lashed out at the hemp industry as “bad actors clinging to keep their unethical market alive.” Perry’s comparison of the industry to 1950s-era tobacco companies – effectively accusing them of lying about safety – drew murmurs and prompted one final wave of responses from witnesses.
The State Affairs Committee left SB 3 pending without taking an immediate vote – a pause that suggested at least some lawmakers had reservations about rushing forward. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has signaled SB 3 is a fast-track priority, claiming banning Delta-8 will “keep these unsafe products off our streets,” despite evidence that prohibition often does the opposite.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for Texas Cannabis Policy
The hearing made clear that Texas stands at a crossroads on hemp and cannabis policy. On one side, leaders like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Sen. Perry are doubling down on a hardline, prohibitionist stance fueled by alarming narratives of public danger. On the other, a growing alliance of entrepreneurs, consumers, patients, and industry advocates are calling for a more nuanced approach.
As one industry representative reminded the senators in closing, “You don’t often get a second chance to avoid a costly mistake,” urging them not to repeat the errors of past drug policy.
Whether the Texas Legislature will heed this call for balance remains to be seen. But for now, the voices of reason – from industry representatives to the everyday Texans who showed up to testify – have made their case loud and clear. Future generations of Texans, they argue, will either thank this legislature for keeping wellness products accessible and safe, or curse it for empowering black markets and “future El Chapos.” The choice lies in lawmakers’ hands, and all of Texas is watching.
Top Ten Prohibitionist Lies
The March 3 hearing showcased the best anti-THC talking points from the 1970’s, 80’s and beyond. Like a hit parade of bogus tunes, here’s the Top Ten Prohibitionist Lies
1. “Marijuana is a Gateway Drug”
• Falsehood: Using marijuana leads people to use harder drugs like heroin or meth.
• Reality: Numerous studies, including from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), show no causal link between marijuana use and subsequent hard drug use. The real gateway factors tend to be socioeconomic conditions, trauma, or early exposure to addictive substances like alcohol and nicotine.
2. “Marijuana Causes Violent Crime”
• Falsehood: Legalizing marijuana increases violent crime rates.
• Reality: Crime statistics from states that have legalized cannabis (e.g., Colorado, Washington) show no significant rise in violent crime—and some cities have even reported decreases. In contrast, illegal drug trade violence often decreases when legal markets replace black market sales.
3. “Marijuana Lowers IQ and Makes People Lazy”
• Falsehood: Long-term cannabis use reduces intelligence and destroys motivation.
• Reality: Studies show no significant IQ drop in adults who use cannabis. While adolescent overuse may impact cognitive development, occasional adult use has not been linked to measurable declines in intelligence. Moreover, many successful professionals and creatives openly use cannabis without suffering motivational issues.
4. “Marijuana is as Dangerous as Heroin and Fentanyl”
• Falsehood: Cannabis is a “Schedule I drug” because it’s highly addictive and has no medical benefits.
• Reality: Marijuana is not chemically addictive in the way opioids or nicotine are, and it has established medical benefits for pain, epilepsy, PTSD, and more. In fact, it is far less harmful than alcohol and prescription painkillers.
5. “Legalization Leads to More Teen Use”
• Falsehood: When states legalize marijuana, more teenagers will start using it.
• Reality: Studies from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and Colorado Department of Public Health show no increase in youth marijuana use post-legalization. In fact, some states have seen decreases in underage use due to better regulation.
6. “Marijuana Kills Brain Cells”
• Falsehood: Smoking weed permanently destroys brain cells.
• Reality: This myth originated from a flawed 1970s study where researchers suffocated monkeys with excessive cannabis smoke, depriving them of oxygen. Modern neuroscience shows that cannabis affects brain function but does not destroy brain cells.
7. “People Overdose on Marijuana”
• Falsehood: Cannabis use leads to lethal overdoses.
• Reality: There are zero recorded deaths from cannabis overdose. While high doses can cause discomfort, anxiety, or nausea, it does not suppress respiratory function like opioids.
