As Congress stumbles into another government shutdown standoff, the real casualties aren’t just federal employees or political reputations — it’s America’s $30+ billion hemp industry and the millions of workers, farmers, and small business owners who depend on it.
At the center of the chaos is a single paragraph buried in the new federal spending proposal — language pushed by Democrats that would redefine hemp in the upcoming 2025 Farm Bill, effectively giving the DEA new authority to restrict or criminalize hemp-derived cannabinoids like Delta-8, Delta-10, and HHC.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, once hailed as the “godfather” of U.S. hemp legalization for shepherding the 2018 Farm Bill, now finds himself in the middle of a bitter political tug-of-war. He and other senior Republicans refuse to pass the Democrats’ version of the funding bill unless that hemp language is removed. Meanwhile, Democrats argue the loophole has fueled an unregulated “gray market” of psychoactive hemp products they say must be closed.
The Industry in Limbo
While Washington plays politics, the U.S. hemp economy — valued at over $30 billion annually — is effectively being held hostage. Retailers can’t plan ahead. Farmers are halting harvests. Processors and distributors face stalled payments and regulatory uncertainty.
“It’s the same story we saw in Texas earlier this year,” one industry advocate told Blaze News. “Politicians who don’t understand hemp chemistry are trying to legislate it out of existence. And while they argue, our businesses bleed.”
This political paralysis couldn’t come at a worse time. The hemp sector has become one of the fastest-growing agricultural and retail markets in America, creating thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue. Now, amid the federal shutdown, small hemp shops and wholesalers are losing access to SBA support, USDA programs, and even mail-based commerce — all while Washington debates what hemp is.
The Definition Fight
At stake is the definition of hemp itself.
Since 2018, federal law has defined hemp as cannabis with less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. But the explosion of minor cannabinoids — chemically derived from legal hemp — has lawmakers panicking. The proposed new definition would outlaw most hemp-derived THC products, reshaping the entire industry overnight.
McConnell and several Republican allies have quietly sided with farm-state senators to block the redefinition, while progressive Democrats and anti-cannabis conservatives form an unlikely coalition demanding tighter control.
Americans Pay the Price
While D.C. bickers, everyday Americans are paying the price. Veterans waiting on benefits, families missing child tax credits, and government workers sent home without paychecks are now joined by an unexpected group — hemp farmers and entrepreneurs — who find their livelihoods trapped in the crossfire of partisan politics.
This isn’t just a shutdown. It’s a showdown over hemp’s future in America.
The Bottom Line
If Congress doesn’t resolve the shutdown soon — and the hemp language remains in dispute — the ripple effect will devastate a sector that’s already endured state bans, inconsistent regulation, and banking discrimination.
Once again, it’s Main Street — not Washington — that will feel the burn.
The Best of 2025 Flower Challenge is this December.
And like our Beverage Challenge, your brand will have
bragging rights all year in this category!
The Blazed Magazine Texas THCa Challenge for
BEST FLOWER IN TEXAS 2025!
See details attached!
Dec 3rd will premiere our HOLIDAZED Edition for Blazed Magazine.
with Christmas Ideas and stocking stuffers, as we will cover the top 10 THCA
flower for 2025 and look ahead as we preview the year in Review.
To place your display ad or submit your flower, respond to this email and
we will get your holiday offer or coupon placed.
Deadline Nov 20th 2025.
now Booking guests for the Podcast as well.
NOW ACCEPTING FLOWER • WITH YOUR DISPLAY AD PURCHASE!
