As the Texas Legislature debates SB 3—a bill that would ban all THC products—responsible hemp retailers across the state are stepping up to protect their businesses, their customers, and their communities.
For the past 18 months, Texas hemp industry advocates, business owners, policy and legal experts have worked to create a set of training modules, model store manuals, SOPs and other compliance-related business standards that can be adopted statewide to assist small businesses with building their compliance and sales capacity while pushing back against the false narratives being used to push the Prohibitionist ban agenda. The Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas (CRAFT) is a multi-sector industry-led effort to prove that the hemp industry is capable of self-regulation. Our members have voluntarily implemented a 21+ age policy, adopted rigorous product sourcing and testing standards, and developed a comprehensive Retailer Playbook to help businesses stay compliant in a shifting legal environment.
Our members didn’t wait for politicians to tell them what’s right,” said Jay Maguire, CRAFT co-founder and spokesperson. “Moral panics don’t start with facts—they start with fear. And that’s exactly what Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and Senator Charles Perry relied on: Reefer Madness-style scare tactics and cherry-picked anecdotes. Even when the stories were true, they were outliers—not the norm. The vast majority of retailers are doing the right thing. CRAFT members voluntarily enforce a 21+ age policy and card every customer at the point of sale—just like alcohol and tobacco. That’s what responsible businesses do.”
When Lt. Governor Dan Patrick visited Happy Cactus shop in Austin last week unannounced and looking for evidence of super-high THC products, he was expecting a political “gotcha” moment. What he found instead was a professional, compliant business, stocked with compliant products and operated with trained staff following company policy, carding customers and following best practices. That’s not politics—that’s policy in action.
Key leaders in the hemp space are weighing in:
• Rhiannon Yard, owner of Hemp Gaia, says: “We teach retailers how to verify COAs match the products on their shelves and ensure lab tests were done using the correct methods at accredited labs. That’s how we protect our customers and our licenses.”
• Nick Mortillaro, owner of Lazydaze Coffeeshops, adds: “Retailers need to cut through the buzz and noise with real, evidence-based education. That’s what CRAFT provides.”
• Brian Dombrowsky, owner of Aim High Distro, says: “CRAFT helps business owners stay licensed and build trust by educating their communities about what they do.”
The public already supports this approach. Polls show that 68% of Texans favor safe, regulated access to THC—and the $8 billion Texas hemp market proves they’re voting with their wallets.
To read the full press release or to join the movement, visitjoincraft.org
If you’d like to learn more, speak with a CRAFT spokesperson, or schedule a visit to one of our member retailers, feel free to reach out directly.
Monday morning at 8am the Texas House State Affairs Committee will begin, and will include SB3 on their agenda for the day along with HB 28.
This does not mean that the committee will hear the bill the first thing in the morning. It is possible that other bills may be added and heard first with minimal testimony, just to get them out of the way.
At the time of writing though only the two hemp bills sit on the agenda for the committee that day. It could be expected that many people show up and something similar to what Texans saw in the Senate committee hearing could take place with it being an all day hearing of testimony.
THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE FOR TEXANS TO VOICE ON THE RECORD WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE WITH SB3
If you are a shop owner and your livelihood is on the line because of this bill, this hearing should be priority for you. This is the last time and only time in the House that your testimony can go on the official record and everyone gets a chance to testify.
The hearing will take place in the Reagan building in room JHR20. That’s on the 2nd floor of the Reagan Building which can be located on the map above circled in red. You must register at the capitol the day of the hearing to testify. Testimony will be limited to 2 min and the House hearing are usually strict on the 2 min time limit unlike the Senate which gives some leniency.
To submit written testimony to the Texas House, prepare a concise document (ideally under 3-5 minutes worth of reading try to stay within 1 to 2 pages max) and submit it to the committee clerk, along with 20 copies for the committee members, before or during the hearing.
TIPS ON CRAFTING and GIVING TESTIMONY
Stories that are common are not bad, but get repetitive and implicitly unwanted as they become memorable in a more negative light than positive. Give your original perspective, listen to other testify and mold your own verbal testimony to what others have noted as to not overlap so much. It is not advised that one speak on medical topics as though they are medical experts unless they are a medical expert, the Senate is using this against the industry in that it proposed they should be in the medical program (despite its gross limitations).
To go over this again, this is meaning don’t talk like a medical expert or the medical relief it gives you or your clients. Therapeutics is one thing, but discussing THCa like its the fuel for healing everything is not a good move.
If you have any questions, feel free to message us through our contact page, social media accounts Facebook and Instagram, or even on LinkedIn. We want to be organized and professional.
And last but not least, dress business casual or business professional. A good rule of thumb is dress LIKE YOU ARE GOING TO COURT AND GOING TO BE IN FRONT A JUDGE. The Capitol is an official court house and the attire of such meetings is expected to be approximate as such. Dressing as though you are going to a grunge concert in the middle of Iowa give an impression of a lack of concern or care for your attendance and the gravity of the matter at hand.
