Texas THC ban: SB3 sent to Gov. Abbott for approval
The Brief
The Texas Legislature has sent Senate Bill 3 to Gov. Abbott's desk for approval.
The bill would ban all THC products in the state.
Non-intoxicating CBD and CBG would still be allowed.
AUSTIN - A bill banning THC products in the state of Texas is headed to Governor Greg Abbott's desk.
On Sunday, the Texas Senate agreed to changes to Senate Bill 3 made by the House.
The bill passed by a 25-6 vote.
Dig deeper
SB 3 will ban all cannabinoids in consumable hemp products except CBD and CBG.
Businesses in the state were allowed to sell THC products after a 2019 expansion of the hemp industry in Texas opened a loophole. Those products included THC-laced edibles, drinks, vapes and more.
SB 3 was passed by the Senate before being amended in the House, and was passed to its third and final reading earlier this week.
Small business owners lead the pack in opposition of the bill. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a major proponent of the proposal, believes the thousands of businesses peddling the products are a detriment to the state. Owners and employees of those smoke and vape stores, on the other hand, are concerned about the loss of business, revenue and a fortune in tax dollars.
More than 8,000 retailers in the state sell THC products, according to estimates.
What's next
The bill now goes to Governor Greg Abbott's desk for approval.
If signed by the governor, the law would take effect in September.
The bill does not put an end to Texas' Compassionate Use Program, which allows for medicinal marijuana for a limited number of conditions.
House Bill 46 looked to expand those conditions.
On Sunday night, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced he struck a deal with Rep. Tom Oliverson to include chronic pain as one of the conditions.
Patients in hospice and with a terminal illness would also be included.
The bill would also increase the number of licensed medical marijuana dispensers.
The Source
Information in this article comes from the Texas Legislature, statements made by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and analysis of Senate Bill 3 and House Bill 46.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
43 minutes ago
- Politico
Shell game in Springfield
Presented by TGIF, Illinois. And we hope folks at the Capitol got some sleep. TOP TALKER SPRINGFIELD, Illinois — State lawmakers Thursday took the baby step toward passing a budget by sending shell bills to their respective chambers. Shell bills are placeholders for incoming legislation — in this case, a budget that will determine how the state will dole out $55.2 billion in funding over the next fiscal year. Given that each bill's title must be introduced three times over three days, lawmakers had to get the ball rolling Thursday. Actual budget language could drop today, and votes will be taken late Saturday, the ultimate deadline to pass a budget. There are plenty of other pieces of legislation still being negotiated. Hitting the brakes: The transit bill we mentioned Thursday now has a funding mechanism that's already facing opposition. The proposal calls for moving millions of tax revenue from DuPage and Kane counties to fund transportation. The bill also calls for adding 50 cents to all Illinois highway tolls, incorporating a real estate transfer tax, which is a charge levied whenever properties are sold, and adding a tax to ride-share services. Another sticking point is that new organizational changes to the transit system would give more power to Cook County, where most public transportation sits, rather than to the collar counties. 'Any reorganization that diminishes our voice or diverts our resources without a clear, equitable benefit to our residents cannot be supported,' said Kane County Legislative Co-Chair Michelle Gumz in her letter to lawmakers. DuPage County Board Chair Deborah Conroy wrote a similar letter. Watch and wait: Watch for amendments to address the objections. Otherwise, passage by Saturday looks dim. Lawmakers could also wait and tackle the weighty transit issue in a special summer session or in October — after they finish gathering petition signatures for their upcoming elections. Skinny energy bill: Lawmakers nailed down an energy bill late Thursday. The measure, leaner than initially planned, calls for creating battery technology that stores energy from wind and solar. Supporters say it will create union jobs and help lower energy bills. Not included in the bill is a proposal to regulate data centers. The bill also ends a moratorium on new nuclear plants and promotes energy efficiency, by the Sun-Times' Brett Chase and George Wiebe. After emotional testimony, the House passed a bill that would allow terminally ill adults to end their lives with medical assistance. House Majority Leader Robyn Gabel sponsored the legislation. The bill now heads to the