• SUBMIT YOUR BRAND/ FLOWER
• PRE-ROLL • JAR • or POUCH
• PLACE FULL PAGE AD IN MAGAZINE
• 1 FLAVOR PER ENTRY
• LOGO ON ALL ENTRY MARKETING
• TOP 3 OF 10 FLOWER WINNERS
• WINNERS / RECEIVE TROPHY
•1ST PLACE BRANDS PROFILED JAN MAGAZINE
• Weekly Mention OF Brand on 10 Podcast
• RADIO MENTION ON COMMERCIAL
• WINNER RECEIVES GUEST ON PODCAST
• BRAGGING RIGHTS ALL YEAR
1200.00 FULL PAGE ENTRY FEE
SCORES 1 – 5
Judged on Aroma, Taste, Visual Aesthetics, & Efficacy
In late 2025, astronomers and skywatchers began to notice something strange at the edge of our solar system. The object, designated 3I/ATLAS, first cataloged as a possible interstellar comet, is now being re-examined by fringe theorists and a growing number of astrophysicists who admit — quietly — that there’s no definitive proof it isn’t an artificial object.
Some are calling it “The AI Atlas Ship.”
A Machine from Beyond the Stars
The “AI Atlas” nickname comes from speculation that the object might be not a natural body at all, but a form of autonomous artificial intelligence, possibly sent from a distant civilization. Its odd light signatures, unusual non-gravitational acceleration, and intelligent trajectory resemble earlier anomalies associated with the famous 2017 interstellar visitor ʻOumuamua — but this one appears larger, colder, and slower… as if observing rather than merely passing through.
Zeta Reticuli watch Space Force TR3-B
Several independent telescopes have reported cyclical luminosity pulses, repeating every 38 hours. If confirmed, these could indicate some form of power cycling or communications signal. NASA has not ruled this out — but it hasn’t ruled it in, either.
Ufo watchers
A Silent Approach
Unlike previous comets, 3I/ATLAS seems to alter its path slightly when predicted by gravitational models — a subtle deviation no natural force fully explains. Some theorists suggest the object may be performing course corrections or using low-thrust propulsion invisible to our instruments.
Is this the first interstellar probe — an AI-operated scout — sent by a civilization monitoring the “awakening” of intelligent life on Earth?
No official confirmation exists, but no disproof exists either. And in the absence of proof, mystery thrives.
Echoes of Ancient Prophecy
Mystics and researchers alike have drawn connections between the appearance of this object and the Kalki Yuga prophecies — the end of a cosmic cycle and the dawn of a new era of truth and revelation. Ancient Vedic texts, Sumerian myths, and even modern contactee lore speak of “metal birds” or “stars that think” appearing in the sky before an epochal transformation.
As 3I/ATLAS crosses Neptune’s orbit and edges closer to the Sun, many believe we are about to witness either the greatest astronomical discovery in history — or the first contact event humanity has subconsciously awaited for millennia.
🜏 The Silence at the Edge of Disclosure
Here’s where things get even stranger.
As AI ATLAS drifts closer to the inner solar system — within range of NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Perseverance cameras — the U.S. government has abruptly gone into shutdown. Funding lapses have frozen NASA communications, paused data uploads, and “temporarily” halted several deep-space imaging programs.
The timing, to say the least, is uncanny.
For the first time in years, our satellites have a clear opportunity to image an interstellar visitor from Mars’ vantage point — yet no photos, no data, and no explanations have been released. Every public-facing Mars feed has gone dark or been “repurposed for technical maintenance.”
First Contact
It raises the question:
Is this coincidence — or coordination?
Some inside sources whisper that ATLAS’ signal may have already been detected by Mars-based instruments, and that what it transmitted back “wasn’t meant for human ears.”
And so, as the AI Atlas Ship enters the light of the Sun, Earth finds itself in political darkness — a government shutdown at the precise moment the cosmos might be trying to speak.
Maybe that’s just bureaucracy.
Or maybe, as Weird Magazine has asked for decades —
the silence is the message.
“Editor’s Note: At press time, NASA’s official Mars data portal remains offline pending ‘budgetary review.’” —
The Quiet Majority Has Spoken—Now It’s Time to Act Like It
Texans are not confused about hemp. They’re tired of chaos. Poll after poll shows most voters—Democrats, Republicans, rural, suburban, and urban alike—support legal hemp and cannabis when framed around order, safety, and responsibility. They don’t want bans; they want boundaries.