Just relax and be calm
It is an emotional hell ride at times and the mileage of what you feel may vary. That’s okay. Anger and Sadness are not uncommon, but it is not justification to go into a physical tantrum. It can get you removed from the building and it doesn’t look good. And do not use foul language, it isn’t classy to sound like a salty sailor pulling into Baltimore.
Texas, lets go defend our market and get the right moves made to make our market even better with proper regulations.
Story originally appeared on our with colleagues website at Texas Cannabis Collective:
Austin, TX – State legislators are considering a ban of the sale of all consumable hemp products, leaving the cannabis industry and cannabis advocates in the State of Texas in an uproar.
New cannabis legislation threatens to dismantle a $5.5 Billion industry by bringing an end to the sale of all consumable hemp products in Texas.
This will affect over 10,000 businesses in Texas according to the latest estimates, and over 55,000 jobs will be lost.
“We haven’t abused any loopholes in legislation, because we did not write the legislation nor were we asked to help or assist in the regulations” states Ahmad Alnajjar, owner of Trippiez Smoke Shop. “Everything we have sold and produced has been federally legal with the recent federal farm bill guidelines. We want safety like the legislators do, we WANT proper regulation to ensure safety, abide by the law, and provide the right products for millions of Texans who rely on this as much as we rely on them.”
With five locations in Austin and plans to open an additional location soon, Trippiez Smoke Shop will definitely feel the burn when this legislation is enacted. Imposing fees, creating criminal offenses, and providing an administrative penalty for violations is the primary objective of the new legislation. TX SB3 is sponsored by several members of the state Senate and championed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Texas legalized hemp-derived products in 2019, but according to the Lt. Gov., retailers have abused this by selling products with a THC level of above 0.3%. CBD and CBG products are exempt provided that they are registered, plainly labeled and in resealable, child-proof containers.
“All the businesses who follow regulations are being punished for the very very few businesses who act carelessly”, protests Alnajjar.
The concerns of those owners who will not have to close their doors is significant, as well. Adjustments will have to be made such as cutting labor costs, and profit will be lost on surplus hemp-derived inventory if not sold before the allotted grace period.
In a stunning display of government overreach, law enforcement officers descended upon three licensed hemp distribution warehouses in Dallas’s Harry Hines district yesterday. The targets — Monster, Frontline Wholesale, and Cannafy Distribution — weren’t criminal enterprises dealing in illicit substances. They were legitimate businesses distributing federally compliant hemp products, complete with lab certifications and QR codes linking to their Certificates of Analysis.
Yet here we are, watching Texas law enforcement raid legal businesses not for breaking existing laws, but in anticipation of legislation that hasn’t even been signed.
The Science They Don’t Want You to Know
Every product seized in these raids came with documentation from DEA-registered, ISO-accredited laboratories confirming compliance with the federal standard: less than 0.3% delta-9 THC. These aren’t back-alley operations — these are businesses following the rules, relying on certified labs and validated testing methods.
But that hasn’t stopped state officials from cherry-picking their science. The Texas Forensic Science Commission has repeatedly warned against the misuse of gas chromatography without derivatization — a testing method that can artificially convert non-psychoactive compounds into delta-9 THC, producing false “hot” results. Instead of heeding these warnings, certain officials have weaponized faulty testing to justify their crackdown.
“They opted for the tests that guaranteed a ‘hot’ result,” explains Jay Maguire, Executive Director of the Texas Hemp Federation. “More raids. Rinse. Repeat. Each one built on a foundation of manipulated science and prosecutorial deception.”
Beware the Badge-Wielding Politician
At the center of this storm stands Allen Police Chief Steve Dye, a man who seems more interested in political theater than public safety. Dye has orchestrated militarized raids on taxpaying businesses, detained veterans and senior citizens at gunpoint, and now finds himself named as a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit.
His claims about cannabinoid products would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous. He insists his jail is filled with cannabinoid victims suffering catastrophic health outcomes — claims that mysteriously don’t appear in Poison Control records or hospital admission logs. When actual hospitalizations do occur, they almost invariably involve alcohol and hard drugs like meth or heroin used simultaneously with hemp products.
When confronted with these facts? Chief Dye “doesn’t want a scientific debate.”
“Steve Dye may wear a police chef’s Stetson, but to the millions of Texans whom his smear tactics and abuse of his office continues to injure, he’s all hat, no cattle,” Maguire observes. “He used discredited science, inflammatory rhetoric, and raw force to build a career off fear — not real science, real facts, or real people, because so far as I can see he’s not interested in real justice.”
The Real Agenda: Control and Corruption
David Sergi, lead counsel for Monster Distribution, doesn’t mince words about what’s really happening here: “This raid was not based on facts. It was based on political theater.”
The enforcement pattern reveals something far more sinister than misguided public safety concerns. This is about collapsing an $8 billion industry to hand the spoils to politically connected licensees. It’s about manufacturing a moral panic to justify a government takeover of a thriving free market.
“The lies and distortions — from the phony outrage on the House floor to dubious claims about ‘poisoning children’ — were never about public safety,” Sergi explains. “They were about consolidating power under the state and its chosen few. It reeks of political favoritism, if not outright corruption.”
