sativa
indica
November 18, 2024
What is Green Wednesday?
Texas has become ground zero in the battle over hemp products, and the stakes couldn't be higher. We're talking about a $10 billion industry, tens of thousands of jobs, and the freedom for adults to make their own wellness choices. Here's what you need to know: Cannabis is the botanical term for the plant that gives us hemp and marijuana; the distinction between those two legal terms is that above 0.3% delta-9 by dry weight. Above that line, it is considered marijuana and therefore federally illegal. Below it, it's hemp and completely legal under federal law since 2018. In contrast, plant material under 0.3% delta-9 (by dry weight) is exempted from the list of Schedule 1 controlled substances.
Despite lagging behind the rest of the United States in marijuana legalization, Texas has the largest cannabis market in the country. Many factors go into that calculation (population, regulatory burdens, taxes, etc.) Still, at the end of the day, Texas is not hampered by state-run recreational marijuana monopolies strangled by over-regulation and taxation. That is because in 2019, after congressional approval of the 2018 farm bill, Texas legalized and regulated the hemp-cannabinoid industry, which has grown into a $10 billion powerhouse by 2024.
In Texas, recreational marijuana is strictly prohibited, with harsh penalties for possessing even small amounts of the drug without a prescription, but the hemp-derived market is so robust that Texans are not really missing out on anything except high prices.
It is true that in 2025, under SB2024, vape devices were banned from the hemp market and shifted to the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), which is the state-sponsored medical marijuana program.
Even though this market in Texas is fully legal, two distinct efforts have been undertaken to attempt to ban it.
In 2021, the state broke its own rules when it tried to ban delta 8 and related products[1]
In 2025, the legislature, led by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Lubbock Senator Charles Perry, almost successfully banned the legal hemp market, but for Governor Greg Abbot,t who intervened with a last-minute veto, saving the industry to fight another day.
As of October 2025, 24 states across the U.S. have legalized (federally illegal) marijuana for recreational use. Texas clearly isn't interested in legalizing marijuana, so why are lawmakers targeting the legal hemp market instead??
The answer is complicated and eye-opening.
While lawmakers often point to alleged dangers of THC as a driving force behind legislative decisions, their motivations can extend far beyond public health concerns. Some believe Big Alcohol's fear of losing sales and the deep pockets of those political donors has a much greater impact on decisions surrounding hemp policy. Support for this theory stems in part from evidence that one of Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick’s largest campaign donors is a major Anheuser-Busch beer distributor.
Is it possible that affected donors pushed to preserve market share in the form of regulatory capture? What is happening behind the scenes that may have contributed to efforts to destroy the hemp industry? And is the rhetoric around public health and safety warranted?
To understand what's really happening with hemp regulation in Texas, we first need to look at federal legislation on the plant. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, colloquially known as the “2018 Farm Bill,” removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act. Under this law, the production of hemp is legal if it has a Delta 9 THC concentration of 0.3% or less on a dry weight basis.
The farm bill is meant to be renewed every five years, but has been extended yearly since 2023. Opinions surrounding the 2018 farm bill are mixed due in part to the rapid expansion of the hemp market and the marijuana industry’s waning influence and growing envy over the expansive nature of the farm bills’ language.
The Farm Bill specifically defines hemp as cannabis with a delta-9 THC concentration of 0.3% or less on a dry weight basis, while simultaneously including all derivatives, isomers, salts, salts of isomers, etc. At the time, delta-9 THC was the most widely recognized cannabinoid and since then, manufacturers have begun making use of other, lesser-known cannabinoids like delta-8 and delta-10 THC, which also have psychoactive effects. These compounds fall outside the delta-9 THC limit, allowing producers to innovate and develop new products and variations.
Interested parties, primarily large multi-state operators in the marijuana space, have been lobbying Congress to redefine hemp so that it no longer competes with marijuana, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated it lacks the current legal authority to regulate intoxicating cannabinoids and is relying on Congress to create a clear, strict regulatory framework. This has created a state-by-state patchwork approach to regulation.
Courts have affirmed states’ authority to regulate hemp-derived cannabinoid products, stating that the Farm Bill does not prevent states from imposing stricter restrictions for public health and safety purposes.
So how did Texas respond to these federal changes? As of 2019, Texas legalized and regulated hemp-derived products based on the 2018 farm bill definition, generating mostly robust and comprehensive regulations aimed at protecting consumers, specifically by adopting FDA food guidelines for manufacturing.