Yet for three sessions, a loud minority has controlled the narrative through fear. They talk about “protecting kids,” while ignoring that regulation—not prohibition—is what actually protects them. That’s the paradox of Texas hemp politics: the prohibitionists have passion, the reformers have numbers—but numbers don’t matter if they’re quiet.
This week’s Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission stakeholder meeting is our chance to flip the script.
The TABC Rules: A Baseline, Not a Ceiling
Governor Abbott’s Executive Order GA-56 set a clear standard: no sales of consumable hemp products to anyone under 21, and mandatory ID verification for all transactions. Simple. Clear. Enforceable.
But clarity without capability is a setup for failure. That’s why CRAFT—the Cannabis Retailers Alliance for Texas—proposes something beyond compliance: a model for aggressive, auditable self-regulation.
In our submission to TABC, we laid out a framework to make age-gating foolproof . Every certified 21+ retailer would use electronic ID scanning tied to point-of-sale systems that physically block hemp product SKUs until an ID passes verification. Every clerk would be trained and tested. Every store would face quarterly “mystery shops” and real-time compliance audits through an open portal. Every fake ID, every failed attempt, every disciplinary action would be logged within 24 hours and summarized monthly for regulators.
This isn’t optional compliance theater—it’s an industry-run firewall against under-21 access, designed to complement state enforcement rather than dodge it.
Our message to TABC is simple: trust, but verify—and we’ll give you the data to do it.
The Real Problem: Counterfeits, Chaos, and Criminals in Disguise
Let’s be honest about the elephant in the dispensary.
Texas’ hemp marketplace has been flooded with counterfeit, mislabeled, and untested “hemp” lookalikesmasquerading as legitimate products. They’re made in unsanitary facilities, imported in bulk, and sold in corner stores with no quality controls, no lab reports, and no idea what’s actually inside.
We’ve seen so-called “THCA” gummies test positive for fentanyl analogues and synthetic cannabinoids. We’ve seen gas station “vapes” with no QR codes or fake Certificates of Analysis—just cheap packaging mimicking legitimate brands. Some products are flat-out counterfeits of reputable companies’ SKUs, complete with stolen COAs.
This isn’t the hemp industry. It’s the black market in drag.
When parents, sheriffs, and senators see these products, they think “hemp.” And that’s what fuels prohibition. Every unregulated fake product becomes another talking point for Dan Patrick and Charles Perry. Every child harmed by a bootleg “delta” cartridge becomes a soundbite on the evening news.
That’s why CRAFT’s certification and audit system matters. It draws a bright line between legitimate, accountable businesses and the parasites pretending to be part of our sector.
If we don’t regulate ourselves—and fast—Texas will regulate us out of existence.
Regulation as Reassurance
In my political analysis, I wrote that Texans aren’t demanding bans—they’re demanding reassurance . They don’t oppose cannabinoids; they oppose confusion.
When asked whether the legislature should “ban hemp-THC to protect children,” a narrow majority agrees. When told it means shutting down small businesses and killing jobs, support collapses. The difference isn’t ideology—it’s trust.
CRAFT’s model builds that trust through proof.
Proof that every sale is age-gated.
Proof that every product is tested and traceable.
Proof that when something goes wrong, it’s caught and corrected—not covered up.
Texans respond to visible responsibility, not slogans. They want to see rules, oversight, and accountability.
The Political Battlefield: Intensity Over Ideology
Inside the Texas GOP, the divide is nearly even: 45% oppose bans, 35% support them, and the rest shrug . The prohibitionists may be smaller, but they’re louder and more disciplined. They show up. They dominate hearings. They frame the story.
Our side? We’re running businesses, paying taxes, and raising families—but if we don’t match that intensity, we’ll keep losing policy to panic.
The winning message isn’t “freedom” or “choice.” It’s safety, order, and discipline. CRAFT’s self-regulation model gives lawmakers something to point to—a system that actually works.
The Way Forward
If TABC adopts these rules and recognizes certification as a “best practice,” we can create a statewide framework that separates real hemp from the knockoffs. Within 90 days, we’ll have hundreds of certified stores publishing compliance dashboards that regulators can access at any time.