Veterans in the Crosshairs
Perhaps the cruelest irony in this saga is how it betrays the very Texans these politicians claim to support. Senate Bill 3, the legislation driving these preemptive raids, would force thousands of veterans, cancer patients, and chronic pain sufferers into the state’s limited medical cannabis registry.
Here’s what they don’t tell you: Under federal law, anyone enrolled in the Texas Compassionate Use Program becomes a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — meaning they lose their Second Amendment rights.
Think about that. The same politicians who wrap themselves in the flag and champion gun rights are forcing veterans to choose between pain relief and their constitutional freedoms. The same officials who promise to defend the Second Amendment are creating a registry that strips those rights away.
Official Oppression Has a Name
When law enforcement acts outside its authority to deprive businesses and individuals of their rights and property, Texas has a word for it: official oppression. Under Texas Penal Code § 39.03, it’s a crime.
“When state agents knowingly act outside the scope of the law to deprive Texans of their rights or property, they aren’t just overstepping — they’re abusing power,” Maguire states.
These aren’t drug traffickers. These are businesses that have operated legally in Texas for five years, serving customers who overwhelming support access to hemp products. The enforcement actions aren’t about health and safety — they’re about control through “badges and guns.”
The Call to Action
As these raids continue and Senate Bill 3 awaits Governor Abbott’s signature, the Texas hemp industry and its supporters face a critical moment. Will Texas stand for free enterprise, scientific integrity, and constitutional rights? Or will it allow political theater and official oppression to destroy a legal industry that serves hundreds of thousands of Texans?
“Governor Abbott has long stood as a defender of both small business and the Second Amendment,” Maguire notes. “We believe he will see this situation for what it is — an overstep that undermines personal freedom and patient access.”
The message is clear: Veto Senate Bill 3. Stop the raids. Respect the law as it exists, not as some politicians wish it to be. And above all, stop forcing Texans to choose between their health and their constitutional rights. Because when law enforcement becomes a tool of political ambition rather than justice, we all lose.
With THC slated to be a hot topic at July’s special legislative session, many Texans are asking where hemp regulation in Texas will fall.
Heather Fazio, Director of the Texas Cannabis Policy Center, said that while Texans could see an over-arching regulatory entity exclusively for cannabis, “I think in the meantime the writing is on the wall with TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission).”
“The governor mentioned it in his proclamation,” she said. “We think that there should at minimum be a regulatory division within TABC that’s dedicated to hemp so they have staff that understands the plant, understands consumers and understands the market. But I think that we can expect that this is the direction that our government is choosing to go.”
Fazio spoke at the June 28 “Assembly of Smoke & Strategy” event at Lucyland in New Braunfels, where an audience member posed the question about TABC regulation in the hemp industry.
“This is an adult-use product like alcohol,” Fazio said. “They have boots on the ground, they have the operations already in place. It makes sense that they would go in that direction in spite of my thought, which is that that’s not the most ideal situation.”
While many industry stakeholders echo Fazio’s opinion, she said designating a regulatory body is one of many kinks that will have to be worked out.
“But let us remember that this is the beginning of cannabis being legal forever in Texas,” she said. “There are going to be bumps along the road. We know that even in states like Colorado, they still have to go back every session and fix things or defend things. So the cannabis industry right now is at an inflection point, a maturity point.”
You’d think legalizing a plant would mean the fight is over. But for hemp, the real battle is just
beginning. You’ve probably heard the buzz about cannabis legalization. The headlines paint a rosy picture:
billion-dollar markets, job creation, legal status spreading state by state. On the surface, things
look promising. But behind the headlines, another story is unfolding. If you work in or rely on the hemp industry,
you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Right now, the federally legal hemp market is under systematic attack. This isn’t random or
coincidental. It’s strategic. State by state, bill by bill, hemp products are being regulated out of
existence, even though the federal government explicitly allowed their growth under the 2018
Farm Bill. Texas, predictably, is once again at the epicenter of this battle.
A Legal Industry, Slowly Bled Out
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp federally, provided it contained less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC.
Anything above that threshold remains federally illegal cannabis.
Here’s the kicker: hemp and cannabis are scientifically the same plant, Cannabis sativa L.,
separated only by that thin chemical distinction. This seemingly minor difference set two
industries on a collision course. It opened doors for hemp-derived cannabinoids like CBD,
Delta-9, Delta-8, Delta-10, and HHC. These products, extracted legally from hemp, bypassed the
restrictive regulations surrounding cannabis, spawning a booming alternative market.
Suddenly, consumers across non-legalized states had access to THC products without
dispensaries, inflated costs, or burdensome registrations. Wellness stores across Texas flourished,
offering Delta-8 gummies and other cannabinoid products. Farmers swapped cotton fields for
hemp, small businesses thrived, and consumers enjoyed unprecedented accessibility.
Unsurprisingly, this rapid growth did not sit well with everyone, especially the large multi-state
cannabis operators, alcohol distributors, and special interest groups accustomed to dominating
the market.
