Texas lawmakers voted to ban consumable THC products. Will Gov. Greg Abbott sign — or veto — the bill?
Gov. Greg Abbott is facing intense political pressure over a bill that would ban products containing tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, as hemp industry leaders mount a full-court press urging the governor to veto the measure while Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and his allies urge Abbott to sign it into law.
The issue has sparked backlash from both sides of the aisle, including from conservatives ordinarily supportive of Patrick's hardline agenda. An April statewide survey by the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin found that 55% of Republicans believe Texas' marijuana and cannabis laws should be less strict or left as they are now, compared to 40% who said they should be stricter.
Less than one-third of voters of all political persuasions said the state should stiffen its THC laws. Yet, should he break out the veto pen, Abbott would likely incur the wrath of Patrick, the powerful Senate leader who made the ban one of his top priorities, calling THC-infused products — such as gummies, beverages and vapes — a 'poison in our public.'
In a sign of the intense fallout since lawmakers approved the ban, Patrick called a news conference last week to renew his criticism of the hemp industry and the products they are pushing, which he said are designed to appeal to children.
Patrick, brandishing a THC-infused lollipop and standing before a table covered in cannabis products, said, 'You might go into a store and buy 'em and not even know that you're getting your kid high on drugs and hooked for life.'
The hemp industry supported an alternative to the ban that would have restricted THC products to Texans 21 and older, barred sales within a certain distance of schools and outlawed marketing the products in ways that are 'attractive to children,' which they said would make people less likely to develop a dependency on the drug.
Asked if he was calling the news conference over concerns about an Abbott veto, Patrick said he was 'not worried about the governor.'
'I'm worried about the pressure on the media and the general public to try to keep this going in some way and bring it back,' Patrick said, adding, 'I'm not going to speak for the governor. He will do what he is going to do. I have total confidence in the governor.'
Meanwhile, as the Legislature prepared to gavel out for the session on Monday, hemp industry leaders held their own news conference to call for Abbott to veto the bill — underscoring the competing pressures now facing the governor.
Abbott has three options for how to handle the THC ban, known as Senate Bill 3. He has 20 days after the end of the session to sign or veto the measure. If he does neither, it will become law without his signature. An Abbott spokesperson declined Monday to say what he would do, saying only that the governor 'will thoughtfully review any legislation sent to his desk.'
On Monday, the Texas Hemp Business Council reported that it delivered 5,000 letters to Abbott's office, along with a petition signed by some 120,000 people, urging the governor to veto the bill.
The group organized a news conference in which industry leaders, business owners and a sixth-generation Texan farmer — along with a pair of military veterans — blasted lawmakers who pushed the ban, accusing them of putting politics and power above sensible policy.
Dave Walden, a Texas VFW senior vice commander who served multiple combat deployments in more than a decade with the U.S. Army, shared a story about how his life was saved by a veteran-founded company that makes THC gummies. The cannabis helps Walden manage the chronic pain and PTSD that's plagued him since he returned from service, he said.
"I live with the scars that you can see and the ones that you can't and like thousands of us, I went through the government's solution: a never-ending parade of pills," Walden said. "Those drugs nearly destroyed me."
Thanks to the legal, hemp-derived consumable products he found, Walden said that he has not touched an opioid since 2018.
"THC gummies brought me back," he said. "Let's stop pretending this is about public safety. This is about control and veterans are caught in the crossfire."
Industry leaders, meanwhile, tried to appeal to Abbott by arguing that a ban would hurt Texas' business-friendly reputation and weaken its border security by giving rise to a black market in place of legal dispensaries.
State Sen. Charles Perry, the Lubbock Republican who authored the THC ban, said those businesses were 'forewarned,' when lawmakers approved 2019 legislation authorizing the sale of consumable hemp, that the measure was only intended to boost agriculture.
'If you're doing hemp that ultimately ended up as a Delta 8 or a Delta 10 [product], going forward, you're out of business,' Perry said. 'And you should be.'
Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration pulls $4 billion in federal funding for California high-speed rail
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to pull the plug on federal funding to California's high-speed rail project. Following a review of the $4 billion in federal funds allocated to California's bullet train project launched in February, the Transportation Department said it plans to terminate federal funding for the project, according to a report released Wednesday. 'We have $4 billion that has been authorized to go to California to build this project and we don't want to invest in boondoggles,' Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy told Fox News Wednesday. The state will have 30 days to make the case that it has complied with the grant's terms and any corrective action it plans to take before the federal government can terminate funding. The Transportation Department is not asking for the state to repay federal funding previously given for the project, but said it could do so in the future — although any attempts to do so would likely be unsuccessful. 'What started as a proposed 800-mile system was first reduced to 500 miles, then became a 171-mile segment, and is now very likely ended as a 119-mile track to nowhere. In essence, (the California High-Speed Rail Authority) has conned the taxpayer out of its $4 billion investment, with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Drew Feeley, acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, said. The federal government 'cannot continue to commit taxpayer dollars to (the California High-Speed Rail Authority's) Sisyphean endeavor,' Feeley said. California's high-speed rail project is a 'story of broken promises and of waste of Federal taxpayer dollars.' The Trump administration has 'been laying the groundwork for this for month. They're completely hostile, not just to California high-speed rail, but rail in general and public transportation,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, told the Chronicle. 'This is a Neanderthal administration that probably thinks public transportation is a communist plot.' Wiener, a staunch proponent of the bullet train, acknowledged the project's challenges. 'We certainly have to do better in California in terms of project delivery, but … it's not a reason to start canceling major, transformative public infrastructure projects. We need to find a way to get these projects done more efficiently and more effectively,' Wiener said. The first Trump administration pursued terminating the project's funding in 2019, but the Biden administration negotiated a 2021 settlement with the state to continue supporting the segment from Bakersfield to Merced. The project's costs — initially estimated to be $33 billion and now expected to cost between $89 billion and $128 billion — have ballooned and its timelines have been repeatedly delayed. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democrats have not backed down on funding for high-speed rail in past budgets, despite opposition from Republicans. Newsom has acknowledged for months that Trump would try to claw back money for the project, just as Trump did during his first term. Newsom has promised to fight any efforts to revoke the money. The high-speed rail funding is just one bucket of federal money Trump has threatened to withhold from California, along with federal health care and education funding. 'There still is the rule of law, still the court system, there's still due process,' Newsom told reporters in January when he unveiled an initial version of his 2025-26 state budget proposal. 'You can threaten, as Trump has consistently done ... but ultimately those federal dollars will be recovered.' Since January, California's budget outlook has deteriorated significantly, and the Newsom administration now predicts California faces a $12 billion shortfall, which will make it harder for state officials to backfill any federal funding cuts. Newsom and lawmakers are negotiating over the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year and must reach a deal on how to balance the budget this month to meet constitutional deadlines. Even with the state's difficult financial situation this year, Wiener said he expected the project to move forward because 'it's not about one year, this is about the long-term health and economic strength of California.' Republicans have for years decried the project's skyrocketing costs and lack of progress. President Donald Trump told reporters Feb. 5 that he would personally investigate the high-speed rail project. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin (Placer County), introduced legislation on Jan. 6 to make the project ineligible for further federal funding, the same day Newsom drove a symbolic spike in the ground to celebrate the rail line's first 22-mile segment, from the border of Tulare and Kern counties to Poplar Avenue in Wasco (Kern County). Republicans in the Legislature sent a letter to Trump Feb. 13 expressing support for his probe and saying they have a duty to constituents to 'carefully examine the viability of this project.' 'I want to see high-speed rail in America,' Duffy said. 'Why it can't be built in America and why it can't be built within time frames that work for the people that invest in these projects makes no sense to me.' State leaders have focused largely on finishing the stretch of high-speed rail track from Merced to Bakersfield, with the idea of linking it to two other bullet train lines: the High Desert Corridor in Los Angeles, and the privately owned Brightline West route from Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County). Ultimately, they also want to connect to Caltrain's commuter line on the Peninsula, patching together a network that somewhat resembles the original vision from the mid-1990s. The loss of this funding would 'certainly be a setback, but it is a relatively small percentage of the overall budget of the project,' Wiener said. 'It's not a death knell.'