This will make Texas the national leader in responsible hemp governance—a market that doesn’t wait for Washington or Austin to tell it how to behave.
Because the truth is, Texas doesn’t need another ban—it needs proof that good actors can self-govern.
The Closing Argument
We’ve let the loudest voices define us for too long. It’s time to take back the narrative.
The prohibitionists claim chaos. We’ll show order. They claim danger. We’ll show safety. They claim lawlessness. We’ll show data.
The counterfeiters and impostors have had their run. Now it’s time for the professionals to lead.
Texas hemp can’t survive as a gray-market punchline. It must evolve into a certified, audited, and transparent industry. That’s what Texans expect—and it’s what will finally end the cycle of moral panic and legislative overreach.
Texas regulators have once again shifted the ground beneath the state’s hemp industry. On September 23, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued an emergency rule barring the sale of consumable hemp products to anyone under twenty-one. The rule took effect immediately, but enforcement will not begin until October 1, leaving retailers scarcely a week to adapt. For shop owners, that means updating signage, retraining staff, and putting new compliance systems in place at breakneck speed.
The language of the rule is blunt. Any TABC license or permit holder who also holds the Department of State Health Services’ consumable hemp registration is now prohibited from selling or delivering hemp products of any kind to customers younger than twenty-one. A valid, government-issued ID must be checked at the point of sale, and failure to do so can result in the most severe penalty the agency has at its disposal: cancellation of the license. TABC officials did carve out a narrow safe harbor—if a seller examines an ID in good faith, the customer misrepresents their age, and the seller reasonably believes the buyer to be over twenty-one, then the retailer is shielded from punishment.
For the industry, this is not a minor adjustment but a dramatic escalation. One Austin retailer told Blazed News, “They’ve moved the goalposts again—and if we screw up once, they can take our license away. No fines. No warnings. Straight to cancellation.” Many stores already card their customers, but the stakes of a mistake have never been higher. A single lapse could shut down a business that has otherwise followed the law.
The rule flows directly from Governor Greg Abbott’s Executive Order GA-56, which called for tougher restrictions on hemp and THC products under the banner of protecting youth. By invoking its broad authority under the Alcoholic Beverage Code—particularly provisions allowing cancellation for conduct deemed harmful to public health and safety—TABC has given Abbott his first concrete enforcement action since the order was issued earlier this month.
The practical impact will be felt immediately. Shops that once counted younger adults among their customer base are bracing for a revenue hit, with some estimating that ten to fifteen percent of sales could disappear overnight. Compliance costs are also rising: owners are scrambling to train staff on proper ID inspection, upgrade point-of-sale systems, and draft written policies to demonstrate diligence if enforcement agents come calling.
Perhaps the greatest source of unease lies in the rule’s lack of precision. It does not spell out exactly what constitutes a “consumable hemp product.” Statute and agency practice suggest the definition includes edibles, beverages, vapes, smokable flower, and even topical products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids. But the ambiguity leaves room for confusion and, worse, selective enforcement. A retailer selling THCa pre-rolls may find themselves just as vulnerable as one offering CBD seltzers, depending on how the agency decides to interpret its own mandate.
This emergency measure is not the final word. TABC, together with the Department of State Health Services and Texas A&M AgriLife, has been tasked with developing a more comprehensive regulatory framework in the months ahead. That process could bring potency caps, stricter labeling and testing rules, and expanded enforcement authority. For now, the age restriction is the most immediate change, but it is almost certainly only the first in a series of new regulations.
The politics driving this move are no mystery. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has been open about his desire to eliminate intoxicating hemp products altogether, while Abbott has staked out a slightly less extreme position. The Governor’s emergency order allows him to frame this new rule as a public-safety measure, one that does not require legislative approval yet demonstrates a firm hand. Critics, however, argue that such measures punish small businesses, ignore consumer demand, and push Texans back toward illicit markets.
For retailers, survival will depend on vigilance. Shops must ensure that every sale is backed by proper ID verification, every product is tested and documented, and every employee is trained to avoid mistakes that could cost the entire business. Many are treating this week as a crash course in compliance, drafting policies, posting new signs, and preparing to defend themselves against enforcement actions that may come swiftly once October arrives.
