Dan Patrick’s THC Ban Doesn’t Reflect the Will of Texas Voters—Even Republican Ones
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has made banning hemp-derived THC products a top priority this session, even threatening a special session if the House refused to advance the measure. Senate Bill 3, which passed the House after heavy procedural pressure, would effectively shut down Texas’ entire market for legal, consumable hemp products. But two recent polls—one from UT Austin and another from the Texas Hemp Business Council—tell the same story: most Texans don’t support this ban. And more notably, neither do most Republican voters.
The Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin found in April that a full 50% of Texans oppose outlawing cannabis-derived products, including hemp-based THC. Just 34% support such a move. And when voters were asked to rank the importance of various legislative priorities, placing limits on cannabis access came in near the bottom—15th out of 17.
Now, new June polling from Ragnar Research on behalf of the Texas Hemp Business Council drills into Republican primary voters specifically. The findings challenge the assumption that a THC ban plays well with the GOP base:
Just 35% of likely Republican primary voters support banning THC. 45% oppose.
On banning consumable hemp products, support and opposition are similarly split: 37% support vs. 47% oppose.
Among Republicans who align with Donald Trump, opposition to the ban grows: 47% oppose; 38% support.
72% of Republican voters say veterans should be allowed to access THC products as a non-opioid treatment option.
68% want law enforcement focused on violent crime and border security—not adults using legal hemp.
Perhaps most revealing, majorities also believe the policy itself is counterproductive: 53% agree a THC ban would create opportunities for drug cartels, and 55% say it would lead to more unregulated and dangerous synthetic products on the market.
So why is this prohibition moving forward? Why is Texas advancing a bill that’s unpopular even with Republican voters?
The answer lies not in the data—but in the dynamics of Texas politics.
Patrick has long shown a talent for mobilizing the most ideologically committed conservative voters in Republican primaries. These voters—often older, rural, and socially conservative—don’t constitute a majority, but they reliably turn out in low-participation primaries. And that turnout reality gives them disproportionate influence over Republican lawmakers, many of whom fear a challenge from their right more than any general election.
Even among these voters, the polling shows growing ambivalence toward prohibition. Just 31% of self-identified “extremely conservative” Republicans say marijuana should be completely illegal—down from 39% in 2010. Support for medical-only use and strict regulation continues to grow, even as public opinion shifts away from zero-tolerance approaches.
Yet Patrick is doubling down. Not because the policy is popular. But because the political calculus is familiar: cater to the base, use procedural leverage to force the House to comply, and count on silence from the Governor’s Mansion.
Governor Abbott has yet to take a clear position on SB 3. But he should consider the broader picture. There’s no groundswell for this bill. Its most persuasive arguments—protecting children, ensuring safety—could be achieved through regulation. Instead, a full ban would wipe out a legal industry, harm veterans seeking non-opioid therapies, and push consumers into unregulated gray markets.
More and more Texans—including Republican voters—see this for what it is: an overcorrection driven by political positioning, not public demand.
Texas doesn’t need to criminalize hemp to fix it. We need to regulate it with clarity, consistency, and respect for the law-abiding adults who use it—and the veterans whose quality of life depends on it.
A veto of SB 3 wouldn’t just correct a policy mistake. It would send a message: that governing in Texas still means listening to the people.