Senate. In knots over hair-braiding bill: A bill that was sailing through the General Assembly with Senate and House support (but for an amendment) now faces some opposition. State Rep. Carol Ammons' HB3356 would repeal the requirement that people who engage in hair-braiding have a state license. The bill is part of the General Assembly's Comprehensive Licensing Information to Minimize Barriers Task Force. Ammons' task force determined a license isn't necessary for hair-braiding and called for eliminating it. On Thursday, licensed hair stylists were on hand criticizing the bill, saying eliminating licensing poses a health concern. Not mentioned: Schools that charge thousands to train in hair-braiding might also want to keep the licensing policy in place. Junk fees: A bill to curb the use of junk fees, those extra surcharges that appear when you buy concert tickets or online products, is still in limbo. The Senate passed its version of the bill sponsored by state Sen. Omar Aquino. But the House has yet to call state Rep. Bob Morgan's version — even though there are 60-plus sponsors. The hold-up: The state Attorney General's Office has questions. The bill calls for that office to go after companies that charge consumers junk fees. Hold your horses: A bill to revive plans for a 'racino' — a racetrack and gaming casino — in Decatur is stalled. The bill, which could jumpstart Illinois' horse racing industry, passed unanimously out of the Senate Executive Committee on Wednesday, but it hasn't gotten out of the chamber yet. We hear the holdup is Hawthorne Racecourse in Stickney, which has had veto power on harness racing. Opponents to the bill invoked the name of Hawthorne ally and former state Rep. Robert Molaro — even though he died five years ago. They called for a delay on the vote out of respect for Molaro. On Thursday, a lawmaker told Playbook, 'Hawthorne is a family owned business that's been around a hundred years. We shouldn't pull the rug out' without finding a way to help them, too. RELATED Decatur racino bill clears starting gate, but may not reach this week's finish line, by Lee Enterprises' Brenden Moore Latest transit proposal would hike tolls, tax ride-shares to avoid $771M fiscal cliff, by the Tribune's Talia Soglin, Olivia Olander and Jeremy Gorner Legislators miles apart on how to fund the CTA, Metra and Pace to avert a $770M fiscal cliff, by the Sun-Times' Mitchell Armentrout and George Wiebe THE BUZZ Blue states taunt Trump after tariffs loss: 'It's raining tacos': Mike Frerichs, the Democratic Illinois state treasurer, said the rulings could stave off the most severe economic effects of Trump's tariffs on vulnerable industries, including corn and soybean farmers. Moreover, Frerichs said whiplash with Trump's trade policies has already undermined his supposed goal to bring manufacturing jobs back to the middle of the country. 'No company is going to make a long-term commitment when there is no belief that they will stay in place,' Frerichs said. 'Wall Street has been talking about TACO this week… So why would you shut down a factory in China and move it to the U.S. if, two weeks from now, the tariffs are going to disappear?' Court rulings jolt Trump trade talks, via POLITICO White House insists court ruling won't derail Trump's tariff agenda, by POLITICO's Doug Palmer and Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing If you are Carol Ammons, Playbook would like to hear from you! Email: skapos@ WHERE'S JB No official public events WHERE's BRANDON No official public events Where's Toni At the Posen Fire Department at 9:30 a.m. to announce the launch of a new mobile treatment program aimed at expanding access to opioid use disorder care in the south suburbs Have a tip, suggestion, birthday, new job or a complaint? Email skapos@ BUSINESS OF POLITICS — Endorsement: State Sen. Robert Peters has been endorsed by the College Democrats of America in his bid for the 2nd Congressional District seat. — On the trail: Krishnamoorthi campaigns against 'devastating' tariffs in Rockford, by WIFR's Nathaniel Langley CHICAGO — Chicago Board of Education renews 21 charter schools after months of delay, by Chalkbeat's Becky Vevea — Construction progress continues for Home Court athletic facility at the Obama Presidential Center, by Chicago YIMBY's Daniel Schell — Kennedy express lanes to O'Hare to open Sunday, a month ahead of schedule, via the Sun-Times — North Lawndale Arts Center expands programs after $50,000 donation from Jussie Smollett, by Block Club's Michael Liptrot TAKING NAMES — Tony Karman, the EXPO Chicago founder, is stepping down from director's role, by the Sun-Times' Ambar Colón MEDIA MATTERS — Special section with fake book list plagued with additional errors, Sun-Times review finds, by WBEZ's Dan Mihalopoulos and Kade Heather — Lessons (and an apology) from the Sun-Times CEO Melissa Bell on that AI-generated book list, via