8. “Legal Marijuana States Have More DUIs and Traffic Accidents”
• Falsehood: Marijuana legalization leads to more impaired driving and crashes.
• Reality: While THC can impair driving ability in some cases, overall crash rates have not spiked in legal states. Many studies indicate that drunk driving is a far bigger problem than cannabis-impaired driving.
9. “Marijuana Has No Legitimate Medical Use”
• Falsehood: There is no scientific evidence supporting medical marijuana.
• Reality: Cannabis is FDA-approved for multiple conditions, and studies confirm its effectiveness in treating epilepsy (CBD), chronic pain, nausea from chemotherapy, PTSD, and multiple sclerosis. The U.S. government even holds a patent on cannabinoids for their neuroprotective effects.
10. “Marijuana Legalization Harms the Economy”
• Falsehood: Legal weed will damage businesses and hurt the economy.
• Reality: Legal cannabis is one of the fastest-growing industries, generating billions in tax revenue, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and reducing costs related to law enforcement
 |
|
MAHA a “yes”- but no to Reefer Madness
In recent years (and certainly during the last political cycle) the United States has
experienced a growing shift, and overall desire for natural products, with an increasing
number of people seeking alternatives to processed foods, beverages, and man-made
medicines.
This movement towards holistic choices preceded the more recent MAHA (Make America
Healthy Again) campaign, made popular by Robert F. Kennedy, who has been undergoing
hearings to become the nation’s top health official as Secretary of The United States Health
and Human Services agency.
In an era where processed foods, drinks, and synthetic medicines have dominated, there is
a rising popularity of plant-based solutions, as well as a nationwide effort to restore vitality
by regaining a healthier, more sustainable lifestyle. In its most elemental form MAHA seeks
to empower individuals to take control of their lives by embracing organic, plant-based, and
holistic approaches.
Hemp, a versatile plant with nutritional, health, and industrial benefits, is emblematic of
that significant shift towards more natural lifestyles, offering the least amount of THC from
the cannabis plant, along with high concentrations of CBD, omega fatty acids, fiber and
protein.
Recent misrepresentations of hemp (again by definition delivering the least amount of
psychoactive compound THC than any other offering) are reminiscent of an equally out of
touch 1930’s exploitation film “Reefer Madness”. The movie’s premise revolves around
melodramatic events after high school students are introduced to marijuana. Decades
later, the film is now only referenced and enjoyed as a campy parody for laughs.
Although SB 3 has yet to be released (as of this writing) it is no laughing matter, and it too
would seem to suffer from the same, out of step relationship with today’s reality. If the state
of Texas suffers from a “THC problem” it is only logical to deduce that the problem is
derived from sources containing large amounts of THC- not the product with the lowest
amount. Anything being offered as hemp but surpassing the .03 percent THC by dry weight,
by definition, is marijuana and not hemp. So, if Texas has a THC problem it is due in part to
unscrupulous sellers seeking to circumvent existing laws- not the 8,000 licensed hemp
concerns seeking to adhere to it.
Admittedly, the state of Texas has an enforcement problem with perhaps up to eight agents
seeking to enforce existing laws surrounding licensing, quality control, and compliance
checks. Additionally, hemp should be available only as intended: for responsible, adult
use. We need to refine regulations and pass similar product restrictions, akin to those
applied to alcohol, tobacco, and nicotine.
Any thought of prohibiting the product outright should be met with caution. In age of e-
commerce and a historically mobile populace, the thought of eliminating the product
altogether seems fanciful. Afterall, a similar attempt to make alcohol illegal in the United
States is now often referred to as the “Failed Noble Experiment”. From 1920-1933 the
United States saw crime, sickness and deaths climb as black-market alcohol hit the
streets to satisfy the public’s thirst. Today the transport of any product is easier than ever,
as out-of-state and overseas internet concerns would prosper under any prohibition, while
Texas businesses would be shuttered and over 50,000 industry jobs lost. Bootlegged and
black-market products raise the specter of a true public health concern: fentanyl
poisoning.