When the Lobbyists Show Up
Quickly recognizing hemp’s competitive threat, established cannabis interests mobilized
lobbyists to protect their market share. Their message was simple yet misleading: hemp is
unregulated, unsafe, and poses a public health threat.
In reality, this was never about public health. It was purely about profit margins. New bills
emerged, targeting Delta-8, Delta-10, and other cannabinoids. Suddenly, testing standards
skyrocketed, permits became costly, and regulations grew more restrictive. Step by step, states
dismantled the hemp market they once proudly supported.
Texas: The Tip of the Spear
Nowhere is this shift clearer than Texas, where SB 3 was passed by both chambers in late May
2025 and sent to Governor Greg Abbott’s desk. The bill would have banned virtually every
hemp-derived cannabinoid currently on the market.
But in a surprising move, Abbott vetoed SB 3.
His decision followed massive public pressure: over 100,000 petition signatures, 5,000 letters,
and impassioned testimonies from veterans, farmers, and medical users. Advocates, like crash
survivor Elizabeth Meigs, emphasized how hemp-derived products changed their lives for the
better, underscoring the potential job losses and access issues a ban would cause.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick had aggressively pushed for Abbott to sign the bill, framing hemp-derived
THC as a dire public health threat. He continues to ignore data and the experiences of countless
Texans who rely on these products. Abbott, for his part, cited the bill’s overreach and impact on
legal businesses as part of his reasoning.
What’s truly driving this urgency? Powerful lobbyists and industry groups want to shoehorn
hemp products into the outdated alcohol distribution model. That means higher costs, reduced
availability, and a system favoring only the largest operators. One such group, the Coalition for
Adult Beverage Alternatives (C.A.B.A.), which includes beverage giants like Tilray, Keef
Brands, and Wynk, isn’t pushing for an outright hemp ban. Instead, they want regulations that
eliminate small, local competitors.
Beyond Texas: Nationwide Restrictions
Texas isn’t alone. Nationwide, states are rapidly targeting hemp-derived cannabinoids:
• Utah, Nevada, and New Hampshire have enacted strict 0.3% total THC limits, applying
this restriction to all cannabinoids, not just Delta-9 THC.
• Colorado, Iowa, and Minnesota have imposed per-serving THC potency limits,
effectively neutering hemp products’ appeal.
• South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming have banned all isomerized cannabinoids,
allowing only naturally derived Delta-9 THC under the 0.3% threshold.
• Tennessee has introduced costly permits and excessive testing fees that favor large
corporate interests.
• Kentucky finds Delta-8 wrapped up in lawsuits and political gridlock, while Alabama and
Mississippi have banned hemp-derived THC entirely.
Overall, 32 states now impose some form of restrictive regulation on intoxicating hemp products.
This wave of legislative actions isn’t accidental. It’s coordinated, systematically dismantling
small businesses and the innovative markets they created.
The federal government’s failure to anticipate the explosive growth of novel cannabinoids
created this vacuum. It’s now being filled by lobbyists and influential interest groups.
Meanwhile, In Washington
As states act decisively, federal cannabis policy stagnates. Cannabis remains a Schedule I
substance federally, blocking banking access, sensible taxation, and standard regulations.
Agencies capable of intervention remain silent, leaving the industry vulnerable to lobbyists and
political influence.
Worse yet, the latest House Appropriations Committee draft proposes extending the 0.3% THC
cap to all cannabinoids. This would effectively seal the legal loophole that allowed hemp
products to flourish. It would devastate the federally legal hemp businesses that trusted and
operated within existing frameworks, essentially punishing compliance with shifting rules mid-
game.
What’s Really at Stake
Allowing these bans to continue will inevitably consolidate power in the hands of those who
historically fought against cannabis legalization. The hemp market, once vibrant with innovation,
local economic growth, and accessible wellness products, risks being wiped out entirely.
Every new state-level restriction represents a victory, not for safety or regulation, but for
entrenched corporate interests. And if these interests succeed, the core foundation of the modern
cannabis movement, innovation, accessibility and local economies will all vanish.
This isn’t merely about hemp products. It’s about who controls the cannabis industry. It’s about
ensuring adult consumers can make informed choices without interference from powerful
lobbyists or artificially restrictive regulations.
If Americans can responsibly handle opioids, alcohol, and firearms, surely they can manage a
plant.
What’s Next?
The immediate fire may be out in Texas for now, but the threat remains.
Governor Abbott’s veto of SB 3 was a critical win, but it’s not the end. Lawmakers are already
gearing up for a special session to try and work out a new version of the bill. You can bet the
same lobbyists and interest groups will be back at the table, pushing to reintroduce restrictions
under the guise of compromise. If anything, the battle is about to shift into overtime.
Going forward, advocacy must emphasize sensible regulation. Age verification, clear labeling,
potency standards, not outright bans. A unified voice must demand federal clarity through the
next Farm Bill, protecting the hemp industry and its consumers from future legislative overreach.