Buzz Feed
33 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
GOP Senator's Shocking Healthcare Comment Goes Viral
Republicans are currently having a PR nightmare while bending over backwards to convince Americans that Donald Trump's proposed cuts to Medicaid in his "Big, beautiful, bill" are a good thing. (Spoiler alert: they're not). At least $880 billion in cuts have been proposed, largely from Medicaid, to fund tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under Trump's bill, 8.6 million people would lose healthcare over a decade. In a recent town hall, voters raised concerns about Trump's proposed Medicaid cuts potentially allowing people to die from lack of coverage. Republican Iowa Senator Joni Ernst flippantly told voters, "Well, we are all going to die." "A rising tide lifts all boats. And, uh, you know, the best for the people looking for healthcare, the best healthcare is a job." "And a lot of times, healthcare comes with a job, and so creating those better-paying jobs that come with benefits is ultimately the goal here." Obviously, people are pissed at Thune's comments. "Cool I'll just tell the literally [nearly] 40 million children on Medicaid this," one person wrote. "'The best health care is a job' = 'You are only valuable to us if you're able-bodied and work full time to make us richer and if you can't then you should just die.'" "This assumption that people on Medicaid don't want to work is just wrong. For folks like my constituent Emmanuel, Medicaid is the lifeline they need to get and hold a job. The best health care is health care," lawmaker Lisa Blunt Rochester wrote. "i work over 40 hours per week, our health insurance barely covers anything, and i WORK IN HEALTHCARE" "There are a lot of jobs that don't offer health care coverage, and dont pay enough to afford health care premiums. But John Thune doesn't care about that. His job offers health care coverage, and he's got plenty of cash." Needless to say, the midterms should be interesting!
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BlackRock's Larry Fink gets a Texas reward for ESG retreat
BlackRock's (BLK) retreat from "ESG" initiatives has it back in good stead with a key Texas official, a victory for CEO Larry Fink, even as the world's largest money manager remains a target of the state's antitrust cops. Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar announced on Tuesday that the lone star state had struck BlackRock from a list of financial companies that, by law, are mostly prohibited as state contractors and investments. Texas added BlackRock to that list in 2022, restricting state businesses with the Wall Street giant. Hegar said in a statement that BlackRock "has acknowledged the real social and economic costs, both here in Texas and globally, that come from limiting investment in the oil and gas industry." Since 2021, Texas law SB13 has required the comptroller's office to list companies that harm, penalize, or limit commercial relations with companies in the fossil fuel industry, Texas' largest economic driver. It requires state agencies to block and divest state investments in those firms, unless they qualify for an exemption. Hegar said the decision to take BlackRock off the boycott list was "in part because it stepped back from full participation in the Climate Action 100+ and completely exited the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative" and because "dramatically reduced" its fund offerings that boycotted fossil fuel investments. "We appreciate the comptroller's resolution of this matter," Blackrock said in a statement. "BlackRock is proud to help millions of Texans retire with dignity and, on behalf of clients, invests over $400 billion in corporations, local governments, energy infrastructure and other private assets throughout the state." Texas's status change for BlackRock comes after Fink made a series of disengagements from the firm's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives as bipartisan concerns spread over the financial giant's power to sway US markets. Fink publicly stated in June 2023 that he would cease using the politically sensitive acronym "ESG" because it had been "weaponized" by both the ideological right and the left. In January, the financial giant cut ties with UN-backed Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), an environmental advocacy group that pledged net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. But the comptroller's embrace of BlackRock hasn't yet stopped Texas' Attorney General Ken Paxton from pushing ahead with a legal fight to dilute BlackRock's and two other US financial giants' alleged influence over the fossil fuel industry. Paxton and 10 other Republican-led states filed an antitrust case against the trillion-dollar asset manager and its rivals State Street (STT) and Vanguard, in November, which last week attracted support from the US Justice Department and the US Federal Trade Commission. The case alleges that BlackRock and its rival financial firms coordinated a "left-wing ideological" attack on US coal companies by pressuring coal producers such as Arch Coal, Black Hills (BKH), and Peabody (BTU) to cut coal production in the South Powder River Basin and thermal coal markets. The decreased output, they said, harmed US consumers by artificially inflating energy prices. As large yet minority shareholders, the complaint claims, the defendants have more influence than their formal equity share. With that influence, they claimed, the defendants agreed to reduce output through their commitments to carbon-reduction organizations Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+. AG Paxton's office didn't immediately respond to a request asking if the state's removal of BlackRock's from the comptroller's list will impact the antitrust claims. However, the removal suggests that the state no longer views BlackRock as a company that harms, penalizes, or limits commercial relations with fossil fuel industry companies. BlackRock asked for a judge to dismiss the case and accused the administration of trying to "re-write" antitrust law under an "absurd" theory that the coal companies conspired with them to reduce production outputs. "Forcing asset managers to divest from coal companies will harm their ability to access capital and invest in their businesses and employees, likely leading to higher energy prices," the company said in a statement. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