I remain optimistic that our legislative leaders will ultimately embrace MAHA by allowing
Texans to make individual choices in pursuing healthier lifestyles and rejecting the dated,
misplaced mindset of Reefer Madness.
Keep in mind how proud (and rightfully so) our legislative leaders are of the “Texas Miracle”:
the Lone Star State has been recognized as the Best State for Business for 20 years! It has
won the prestigious Governor’s Cup 12 years in a row for being the most job-creating
corporate location or place to expand existing businesses. Based on federal and state
legalization of hemp, it has grown year-over- year and was valued at being an $8 billion
industry in 2022. Hemp industry owners are part of the 3.2 million small businesses that
employ nearly half of all working Texans. As our legislative leaders like to say they, small
business is the backbone of our state’s economy.
In closing- further, thoughtful regulations to protect the consuming public, by restricting
access to adults, and ensuring those who wish to purchase the product are doing so
through duly licensed, regulated, law-abiding businesses, will serve Texas best. I look
forward to the state winning its 13th Governor’s Cup in a row, and the hemp industry being a
part of that calculation.
Mark Bordas
Executive Director
Texas Hemp Business Council
02/13/25
TX Banning Delta-8 THC?
In a pivotal move this week, the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee convened to explore potential pathways for banning Delta-8 THC, following a directive from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The hearing laid bare a host of issues that have thrust this hemp-derived compound into the eye of a growing storm.
Given its current legal status in Texas under the temporary injunction in the Sky Marketing case, Delta-8 THC products have become ubiquitous, which some witnesses said foster a dangerous misconception among consumers who believe they are purchasing a safe, regulated product. This situation stands in stark contrast to other states, even conservative ones, that have established comprehensive medical cannabis programs. Law enforcement finds itself in a quandary, as current technology struggles to distinguish between legal hemp and illegal cannabis products.
While cannabis earns praise for its superior efficacy in managing nerve pain compared to traditional medications, Delta-8 THC raises red flags, particularly concerning children’s health. A troubling surge in pediatric cases involving accidental ingestion has resulted in severe health issues. Experts and activists also sounded alarm bells about the potential for psychosis, especially among chronic users and children, underscoring the urgent need for stringent safety measures.
The hearing exposed gaping holes in the current regulatory framework. Many manufacturers self-report certificates of analysis, a practice that often leads to inaccurate product labeling. Enforcement is largely hamstrung, limited to food safety violations and products exceeding the 0.3% Delta 9 THC threshold. The state’s lack of jurisdiction over out-of-state labs further muddies the waters of quality control.
Ironically, the proliferation of Delta-8 THC is undermining Texas’s own highly restricted medical cannabis program. These products, which navigate fewer regulatory hurdles, are more affordable and accessible, causing a worrying decline in the state’s patient base. An influx of out-of-state products further complicates the market, making regulation an increasingly uphill battle.
A particularly disquieting issue is the proximity of Delta-8 THC sales in proximity to schools and other child-centric areas. This accessibility, paired with the alarming rise in accidental ingestion cases among children, has ratcheted up public safety concerns. Advocates are pushing for stricter regulations on packaging and marketing to prevent these products from appealing to minors.
In response to these challenges, the committee is weighing several consequential actions. They are considering revising Delta-8’s legal status to align with other states’ medical cannabis frameworks, enhancing product testing and certification standards, and bolstering enforcement mechanisms and of course, banning it outright. Additionally, they’re looking at regulating the influx of out-of-state products, launching targeted public health initiatives to protect children, and establishing proximity restrictions near schools.
Looking ahead, the committee plans to gather more data on Delta-8’s public health impact and engage a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Law enforcement, medical professionals, and industry representatives will all have a seat at the table as Texas works to forge a consensus on these critical changes. As the Lone Star State grapples with this complex issue, its decisions could reverberate across the nation, influencing the future of cannabis regulation in America.