It’s time to defend the promise of the Farm Bill, support local economies, protect consumer
choice, and recognize that cannabis, whether hemp-derived or otherwise, remains fundamentally
a personal choice. If we fail to act now, we risk losing the cannabis revolution not to regulation, but to a handful of
powerful interests intent on monopolizing this growing market.
The landscape of hemp and marijuana in the State of Texas has
been an absolute minefield, and Todd Harris of The Happy
Cactus can speak to this first-hand. From being targeted by a
51-year-old publication to having his shop visited by none other
than Dan Patrick himself, Todd has had to defend his business
left, right, and center.
Blazed Magazine: What would you like our readers to know about The Happy Cactus? Can you explain your growth from a food truck to bona fide brick-and-mortar?
Todd Harris: My brother Mickey and I started The Happy
Cactus over 5 years ago out of my garage. What started as an
online CBD store quickly turned into a physical location when
we converted a taco truck into a super small hemp retail shop
in South Austin. From there we expanded into two trailer
locations and then eventually ended up where we are today,
with two brick-n-mortars. We couldn’t be more proud to have
started this business in our hometown servicing the
community we grew up in. Our customers and amazing
staff are absolutely the reason we have stayed in business and
continue to grow in this beautiful city of ours.
BM: Were you disappointed by Texas Monthly’s article, where they supposedly made harsh claims against multiple shops in Texas (including Happy Cactus), clearly without doing their due diligence? You really called them out on that one!
TH: Yes, we were definitely disappointed in Texas Monthly.
We feel like they tried to tell a biased story that they didn’t
have all the information on, and that is a very dangerous
thing. These shops they called out, including ours, were
following the laws exactly how Texas legislators passed them
in 2019 and we were being subjected to scrutiny based on
false information and data. In response to the article and its
wild claims, DSHS (the regulatory organization for hemp in
Texas) came by our shops for an inspection, in which we
passed with flying colors. So it was even more obvious that
the people behind that article condoned spreading
misinformation to disrupt the hemp industry. But yes, we did
write a letter to the editor detailing all of the misinformation
in their article. We reached out to Texas Monthly and at first
they seemed interested in hearing our side of the story. But
then, at the last minute, after many emails, they went silent
and wouldn’t respond. I believe that, in the end, they knew
they were in the wrong and didn’t want to share our story.
BM: Can you explain to our readers why TCUP came after you?
TH: I can do my best. So, TCUP is the medical marijuana
program in Texas. It became exceedingly obvious to us that
TCUP was trying to shut down the hemp industry after a
member of Texas Original (a TCUP company) spoke at the
Senate hearing for SB3. He went on to say that their business
has dropped 50% due to the rise in popularity for hemp
derived products and that we should all be shut down
immediately. He claimed we are peddling unsafe and illegal
products, even though these products we sell are the same as
what TCUP offers except with more options, access and
affordability. Everything we sell is federally legal whereas
medical marijuana still isn’t. It is our opinion that TCUP
operators are extremely upset they were not able to come
into Texas and monopolize this plant.
BM: I understand the most important aspect of your business is helping people (with pain management, PTSD, etc.). I’m not trying to downplay that, but some people simply use marijuana and hemp-based products recreational. Does it ever bother you that even though alcohol has no medicinal value or therapeutic merit, makers and distributors are allowed to hawk their wares unfettered in convenience stores on every corner, while your business is used as political fodder?
TH: It is extremely bothersome and disheartening to have
these few legislators push so hard against a plant that has
never killed anyone while taking large amounts of campaign
money from alcohol companies. We believe, though, that
Texans are easily seeing through the misinformation and are
speaking up about the corruption among our leaders. Texans
are watching. I believe this will be exceedingly evident during
the next election here in Texas.
BM: Can you explain what’s on the table for the July 21 special session and how the outcome may affect shops like yours?
TH: The special session looks to bring more regulations to the
hemp industry. We are absolutely in favor of commonsense
regulations, like: 21 and up, more strict packaging
requirements, and milligram caps. Something that a lot of
people don’t realize is that the hemp industry in Texas already
has a good number of regulations, from not allowing synthetic
cannabinoids to requiring up-to-date/verified testing on all
products. But we are absolutely in favor of adding even more
regulations to make sure Texans and hemp businesses are
protected. We are cautiously optimistic. Our main hope is that
they don’t try and push for far-reaching regulations that
would shut down the industry. Texans have spoken, we just
hope our legislators listen.
BM: You are blazing trails. Can you tell us about the single most rewarding aspect of starting and running your business so far?
TH: Oh, that’s tough. But I will say, one of the most rewarding
aspects of running our own business is the ability to have
complete control over curating the experience our customers
get when walking through our doors. We absolutely love
creating a safe and inclusive space for all of our customers so
that they feel educated and excited about these products. It
feels really good to confidently stand behind every product
we carry and know that they will change people’s lives for the
better.
Follow The Happy Cactus @ thehappycactusatx, or visit one of
their store locations at 5700 Menchaca Rd, Ste 520 or 3414 E
7TH St.