Sun-Times (Read to the end for her real — smart — book list.). — Richard Roeper, the former Sun-Times film and television critic, has joined as a regular contributor. Reader Digest We asked who you think is the most fascinating world leader. Kristopher Anderson: 'Vladimir Putin, the master of throwing a rock and hiding your hand, and sometimes he makes you question if there was even a rock.' Jason Baumann: 'Mexico President Claudia Pardo because she doesn't take any s%{t! She fights back against Trump. Last year, she seized an insane amount of cartel money. She's entertaining to watch.' Doug Crew: 'French President Emmanuel Macron, a young leader who took on major pension reform, prevailed and survived. (Would invite him to dinner only if he'd bring his wife).' Peter Creticos: 'Former Bogota, Colombia, Mayor Antanas Mockus. He was a mathematician and philosopher whose innovative and unorthodox methods employed humor and social action to address social and environmental challenges.' Barbara Currie: 'French President Emmanuel Macron. Can't get over his staying power.' Bill Henkel: 'Colombia President Gustavo Petro.' Jack Franks: 'Pope Leo XIV.' Charles Keller: 'Argentina President Javier Milei for taking a chainsaw to his government, literally.' Fred Lebed: 'Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.' Jane Ruby: 'Ireland President Michael Higgins. Besides being an accomplished poet, he's an incredible orator on peace. I recommend his 2025 St. Patrick's Day Address.' Bernard Schoenburg: 'Volodymyr Zelenskyy. An actor-turned-politician who is meeting unimaginable challenges with strength and grace.' Steve Smith: 'Cyril Ramaphosa, president of South Africa.' Alexander Sutton: 'Ibrahim Traore, the president of Burkina Faso in West Africa.' NEXT QUESTION: What's a protest movement that had a big impact? THE NATIONAL TAKE — Rubio's visa crunch has big consequences for public universities — including University of Illinois, by POLITICO's Rebecca Carballo — Behind Trump's long campaign to target Chinese student visas, by POLITICO's Myah Ward and Jake Traylor — Why the court ruled against Trump's tariffs: It came down to the 'political question,' by POLITICO's Joseph Schatz TRIVIA THURSDAY's ANSWER: Congrats to Clem Balanoff for correctly answering that the late state Sen. Charles Chew Jr., the former chair of the Illinois Senate Transportation Committee, was known to drive to Springfield in a Rolls Royce. Robert Kieckhefer, a veteran reporter, remembers a song from the Old Gridiron Show that went 'Bald, bald Charlie Chew, baldest man in the Senate zoo,' sung to the music of 'Bad, Bad Leroy Brown. 'He's got a custom Continental, got an Eldorado too. He's got the DOT in his pocket for fun, got the highway lobby, too.' TODAY's QUESTION: What is the tallest load-bearing brick building ever constructed? Email skapos@ HAPPY BIRTHDAY Today: Metropolitan Family Services Senior Director of Government Affairs Miguel Blancarte Jr., leadership development consultant Amisha Patel, businessman Neil Malone and Relm Insurance Ltd.'s Sophia Zaller Saturday: 40th Ward Democratic Committeeperson Maggie O'Keefe, Equality Illinois Public Policy Director Mike Ziri, Pillars Fund co-founder Kashif Shaikh, 46th Ward organizer Demerike Palecek, Relm Insurance Development VP Sophia Zaller and The Forward Interim Editor in Chief Julie Moos Sunday: State Sen. Mattie Hunter, state Rep. Carol Ammons, RTA Chair Kirk Dillard, Culloton + Bauer Luce CEO Dennis Culloton, comms leader Daniel Cruz, Cedar Pine COO Jenny Cizner, Radio Free Europe Head of External Affairs Diane Zeleny and the Chicago mayor's photographer and Creative Director Vashon Jordan Jr. -30-
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
The Senate Must Scrap the Big Beautiful Budget and Start Over
Can the Senate forestall a looming fiscal breakdown? The House has passed a grossly irresponsible budget bill that threatens to add between $3 trillion and $5 trillion to public borrowing over the next 10 years, accelerating an already unsustainable accumulation of debt. Senators owe it to voters to call a halt and insist on a comprehensive reexamination of fiscal policy. Right now, this seems like demanding a miracle. Republicans in the upper chamber face the same pressures as their colleagues in the House to unite around a plan that gives something to each of their party's factions. Economic conservatives want tax relief for businesses; MAGA populists want to cut taxes for the low-paid and expand support for families with children; immigration hawks want to build a border wall and arrest more migrants; national-security hawks want to spend more on defense. And voters at large want lower taxes without compromising entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. The answer? Do all of the above, then disguise the fiscal consequences.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!