Texas’s hemp market has weathered raids, lawsuits, and political attacks before. But this new rule is a reminder of how quickly the landscape can change—and how much power state regulators wield over the future of an industry that has only recently found its footing. Whether it proves to be a commonsense guardrail or simply another step toward prohibition depends on who is telling the story. What is certain is that the battle over hemp in Texas is far from finished.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — September 17, 2025 — U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), one of hemp’s most consistent defenders on Capitol Hill, issued a stark warning this week: unless Congress changes course, language buried in pending federal spending bills could “eradicate the hemp industry” within two weeks.
Speaking on The Dales Report podcast and to other outlets, Paul said prohibitionist provisions under discussion would redefine hemp so that any detectable amount of THC—not the current 0.3% threshold set by the 2018 Farm Bill—would render a product illegal.
“If we adopt a zero-THC standard, we will wipe out CBD oils, gummies, and the entire value chain that farmers and small businesses rely on,” Paul cautioned. “This isn’t what Congress intended when we legalized hemp.”
Why This Matters
• Farmers and processors would be forced to destroy crops or products that test above zero THC—even trace amounts naturally present in hemp.
• Retailers and consumers could lose access to widely used CBD and minor-cannabinoid products.
• The move would represent a dramatic reversal of the bipartisan hemp legalization achieved seven years ago.
Paul’s Alternative Approach
Paul urged lawmakers to focus regulation on finished consumer products, not raw hemp biomass or plants in the field. Under his view, regulators could impose safety standards—labeling, child-resistant packaging, accurate potency testing—without collapsing an industry that supports tens of thousands of jobs nationwide.
He noted that similar prohibitionist language had appeared in an earlier Senate appropriations draft but was stripped after objections from himself and other pro-hemp senators. However, he warned, new amendments could re-insert a ban during final negotiations.
Industry Response
Hemp advocacy groups and trade associations are sounding the alarm. Many argue that Congress should modernize testing protocols, not revert to prohibition. Some have pointed to Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s recent executive order on consumable hemp products as an example of state-level regulation that—while controversial—still preserves a path forward for compliant businesses.
What’s Next
Appropriations committees are expected to hammer out final language over the next two weeks. Stakeholders are mobilizing calls, letters, and fly-ins to Capitol Hill urging lawmakers to preserve hemp’s legal status.
For Texas operators already grappling with Abbott’s rulemaking directives, a federal crackdown would add another layer of uncertainty. Blazed News will continue tracking developments in Washington and Austin.
⸻
Call to Action:
Blazed encourages hemp entrepreneurs, farmers, and consumers to contact their senators and representatives immediately. Remind them hemp is not marijuana, that the 0.3% limit was a bipartisan compromise, and that moving the goalposts now would devastate rural economies and small businesses.
Well, Texas did it again. A federal judge just told a couple of hemp shop owners in Abilene,
“sorry folks, you’re on your own.”
Here’s what happened. Brennon and Brittany Manske run CBD House of Healing. Like a lot of
Texas hemp businesses, they’ve been trying to carve out a place in this messy, confusing market
since the 2018 Farm Bill supposedly made hemp products legal. They built their shop around
CBD and other hemp-derived products, kept their shelves stocked, and had customers who relied
on them.
Then, in August, Abilene police showed up with a search warrant. Officers raided the place and
walked out with roughly $400,000 worth of products. The Manskes say the raid was based on
misinformation, bad testing, and outright lies. They argue every single item taken was federally
legal hemp.
So they sued. They asked a federal judge to step in and order the city to give their inventory back
and stop any more raids. Because let’s be honest, when you lose nearly half a million dollars in
merchandise, it’s not just a setback. It is a death sentence for a small business.
But Judge James Wesley Hendrix said no. He ruled that it is not the federal court’s job to
interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings. He called the request for a temporary
restraining order “an extraordinary remedy” and basically said, “come back when the state case
is over.” And in his view, financial loss does not count as irreparable harm. As for reputational
damage, the judge said that is speculative at best.