A second shoe has dropped in the Texas Legislature, and it has the same number as the first. House Bill 5, filed by Rep. Gary VanDeaver during the first called session of the 89th Legislature, is a word-for-word duplicate of Senate Bill 5 by Sen. Charles Perry. The filing sets the stage for what appears to be a coordinated attempt by legislative leadership to force through a prohibitionist overhaul of the state’s hemp market with unprecedented speed and severity.
The significance of the bill number cannot be overstated. In the Texas legislative process, bills are numbered sequentially as they are filed. But the first ten or so slots in each chamber are traditionally held for measures that reflect leadership priorities. HB 1 is the state budget. SB 1 is its Senate counterpart. When the House and Senate each file a bill with the same number, and the text of those bills is identical, it is a clear signal to members, lobbyists, and stakeholders that the bills are being coordinated at the highest levels and are intended to move in lockstep.
In this case, HB 5 and SB 5 do more than signal urgency. They mark an aggressive attempt to criminalize nearly every cannabinoid product currently legal under Texas law, with almost no exceptions. The text of the bills prohibits the manufacture, sale, or possession of any consumable hemp product containing any cannabinoid other than cannabidiol (CBD) or cannabigerol (CBG). This prohibition includes popular products containing Delta‑8 THC, Delta‑9 THC derived from hemp, THCP, HHC, and other minor cannabinoids that make up a significant portion of the Texas hemp industry’s product line.
Both bills introduce criminal penalties that go well beyond regulatory oversight. Manufacturing or distributing non-compliant products would constitute a third-degree felony. Possession would become a Class C misdemeanor, escalating with repeat offenses. For retailers and consumers alike, the consequences of noncompliance would be swift and harsh. There is no grace period for existing inventory, no allowance for naturally occurring trace cannabinoids, and no scientific standard for impairment or threshold-based enforcement.
Moreover, the regulatory framework proposed by HB 5 and SB 5 imposes punitive financial burdens on businesses. The legislation requires a $10,000 licensing fee for each location where hemp is processed or products are manufactured. It sets a $20,000 annual registration fee for every retail location selling hemp-derived products and imposes a $500 registration fee for every product SKU offered for sale. These costs are not marginal. They are designed either to force small operators out of the market or to consolidate the industry under a few large, well-capitalized firms that can absorb the costs and navigate the bureaucracy.
Every product must be tested using high-performance chromatography by a DEA-registered, ISO-accredited lab located in Texas. Each item must carry a QR code linking to the Department of State Health Services registry. Law enforcement is granted inspection authority over all retail locations, and business owners must grant written consent to allow DPS or local law enforcement to conduct physical inspections of their premises at any time. In short, compliance is not a path to security—it is an ongoing vulnerability.
In parallel, both bills include sweeping marketing and packaging restrictions. Products may not resemble candy, use cartoon images, reference medical use, display green crosses, or imitate brands familiar to minors. While the goal of reducing youth access is a legitimate one, the enforcement mechanisms are overbroad and leave room for arbitrary interpretation.
Perhaps most disturbingly, the bills do not provide for exemptions for patients, veterans, or those who rely on hemp-derived products for pain relief, sleep, anxiety, or seizure control. There is no carve-out for Texas Compassionate Use Program patients. The state’s medical cannabis program remains limited to a narrow list of qualifying conditions and a short roster of licensed operators. HB 5 and SB 5 do not bridge this gap. They widen it.
Governor Abbott’s veto of SB 3 earlier this summer made clear that he does not support total prohibition. In his veto statement, he emphasized the importance of protecting consumers, regulating intoxicating products, and preserving the legal hemp market created by the Legislature in 2019. Abbott called for age restrictions, labeling rules, validated testing, and a framework that supports—not destroys—Texas hemp businesses.
HB 5 and SB 5 ignore that directive. Their drafters appear to be daring the Governor to veto again or challenging the House to rubber-stamp the Senate’s punitive approach. Whether this strategy succeeds depends in large part on the House Committee process and whether stakeholders can educate members in time.
For now, the industry must take HB 5 as seriously as SB 5. They are one and the same. And they represent the most immediate threat to the existence of a lawful, regulated, and economically vital hemp market in Texas since the passage of HB 1325 five years ago.
The Texas Hemp Reporter will continue tracking developments on both bills, publishing updates, stakeholder analysis, and legal commentary throughout the special session.
If you operate a licensed hemp business in Texas and have not yet contacted your state representative, now is the time to do so. The House has a choice: double down on prohibition or course-correct toward regulation. That decision may hinge on what happens with HB 5.
In a move that’s being called both historic and controversial, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has asked the state’s highest court to remove Representative Gene Wu from office. Abbott’s legal team filed an emergency petition on Tuesday with the Texas Supreme Court, invoking an obscure legal tool known as a writ of quo warranto. If the Court grants the petition, it would mark the first time in modern Texas history that a legislator is removed by judicial action rather than by voters or by their colleagues in the Legislature.