Under current Texas law, recreational marijuana use remains illegal. This refers to any cannabis plant or derivative product with a delta-9 THC concentration above 0.3% on a dry weight basis, but the Compassionate Use Act, passed in 2015, permitted the first legal use of low-THC marijuana products for patients with intractable epilepsy. The law was expanded in 2019, 2021, and 2025 to include other medical conditions.
The program is open to patients with specific medical conditions:
It allows practitioners who specialize in the approved areas of pain or disease to prescribe low-THC cannabis to qualifying patients, which means marijuana plants that contain less than 1% of THC by weight.
The penalties for illegally possessing, gifting, or selling marijuana in Texas are strict compared to many other states, whereas hemp’s legality, federally and in-state, protects adults using legal products. However, knowingly or intentionally possessing a usable quantity of marijuana leads to penalties ranging from up to 180 days in jail for possessing two ounces or less, a Class B misdemeanor, to life in prison for possessing more than 2,000 pounds. Even possessing four ounces is considered a felony, leading to penalties of up to two years imprisonment and $10,000 in fines.
Fast forward to 2025, and everything the hemp industry had built was suddenly under attack. The 2025 Texas Senate Bill 3, which was ultimately vetoed by Governor Greg Abbott, sought to impose prohibitive regulations on hemp products in the state, essentially a ban. Initially, the bill aimed to ban all hemp-derived THC products, including products like delta-8 THC. This version of the bill, supported by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, would have limited consumable hemp to only cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG), which are non-intoxicating cannabinoids that mainly pose therapeutic benefits. Perversely, requiring such a pure form of CBG or CBD would have meant creating synthetic forms of the compounds, something the bill's author, Sen. Perry, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick claimed to want to eliminate.
The Texas House of Representatives advanced a significantly revised version of this initial bill that shifted from completely banning THC products to only allowing beverages and heavily regulating and taxing them, similar to how alcohol is regulated in the state. In the end, the final version of SB3 restricted hemp products to only non-intoxicating cannabinoids like CBD and CBG. It also introduced stricter testing standards, new licensing requirements, and harsher criminal penalties for violations.
Had either been passed into law, minimum imposed penalties of up to one year in jail and up to $3,000 in fines for possession of more than one ounce of illegal cannabis products would have been imposed. Selling or manufacturing prohibited THC products would have been a third-degree felony.
Governor Abbott vetoed the bill, emphasizing that a total ban would be costly to enforce and could be tied up in legal challenges for years. He stated, “[The bill] criminalizes what Congress expressly legalized and puts federal and state law on a collision course.” Still, Governor Abbott cited concerns over the risks THC poses to communities, calling a Special Legislative Session to “craft a law that does as much as possible to corral the problems while also being structured so that it can go into effect this year.”
During two subsequent special sessions, the Texas Legislature discussed two other new ban bills, SB 5 and SB 6, but each of those failed to garner enough support in the state House of Representatives.
With the immediate threat defeated, it's worth examining the arguments that almost killed a $10 billion industry. The veto of SB3 was a major victory, and industry advocates are now focused on rulemaking procedures as directed by an executive order issued by Governor Abbott at the end of special session #2 and anticipating additional attempts by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to criminalize hemp products.
Understanding the rhetoric shared by Lt. Gov. Patrick and other legislators to justify their desire to ban legal hemp products can help hemp advocates prepare for future challenges.
Advocates for a total hemp ban argued that it is impossible for the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to regulate the approximately 8000+ currently active in Texas. They have stated a lack of funding as the barrier to widespread oversight, allowing illegal products to slip through the cracks.
Texas hemp manufacturers must pay a fee of $258 per year to register with the state, while the fee for retail facilities is $155 per year. Those seeking a total ban on hemp-derived THC products argue that these fees are too low to fund adequate enforcement. Timothy Stevenson, deputy commissioner of the DSHS’s Consumer Protection Division, stated in May 2024 that the agency had only six employees to oversee the 8,000 registered hemp dispensaries at the time. Visiting every retailer would take five years.
Hemp advocates pushed back on claims that DSHS cannot afford to adequately regulate hemp retailers. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, it was shown that merely one-third of the nearly $2.5 million collected from fees was being directed toward enforcement. And Lukas Gilkey, CEO of Hometown Hero, found that DSHS outsources full-panel testing for hemp products to a third-party testing center that charges $1,400 per test. But retailers in the hemp industry have found that the most expensive full-panel testing is closer to $700, indicating that DSHS may be overspending and wasting resources on unnecessary testing costs.
