Tag: THC Products

Alcohol Industry Pushes Back: Regulate Hemp Drinks, Don’t Ban Them

Written by texashempreporter on March 27, 2026. Posted in Legislative. No Comments on Alcohol Industry Pushes Back: Regulate Hemp Drinks, Don’t Ban Them

As lawmakers move closer to cracking down on hemp-derived THC products, the alcohol industry is stepping into the fight—and surprisingly, they’re not calling for prohibition.

Instead, a major alcohol trade group is urging Congress to regulate hemp THC beverages rather than ban them outright, arguing that a structured framework would protect consumers while preserving a fast-growing market.

The push comes as federal lawmakers consider policies that could effectively wipe out the booming hemp beverage sector, which has exploded in popularity as an alternative to alcohol.

Regulation Over Prohibition

The alcohol industry’s position is simple:

Set clear rules

Enforce age restrictions

Require testing and labeling

Treat THC drinks more like alcohol than contraband

Their argument? A ban won’t eliminate demand—it will just drive the market underground.

A Billion-Dollar Battle

Hemp-derived THC drinks have quickly become one of the hottest segments in cannabis, appealing to consumers looking for a legal buzz without alcohol. But that growth has also put a target on the industry’s back.

With federal changes looming—including tighter definitions of THC that could outlaw many current products—the stakes are massive.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t just about drinks—it’s about the future of hemp itself.

Regulators want control

Lawmakers are split between bans and oversight Industries—from cannabis to alcohol—are jockeying for position

And now, even Big Alcohol is signaling something the hemp industry has been saying all along:

Regulation works. Prohibition doesn’t.

Bottom Line

As the fight over hemp intensifies, one thing is clear—this isn’t a fringe issue anymore.

When the alcohol industry starts lobbying to protect THC products, you know the game has changed.

Dan Patrick and the shadow war on cannabis: A case for official oppression?

Written by Misty Contreras on June 19, 2025. Posted in News.

In the corridors of the Texas Capitol, where influence is currency and access determines outcome, one man’s fingerprints are all over the battle to decide the future of THC in Texas: Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. While Governor Greg Abbott weighs Senate Bill 3—a sweeping ban on hemp-derived THC products—Dan Patrick has already chosen his side. And he’s been stacking the deck.

This isn’t just another tale of moneyed lobbying and legislative maneuvering. The facts suggest a pattern that edges uncomfortably close to official oppression, a crime under Texas Penal Code § 39.03, where a public servant uses their position to intentionally mistreat someone or deny them a right.
Let’s walk through how Patrick — directly or through his proxies — may have done exactly that.

A market war disguised as a public health issue

In 2021, AFI Capital Partners poured $21 million into Texas Original Compassionate Cultivation (TOCC), the state’s leading licensed medical cannabis producer. That same year, THC products made from hemp—legal under the 2019 federal and Texas hemp laws—began to outsell their prescription-only counterparts. Suddenly, the monopoly granted to licensed medical marijuana producers was no longer secure. Demand dropped. Patients defected. The state’s entire tightly controlled “Compassionate Use” market was eclipsed by walk-in, over-the-counter sales of delta-8, delta-9, and THCA.

Rather than compete, TOCC called for war. And Dan Patrick was their general.

After TOCC’s decline, AFI Capital managing director Nico Richardson stepped in as CEO and began lobbying for a total ban on hemp-derived THC. Public records show TOCC hired Logan Spence– Dan Patrick’s former chief of staff, paying him upwards of $417,000. That’s not unusual in Austin. But what is unusual is how Patrick then used his office to push a bill that would effectively kneecap an entire retail industry—one supported by the majority of Republican voters.

The Patrick machine

Senate Bill 3, which bans hemp-derived THC starting this September, would gut a $5.5 billion industry and jeopardize over 50,000 jobs. Yet, despite overwhelming grassroots support for retail THC—including 135,000 petition signatures and hundreds of public testimonies— the bill sailed through Patrick’s Senate with little resistance.

Patrick didn’t just allow the bill to advance, he greased the rails. TOCC wasn’t the only company with ties to his orbit. A new pro-SB3 medical cannabis company— Blissful CannaCo— popped up last December and hired a lobbyist with social and academic ties to Patrick’s assistant general counsel. In Texas, that kind of proximity is not coincidence, it’s calculation.

When public officials take steps to rig regulatory outcomes to favor personal allies or economic interests—especially at the expense of broader constitutional rights like due process, equal protection, or economic liberty—that’s not just bad policy, that could be classified as official oppression.

The legal standard

Under Texas law, a public official commits official oppression when they use their position to intentionally mistreat or arrest someone or intentionally deny or impede a right knowing their conduct is unlawful.

Patrick’s conduct raises serious questions under each of these elements:
•Intentionality. The legislation wasn’t neutral—it was laser-targeted at retail THC products that compete with his allies’ investments.
•Mistreatment. The retail hemp industry wasn’t just ignored—it was targeted for eradication through sweeping regulation despite its popularity and economic contributions.
•Unlawfulness. If this regulation is proven to be a backdoor attempt to re-establish a state-protected monopoly benefiting politically connected actors, it could be viewed as an unconstitutional abuse of office.

Even if not criminal, it fits the spirit of the statute. And at a minimum, it’s oppression in the court of public trust.

Who really loses?

While Patrick pulls levers in the shadows, everyday Texans are the ones caught in the crossfire. Medical cannabis serves only 29,000 patients. Retail THC serves millions. Texans have made their choice clear: they want safe, accessible cannabis, without a doctor’s gatekeeping or political games. If Senate Bill 3 becomes law, it won’t be because science demanded it or voters asked for it. It will be because Dan Patrick decided to help out his friends.

And that is exactly why the question of official oppression isn’t just theoretical. When political power is used not to protect the public, but to crush competition and protect a financial elite—that’s not politics as usual. That’s a potential abuse of office.

What now?
Governor Abbott has until June 22 to sign, veto, or ignore Senate Bill 3. If he signs it, expect outrage. If he vetoes it, expect war within the GOP. But no matter the outcome, the role Dan Patrick has played deserves public scrutiny—and maybe more than that.
Because when politicians tip the scales for their allies and crush the will of the people, it’s not just cannabis rights at stake, it’s the rule of law.