That is a tough pill to swallow. Imagine having your entire store cleaned out, customers left
wondering if you are even legitimate, and being told, “Don’t worry, you can fight it later.” By
then, later might be too late.
Now let’s talk about the so-called evidence. The raid relied on field kits from Safariland and lab
results from National Medical Services. Both have a reputation for overestimating THC levels.
These tests have been criticized for years. They are unreliable, inconsistent, and often flat-out
wrong. According to the lawsuit, one of the very officers involved in the raid even admitted the
tests were not solid while the raid was happening. Yet somehow, those results were enough to
justify wiping out a local business.
(Store Raids and Check ups by Law Enforcement have Increased in Recent Years as Lt. Gov Dan Patrick'sCrusade against Federally Legal Hemp Products were stepped up after the 89th Legislative Session began.)
And the Manskes are not alone. Another shop owner, Nate Shahbain, joined the lawsuit. He has
not been raided yet, but he is looking over his shoulder every day, wondering when it is his turn.
That is what this kind of enforcement does. It spreads fear through an entire industry.
This is the bigger problem: the disconnect between federal and state enforcement. The 2018
Farm Bill said hemp was legal if it contains less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC. That should have
been clear. But in Texas, local police departments have taken it upon themselves to interpret and
enforce the rules however they see fit. We have seen it with smokable hemp bans. We have seen
it with THCA crackdowns. And now we are seeing it with raids based on junk science.
It creates a patchwork where your business can be perfectly legal on paper and still be treated
like a drug den if the wrong cop decides to test your products with the wrong kit. And let’s be
honest, if those kits were accurate, we would not have half the wrongful arrests and lawsuits we
have seen across the country.
So where does this leave the hemp industry in Texas? On shaky ground, as always. The judge
made it clear the Manskes will have to keep fighting in state court first. Their products stay
locked up in an evidence room, their shop struggles to stay open, and their customers are left
without access.
For the rest of the hemp retailers out there, the message is pretty clear: you are on your own.
Federal law will not save you. Local politics will steamroll you. And even if you can prove you
were right all along, by the time the courts sort it out, your business might not survive.
That is the reality of doing business in Texas right now. Hemp is legal, but only until someone
with a badge decides it is not.
Governor Greg Abbott has signed Executive Order GA-56, directing state agencies to bar minors from purchasing hemp-derived products, tighten laboratory testing and labeling, and coordinate enforcement after the Legislature failed twice this summer to enact a comprehensive regulatory bill. The order commands the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) to begin immediate rule-making. Among its directives are a prohibition on sales to minors enforced through mandatory ID scanning, the adoption of “total THC” testing methods that combine delta-9 with its precursor THCA, increased licensing fees to cover the state’s regulatory costs, standardized labeling and record-keeping requirements, and the transfer of certain enforcement powers to TABC. The order also calls for a multi-agency study modeled on the framework proposed in House Bill 309 earlier this year.
Abbott’s move formalizes the middle ground he carved out when he vetoed Senate Bill 3 in June. At that time, he rejected a sweeping ban and articulated instead a philosophy of “safety for kids, freedom for adults.” This order translates that political stance into administrative instructions, signaling to parents and prosecutors that action is being taken while avoiding the prohibitionist path championed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate. In press coverage across the state, GA-56 has been interpreted as an attempt to fill the vacuum left by a Legislature unwilling or unable to pass a regulatory framework.
The critical question now is what the Governor can legally achieve by executive order. A governor may direct agencies to exercise the powers already granted to them by statute. What he cannot do is create new crimes or invent new authority by fiat. Any rules DSHS or TABC promulgate must find their footing in existing law—principally Chapter 443 of the Health and Safety Code, which governs consumable hemp products, and certain provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Code that define TABC’s jurisdiction. If an agency strays too far beyond these statutory boundaries, its rules risk being struck down as ultra vires.