So much for a new, 'populist' Republican Party. So much for the GOP as a brave band of fiscally prudent, anti-deficit hawks. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, policy incoherence, and political vacuousness. That's its formal name, by the way, and you've already admitted a problem when you have to sell something that hard. It's no wonder that the only way the BBB passed the House was for one opponent to vote 'present' and for two others to miss the vote. One of the absent members fell asleep and missed the vote, an entirely appropriate response to an exercise in philosophical exhaustion. Defending the bill requires twisting facts into the 'alternative' variety and turning the plain meaning of words upside down. For example: The right wingers who demanded more cuts in programs for low-income people are regularly described as 'deficit hawks.' But even if they had gotten all the changes they sought, the bill would have massively increased the deficit. And most of them voted for a final product that will add close to $4 trillion to the nation's indebtedness. If these guys are hawks, I don't know what a dove looks like. Trump and his backers continue to insist that they are building a new working-class Republican coalition. But the astonishing thing about this bill is not only that it lavishes tax cuts on the very well-off; it also takes money away from Americans earning less than $51,000 a year once its cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and student loans are counted for. Republicans who rail against 'income redistribution' are doing an awful lot of redistribution themselves—to those who already have lots of money. The Penn Wharton budget model of the near-final version of the bill found that Americans earning less than $17,000 would lose $1,035 under its terms. Those earning between $17,000 and $50,999 would lose $705. But the small number of our fellow citizens who earn more than $4.3 million a year have a lot to cheer about: They pick up $389,280 annually. Please explain to me again why this is a 'populist' Republican Party. It's imperative not to miss what's obvious about this bill—that it ravages lower-income people to benefit the very privileged—and for progressives and Democrats to act on this. But it's also essential to notice what doesn't get enough attention: that so much of the commentary about how Trump has reinvented the GOP with a fresh set of ideas and commitments is poppycock. Trumpism is certainly dangerous and authoritarian in new ways. It is, well, innovative when it comes to a vast and unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. But it's also an ideological mess riddled with contradictions. When you look below the hood, it's primarily about the interests of people who can buy their way into Trump's golf clubs and private pay-for-play dinners—and, especially, about the enrichment of Trump and his family. On the phony populism side, Democrats in the House did a generally good job of highlighting the costs of provisions in the bill that hurt so many of Trump's voters, particularly the cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or SNAP. Senate Democrats have already ramped up similar efforts as that body's Republican leaders prepare to grapple with the steaming pile of incongruities the House has sent their way. You can tell that Republicans know how unpopular the Medicaid cuts in the bill are because they delayed their effectiveness date to minimize their electoral effect, repeatedly denied they are cutting Medicaid—and don't want to talk at all about how slashing subsidies within the Affordable Care Act would take health coverage away from millions more Americans. They are hiding the Medicaid cuts behind 'work requirements' that are really bureaucratic paperwork requirements that would make it much harder for people with every right to coverage to access it. They would make it more difficult for others to maintain continuous coverage. And if these rules were not about 'cutting' Medicaid, the GOP couldn't claim to be 'cutting' roughly $700 billion in Medicaid spending. But the GOP thinks it has a winner in its work argument. It's a tired but tested replay of a very old (and, yes, offensive) trope about alleged grifters among supposedly 'lazy' poor people. House Speaker Mike Johnson offered a remarkable version of this defense of the 'work' provisions: He said they were aimed at 'the young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' If ever there was a quote that should go viral, this is it. Young men, after all, shifted toward the Republicans in 2024. They should know what the party many of them voted for thinks of them. More important, progressives need to take the work argument on directly, not only by showing that the work provisions aren't really about work but also by offering amendments replacing the Medicaid cuts with provisions that actually would expand the availability of well-paying opportunities for greater self-sufficiency. Restoring the clean energy tax credits are important not only to battling climate change; they're also about preserving and creating well-paying jobs. A package of proposals