A writ of quo warranto is a legal proceeding used to challenge whether someone is lawfully holding public office. Latin for “by what authority,” the writ is typically used in cases where a person is accused of usurping an office they aren’t entitled to hold, or of committing acts that legally forfeit their right to continue serving. In Texas, it is most often used to challenge appointed officials who fail to meet statutory requirements, but it has rarely been applied to elected legislators.
The petition arises from the decision by Wu and dozens of House Democrats to leave Texas on August 3 in order to break quorum during the current special legislative session. By fleeing the state, they prevented the House from conducting official business, including votes on Governor Abbott’s special session priorities—chief among them, a proposed congressional redistricting map. The Democrats flew to Chicago aboard a privately chartered jet, echoing tactics used during previous quorum breaks in 2003 and 2021.
Abbott’s legal filing argues that Wu’s actions amount to abandonment of office. According to the Governor, the Texas Constitution requires that when the Governor calls a special session, the Legislature shall meet. Abbott contends that quorum-breaking violates that constitutional duty, and that a deliberate, prolonged absence for political purposes constitutes a forfeiture of the office. In addition to abandonment, the petition accuses Wu of effectively soliciting or accepting bribes. Specifically, it points to the chartered flight and political fundraising appeals tied to the quorum break as evidence that Wu received something of value in exchange for withholding his vote or official presence—an act that, if proven, could trigger automatic forfeiture of office under Article XVI, Section 41 of the Texas Constitution. The filing also argues that Wu’s indefinite absence from the state could be construed as a loss of residency, which under Article III, Section 23, would create a vacancy.
While the Texas Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear quo warranto petitions against state officials, the legal question remains highly unsettled. No Texas court has ever removed a legislator for participating in a quorum break. In fact, several past instances—most notably the 2003 “Killer D’s” walkout and the 1979 “Killer Bees” incident in the Texas Senate—were resolved politically, not judicially.
As of publication, Representative Wu has not filed a formal legal response. However, legal scholars and civil rights organizations have flagged several potential defenses. One of the strongest is the separation of powers argument: the Texas Constitution gives the House of Representatives the exclusive power to judge the qualifications, behavior, and discipline of its members. Wu’s team is likely to argue that if the House wants to expel or censure him, it has the tools to do so—and that the judiciary, or the Governor, has no authority to interfere in internal legislative matters.
Another possible defense is rooted in the First Amendment. Supporters of Wu’s actions contend that the quorum break is a form of protected political protest, particularly given the stakes of the redistricting debate and the legislative process itself. From this perspective, fundraising to support travel and communications during the protest is not bribery, but a lawful extension of political expression and association.
Wu may also argue that he has not abandoned his office. He has not resigned, and he continues to perform constituent services remotely. Unlike someone who ceases all contact or activity, Wu’s absence is temporary and strategic—intended to influence policy outcomes, not to abdicate responsibility. His defenders will also likely note that accepting travel assistance or campaign donations during a political protest does not, in and of itself, constitute bribery unless there is a clear quid pro quo arrangement.
Questions have also been raised about whether Governor Abbott even has the legal standing to bring this case. Under Chapter 66 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, quo warranto actions are typically initiated by the Attorney General or a local district or county attorney, not by the Governor himself. While Abbott’s team argues that the Governor has the inherent power to seek judicial clarification on vacancies under the Constitution, others may view this as an overreach of executive authority.
Finally, the timing of the case raises issues of ripeness and potential mootness. If Wu returns to the state or the special session concludes before the Court rules, some legal observers argue that the issue could become academic. In prior cases, such as In re Turner in 2021, the Texas Supreme Court addressed aspects of quorum-breaking but declined to remove any members or define it as abandonment of office.
What makes this case particularly significant is the potential precedent it could set. If the Court finds in favor of the Governor, future walkouts—regardless of party—could be met not with political consequences, but with judicial removal. That would dramatically change the landscape of legislative protest in Texas, and potentially in other states as well.
The Texas Supreme Court has been asked to issue a ruling by Thursday, August 7, citing the urgency of the special session calendar. If the petition is granted, it would open the door to a high-profile legal showdown that pits legislative independence against executive authority, and tests the limits of protest in the digital and partisan age.
Blazed News will continue to monitor the case closely and provide updates as it develops.
On July 4, President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1)” into law. Buried amid the tax and spending headlines is a structural change that matters enormously for cannabis: Congress created a multi-year Department of Justice appropriation that sits outside the annual Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) bill that traditionally carries the medical-marijuana appropriations rider. In plain English, the dollars H.R. 1 gives DOJ are not fenced in by the medical-marijuana “no-funding” limit tied to CJS. The enrolled text makes it explicit: §100054 appropriates $3.33 billion through Sept. 30, 2029 for hiring immigration judges, “combating drug trafficking (including fentanyl and precursor chemicals),” and investigating and prosecuting immigration matters. That is rider-free money available nationwide.