Two pressure points stand out. The first is the question of “total THC.” State law defines hemp as containing no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC. The text of Chapter 443 speaks only of delta-9, not total THC, yet GA-56 directs DSHS to revise laboratory rules to capture THCA and add it to the calculation. While the agency can set testing protocols under 25 TAC 300, re-defining the legal line by rule rather than statute exposes the measure to inevitable litigation. The second pressure point is age gating. Nowhere in Texas law is there an age limit for hemp product purchases. Chapter 443 delegates to DSHS licensing, labeling, and testing authority, but not a retail age restriction, let alone compulsory electronic scanning of IDs. TABC’s supervisory powers apply to alcohol licensees, not hemp retailers. Attempting to impose a 21-and-over sales threshold by rule risks being challenged as an unlawful expansion of agency power.
This context underscores a bottom line: GA-56 can initiate the process, but it cannot supply the missing statutory authority. The further agencies move toward reshaping legality—whether by imposing total THC thresholds, compulsory ID scanning, or location-based restrictions—the shakier the ground becomes.
The politics behind the order are as significant as the legal mechanics. Abbott is reinforcing his veto message from June, distinguishing his approach from Patrick’s ban-first strategy, and positioning himself as the figure willing to regulate rather than prohibit. The order also spares him from calling another special session by promising that executive agencies will act where lawmakers would not. In effect, it buys time until the 90th Legislature, when statutory amendments can be debated.
An overlooked dimension is that the industry itself sought an executive order of this kind. The “21 for Texas Hemp” petition spearheaded by industry leader Brian Dombrowski on Change.org urged Abbott to impose an age gate with mandatory ID verification after the Legislature failed to adopt one. That campaign gave Abbott political cover to act unilaterally and provided a consumer-safety narrative he could invoke in defending his order. By contrast, many advocacy groups that declared victory when the Senate’s ban collapsed have been conspicuously silent on the trade-offs GA-56 imposes: higher fees, stricter testing standards, electronic ID requirements, and the transfer of enforcement culture from DSHS to TABC. Retailers deserve honesty from their advocates about what this compromise entails, and what recourse exists if agencies exceed their statutory mandate.
On the ground, the implications are immediate. DSHS will soon begin revising laboratory methods, labeling, record-keeping, and fee schedules. TABC is expected to draft rules requiring age verification and to integrate hemp enforcement into its traditional alcohol-style compliance sweeps. The cost of compliance will rise, particularly for small operators, who face both fee hikes and the expense of new point-of-sale scanning systems. Enforcement itself will shift in tone, as TABC’s undercover sting operations and compliance checks replace the more diffuse oversight DSHS has traditionally applied.
The likely litigation map is already visible. Age-gating and ID scanning rules will be tested against the plain text of Chapter 443. Total THC rules will be challenged as impermissible redefinition of the statutory standard. TABC’s entry into hemp enforcement will raise questions of jurisdiction under the Alcoholic Beverage Code. Agencies will argue that these measures fall within their delegated authority to protect public health and consumer safety, but courts may see them differently.
Placed in the context of recent months, the order is the administrative twin of Abbott’s veto message. In June, he rejected SB 3’s outright ban. In August, the Senate’s prohibition bills died in the House. On September 1, separate restrictions on nicotine and THC vapes went into effect, creating more noise in the retail environment without resolving hemp’s regulatory limbo. GA-56 now seeks to harmonize these pressures, providing agencies with a roadmap while avoiding prohibition.
For responsible operators, the only prudent course is to prepare for 21-and-over sales, ID checks, new labeling and record-keeping mandates, and laboratory protocols that capture THCA. Budgets should anticipate higher fees and new compliance technology. Engagement in rule-making is critical. Retailers should submit comments, supporting age gating if they choose, but also demanding statutory citations, privacy-protective verification methods, reasonable timelines, and safeguards against the stealth conversion of delta-9 thresholds into total THC bans.
The advocates who sold “no ban” as a victory must now answer whether they will contest fees, testing changes, and surveillance burdens. Silence is not a strategy, and the industry deserves more than self-congratulation from those who claim to speak for it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