on affordable housing, job training, and access to community colleges, particularly in economically depressed areas, would make a nice contrast to those who deny that government has the capacity to improve lives. What the Financial Times' economics columnist Martin Wolf nicely termed 'pluto-populism' when the GOP passed the 2017 tax cuts that this bill extends is alive and well. That populist rhetoric is being married to plutocratic policies is still not recognized widely enough. This is certainly a commentary on the rightward tilt of the media system the editor of this magazine has called out. But it also reflects a failure of Democrats to take the argument to the heart of Trump's base. It's political common sense that parties focus most of their energy on swing states and swing districts. Yet there will be no breaking the 50-50 deadlock in our politics without a concerted effort to change the minds of voters who have drifted to Trump out of frustration with their own economic circumstances and the condition of their regions. The fight over Medicaid and SNAP cuts directly implicates these voters and these places. And these voters pay more attention to these issues than either the Republicans who take them for granted or Democrats who have given up on them believe. When Andy Beshear won his first race for governor of Kentucky in 2019, he not only mobilized Democrats in urban areas; he also flipped many rural counties and cut the Republicans' margins in others. Typical was Carter County in eastern Kentucky. The county went for Beshear even though it had backed his GOP opponent and then-incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin four years earlier and gave Trump 73.8 percent of its ballots in 2016. Breathitt County in Appalachia also flipped, having gone for Bevin and voted 69.6 percent for Trump. Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky attorney general and a shrewd student of his state's politics, told me then that these voters understood where their interests lay. 'In a lot of these counties, the school systems or the hospitals—or both—are the biggest employers,' he said 'The Medicaid expansion helped a lot of people over there.' Sure, it's easier for Democrats like Beshear with strong local profiles to make their case. But the national party needs to learn from these politicians that giving up on whole swaths of voters is both an electoral and moral mistake. The emptiness of Republican populism speaks to the larger problem of mistaking Trump's ability to create a somewhat new electoral coalition with intellectual and policy innovation. Some conservative commentators are honest enough to admit how the BBB demonstrates that the 'old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas are still dominant,' as Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times. But even Douthat wants to cast the bill as an exception to a bolder transformation the president has engineered, particularly around immigration and a 'Trumpian culture war.' The problem here is that none of this is new, either. The GOP was moving right on immigration well before Trump—when, for example, it killed George W. Bush's immigration bill in 2007 as right-wing media cheered it on. The culture war and the battle against universities are old hat too. The real innovator here was the late Irving Kristol, whose columns in the 1970s introduced Wall Street Journal readers to the dangers posed to business interests by 'the new class' of Hollywood, media, and university types, along with activist lawyers. True, Trump is taking this fight to extreme places Kristol would never have gone. But, again, there's no new thinking here. And the attack on trans rights is just the latest front in the LGBTQ+ debates, now that the right has had to abandon its opposition to same-sex marriage because Americans have come to support it overwhelmingly. Even the contradictions aren't new. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have always talked about the dangers of deficits when Democrats were in power but cast those worries aside when they had the power to cut taxes. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' is the canonical Dick Cheney quote from 2002 when he was pushing for more tax cuts in W.'s administration. The exception proves the rule: George H.W. Bush made a deal with Democrats in 1991 that included tax increases because he really did care about deficits—and conservatives never forgave him for it. In an odd way, you have to admire Cheney's candor: At least he admitted what he was doing. The Freedom Caucus members have the gall to yell at the top of their lungs about how they care so very much about the debt—and then vote in overwhelming numbers to pile on billions more. As the debate over the BBB moves to the Senate, the immediate imperative is to expose the damage the bill does to millions of Trump's voters to benefit his Mar-a-Lago and crypto-wealthy friends. But it's also an occasion to shatter the illusion that Trump is some sort of brilliant policy innovator. Extremism and authoritarianism are not new ideas, and his legislative program would be familiar to Calvin Coolidge.