How we got here
The medical side of the cannabis industry has leaned for nearly a decade on a single sentence Congress tucked into DOJ’s annual spending bills—often called the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer rider—prohibiting the Department from using that act’s funds to interfere with state medical-marijuana programs. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. McIntosh gave that sentence bite, holding that DOJ could not spend covered appropriations to prosecute fully state-compliant medical operators. But the protection was always narrow and temporary: it only constrained “funds made available in this Act,” and it had to be renewed each fiscal year. H.R. 1 didn’t repeal the rider; it routed around it by giving DOJ a separate pot of money with no rider attached.
The new money—and why it changes enforcement risk
Section 100054 of H.R. 1 is crystal clear about purposes and the time horizon. It funds drug-trafficking enforcement and immigration prosecutions through 2029, and it lives in H.R. 1’s appropriations, not in CJS. Appropriations law does the rest: the rider binds only the funds in the act where it appears. Where Congress appropriates elsewhere—and does not carry the rider—the shield doesn’t follow. That is why, for the first time in years, federal prosecutors have a rider-free stream large enough to matter.
Signals from Main Justice, DEA, and the FBI
The Department of Justice has spotlighted drug enforcement wins throughout 2025, with Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasizing DEA’s fentanyl operations and broader enforcement tempo. That drumbeat has continued even as the marijuana rescheduling process idled. Meanwhile, DEA formally postponed its rescheduling hearing on January 15, 2025, and has yet to reset a merits calendar. The combined message is hard to miss: the rulemaking lane is idling; the enforcement lane is accelerating.
On the White House side, there is no signed policy that legalizes marijuana. In fact, a March White House fact sheet knocked D.C.’s decriminalization as part of a “failed” public-safety approach—an unmistakable cue about the administration’s posture. Yet today’s reporting says the President is considering reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III after donor pressure at a high-dollar fundraiser. That is a political signal, not law. Until a final rule posts in the Federal Register, marijuana remains Schedule I.
A concrete example: the Glass House raids
If you want to see how a DOJ with fresh, rider-free funding might operate, look at California. On July 10, ICE/HSI and partners executed sweeping raids tied to facilities associated with Glass House on the Central Coast. The operation focused on immigration and labor allegations—not the niceties of state marijuana compliance—with hundreds detained and one fatality reported. Glass House disputes key DHS claims and says only a handful of its own employees were detained, but the lesson for the industry is the same: federal badges moved quickly and publicly around cannabis-adjacent conduct. That’s a different tone than the “hands-off if you’re state-compliant” era the rider once encouraged.
Does H.R. 1 change the Controlled Substances Act?
No. The CSA still makes marijuana illegal under federal law. DOJ kicked off a Schedule-III rulemaking in May 2024, but the administrative hearing was postponed, and there’s no final rule. As of today, Schedule I still applies. Banks, insurers, landlords, and public companies will interpret H.R. 1’s new DOJ funding as incrementally higher federal risk for state-compliant medical operators—especially outside the Ninth Circuit, where McIntosh guided practice.
Texas: Hemp is on firm ground—by law and by politics
Hemp is a different story. The 2018 Farm Bill carved hemp out of the CSA if delta-9 THC stays at or below 0.3% dry weight and protected interstate commerce in compliant hemp. Texas followed with HB 1325 (2019), authorizing production and retail sale of consumable hemp products within that federal definition. Those foundations still stand. That is precisely why Governor Greg Abbott vetoed SB 3 on June 22 and immediately called lawmakers back to regulate rather than ban; his veto proclamation even cited a June 20 Travis County lawsuit as proof a ban would be enjoined on day one. The Texas Tribune and others captured the shift: regulation yes, prohibition no.
And credit where it’s due. The Texas hemp community kept the lights on during the political storm—from policy advocates like Heather Fazio and litigants like Bret Worley whose legal strategy the Governor explicitly anticipated in his veto analysis. However you apportion it,those efforts are why hemp remains legal in Texas while the medical-marijuana risk profile worsens nationally.
Reasons to believe enforcement has changed direction
First, Congress re-wired DOJ money. H.R. 1’s §100054 pours billions into DOJ for drug-trafficking and immigration cases through 2029, outside the CJS bill that carries the rider. That’s a durable shift.
Second, the federal posture is visible on the ground. The Glass House operation unfolded in days and centered on non-CSA authorities, a reminder that marijuana’s federal illegality lets other statutes do the work.
Third, DOJ and DEA signals favor enforcement over reform. DOJ touts drug cases; DEA’s rescheduling hearing is postponed without a reset. Momentum is on the enforcement side.
Fourth, the White House is sending mixed but not dispositive signals. A March fact sheet blasted local decriminalization; reporting in WSJ last week says the President is weighing Schedule III. Until a rule is final, none of that changes the CSA.
Bottom line for operators
If you run a medical-marijuana business, you have more federal exposure today than you did on July 3. The rider may still appear in a future CJS bill, but H.R. 1’s DOJ stream isn’t fenced by it, and prosecutors can spend those dollars anywhere, subject to ordinary priorities. If you run a hemp business and stay within federal limits, your footing is far more stable—federally and in Texas—though real regulation is coming, as it should.
To read the full press release or to join the movement, visit joincraft.org
512-954-8054