Using lower-cost testing services and restricting all registration fees to enforcement could enable DSHS to better regulate hemp retailers and manufacturers instead of resorting to a total ban on hemp-derived THC products, a move that would bring a multitude of unintended and expensive consequences.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made various allegations that THC is “harming our children and destroying Texans’ lives and families.” At an event showcasing products with THC in them, Lt. Gov. Patrick said, “They want to kill your kids,” and went so far as to hurl a package with hemp products at a reporter who asked him a question. In May 2025, he told FOX 26 Houston that "Nothing is more important than stopping a kid from getting ahold of this junk ."
Patrick supporters have agreed that edible THC and hemp products, such as gummy candies, pose a particular risk to children. Yet arguments that hemp retailers are purposefully preying on young people are unfounded, and no health emergency was declared by the governor.
In his stance against THC, Lt. Gov. Patrick centers on the alleged risks and dangers of THC-containing hemp.
But historically, Patrick has been financially supported by Texas's alcohol industry, taking campaign donations from alcohol manufacturers, beer distributors, and liquor stores. Critics of Patrick's position have stated that alcohol is more dangerous than THC. Here's a sobering fact: alcohol killed over 10,000 Texans in 2024 alone. Hemp? Zero deaths..
Some have accused the Lt. Governor of hypocrisy, alleging that he willfully ignores the dangers of alcohol due to the massive amounts of money they have donated over the years. Understanding how THC compares to alcohol in terms of health risks and hazards can help inform Texans’ stances on a hemp ban.
It is important to note that alcohol has been more researched than marijuana, though anecdotal use of cannabis over the years points to minimal side effects and burgeoning studies show a multitude of health benefits. Alcohol and cannabis are also entirely unique substances, with the human body treating alcohol like a poison for the toxicity it can create, while each human being enjoys an Endocannabinoid System that has receptors to positively respond to different cannabinoids. Still, alcohol is generally considered more dangerous than cannabis due to its higher potential for causing fatal overdoses, stronger risk of addiction, disease, and more widely understood long-term consequences.
The long-term effects of chronic alcohol usage have been linked to conditions such as liver disease, pancreatitis, heart damage, digestive issues, and infertility. At this time, the general long-term effects associated with cannabis are limited to potential cognitive changes, particularly for teenagers who use cannabis, and a possible link between cannabis and schizophrenia. Neither effect has been confirmed, and further high-quality, long-term research is necessary but support for age restrictions is unanimous.
Some who championed a total ban on hemp-derived products claim that this legal competition could undermine Texas’s restrictive medical cannabis program. The state’s Compassionate Use Program is one of the most restrictive medical marijuana laws in the country, imposing significant limitations on patient access.
In a report commissioned in 2024 by the TCUP working group, it was clearly stated that for the medical marijuana program to be successful, the hemp industry would have to be eliminated. In their estimation, state-legal/federally legal hemp products are equivalent to unacceptable competition. The medical marijuana program relies on limited licenses and patients being forced into their system to be profitable. Free and open markets do not fit into their equation of success.
Some arguments the hemp industry hinges on are moral and ethical objections to the substance. Concerns about public health and its impact on young people are part of these arguments, while other opponents defer to philosophical or religious views on impairment.
Prohibitionists and supporters of big pharmaceutical drugs insist that consumers must not be allowed medical freedom or the ability to choose for themselves what treatments are best for them. Opponents may argue that allowing adults to make their own determinations sends the wrong message, especially to young people.
For some, opposition stems from a desire for more research, which ironically is limited by federal restrictions on marijuana, leading to most research being based on hemp.
Here's where things get really interesting, and where the money trail becomes impossible to ignore. Concerns around how continued sales of these products could impact the alcohol industry have also fueled many opponents’ stances on a strict Texas hemp ban. Some alcohol brands experienced declining sales in states in which recreational marijuana use has been legalized. In 2023 alone, total beverage alcohol volumes in the U.S. decreased by 3%.
These trends have led Big Alcohol to explore the THC beverage market as a potential new revenue stream. But the hemp industry must remain vigilant that Big Alcohol’s involvement in production does not taint the industry with potentially harmful additives used in alcohol products.
The divide between the alcohol and cannabis industry is multifaceted and may drive more lawmaker decisions than voters realize. Concerns have arisen over a link between political donations to the very legislators pushing for bans, specifically Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick’s support of Big Alcohol, and how relationships with alcohol distributors may have unfairly impacted his stance on hemp prohibition.
Public records show that Patrick received a $250,000 campaign contribution from John Nau, the CEO of Silver Eagle Distributors, a Houston alcohol distributor owned and the largest Anheuser-Busch distributor. Subsequently, Patrick received a $25,000 donation from the Beer Alliance of Texas PAC to the “Texans for Dan Patrick” PAC. Patrick’s opposition to hemp-derived THC products appeared to strengthen after receiving these contributions.
Some opponents argue that Patrick’s strict focus on hemp bans over the past year has taken time and attention away from passing other bills that directly impact the lives of Texans. Notably, Patrick did advocate for the expansion of the Compassionate Use Program for medical marijuana, while also advocating for a full ban on hemp products.
Law enforcement and conservative groups have conflated federally illegal marijuana with federally and state legal hemp in their efforts to push through a ban during the three sessions of 2025. Despite applying to the wrong industry, the Texas Municipal Police Association (TPA) has argued that decriminalization of cannabis possession and distribution has led to increased crime rates and strained social services in other states. The Texas Sheriffs’ Association has also cited outdated data to support its claims that marijuana lowers IQ scores, is addictive, and increases criminality.
Fear-mongering is driving the negative opinions among opponents of recreational cannabis legalization and advocates for a stricter hemp ban.
So what's really at stake if these ban attempts eventually succeed? Fully understanding the full impact of the total hemp ban proposed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick requires a closer look at exactly how the hemp industry operates throughout Texas.
A March 2025 economic report by Whitney Economics, titled “Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids in the Lone Star State: A Revisit of the Economic Impact Analysis of Cannabinoid Retail in Texas,” revealed that the hemp industry generates approximately $5.5 billion in annual sales and $268 million in estimated tax revenue throughout the state.
According to this report, the proposed ban of all hemp-derived THC products could cost the industry $7.5 billion and 40,201 jobs in Texas alone. The industry produces approximately $1.53 billion in wages in just the retail sector, and hemp manufacturing produces another $374 million in wages.
These economic impacts would ripple throughout the supply chain, impacting everyone from farmers and processors to distributors and marketing firms.
Those opposed to the hemp ban fear that it could devastate small businesses and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs. But aside from economic impacts, limiting access to hemp products could have real consequences for consumers who rely on these substances for wellness.
For thousands of Texas veterans dealing with PTSD and chronic pain, hemp products aren't just another consumer choice; they're a lifeline. CBD is the most popular wellness product from hemp, legally containing less than 0.3% THC. Consumers use it for pain relief, anxiety and stress reduction, improved sleep, skin health, and several other benefits. Veterans in particular rely on these products to manage chronic pain, PTSD, anxiety, and insomnia, often as an alternative to prescription medications with serious side effects.
Opponents of a hemp ban also emphasize that criminalizing these products would not eliminate the demand for hemp-derived THC. Instead, it would push the market underground, leading consumers to unregulated and potentially more dangerous products. These products would shift from being underregulated to not being regulated at all, potentially increasing the risk for adverse health effects.
Where does Texas go from here? A strict ban on all hemp products would have been a disaster for the Texas economy and thousands of workers across the state.
At least 15 states have adopted or proposed legislation to regulate hemp-derived intoxicating beverages similarly to alcohol. Some have shifted oversight for these products to alcoholic beverage control commissions, but this approach does not benefit the existing industry and in fact negatively impacts it.
Where does this leave Texas and the millions of consumers who rely on hemp products? “Cannabis” prohibition politics are extremely nuanced in many parts of the U.S., and Texas is no exception. While many states have taken proactive measures regarding regulations, Texas has taken steps backward by seeking time and again to criminalize all hemp-derived THC markets, risking significant effects on the state’s economy.
What Texans should take away from discussions about public policy and hemp-derived cannabinoids is that politicians’ stances are not always based solely on public interest. Many factors might influence a legislator’s opinions on hot topics; Citizens should seek to separate facts from fiction before forming their own opinions about cannabis prohibition politics. The bottom line? When politicians talk about 'protecting' Texans from hemp, follow the money. The real question isn't whether hemp is safe, it's whose profits are being protected.
[1] A lawsuit was filed in 2021 and an injunction awarded shortly thereafter that has maintained sales of hemp-derived cannabinoids the state of Texas in operation.
