Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vetoes SB 3, cites proposed state THC ban conflicting with federal law
In the 11th hour until the deadline, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has struck down the proposed THC ban from state lawmakers, giving Texans his reason why.
Senate Bill 3, authored by Lubbock Republican Sen. Charles Perry, was set to severely restrict the $8 billion hemp industry in Texas.
Others are reading: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs historic $20 billion water investment bill, talks state impact
Perry, along with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, on their media press tour around Texas earlier in the month, defended the proposed law, saying it would have closed a loophole in state law that allowed "bad actors" to make synthetic cannabis that is "more powerful and more potent than anything we've ever seen before."
In a statement on social media, Patrick criticised Abbott's decision to veto SB 3.
"Throughout the legislative session, (Gov. Abbott) remained totally silent on Senate Bill 3, the bill that would have banned dangerous THC products in Texas," Patrick stated. "His late-night veto, on an issue supported by 105 of 108 Republicans in the legislature, strongly backed by law enforcement, many in the medical and education communities, and the families who have seen their loved ones' lives destroyed by these very dangerous drugs, leaves them feeling abandoned."
Patrick further stated he would hold a press conference to discuss the bill's failure, but it must be noted that this statement was issued before Abbott announced a special session for lawmakers to address SB 3.
Document: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Veto Proclamation on SB 3
Abbott also released a four-page proclamation as to why he vetoed the bill, stating that the bill was "well-intentioned" but "would never go into effect because of valid constitutional challenges."
Abbott further cited a similar bill in 2023 in Arkansas, which was challenged in the courts and has been left in limbo on whether it can be enforced or not.
"If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed. Texas cannot afford to wait," read Abbott's proclamation.
Abbott, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and attorney general, said it would create a showdown between federal and state law with legal ramifications for farmers and pharmacists.
The governor also said SB 3 could also take private property unconstitutionally — even if the bill is aimed at so-called "bad actors" exploiting a loophole.
"But there are also many Texans conducting business responsibly, who invested millions of dollars planting fields or opening up retail stores in reliance on laws making hemp a lawful product," read Abbott's justification. "While States may restrict the use of dangerous contraband, it is a different thing entirely to change the rules in the middle of the game."
Others are reading: What's the difference between marijuana, cannabis? 4/20 terms to know.
But the reality of the issue does not go unnoticed by the governor, who gave lawmakers the task of creating a law that protects public safety, aligns with federal law, has a "fully funded enforcement structure," and can go into effect without delay.
"Passing a law is not the same thing as actually solving a problem," read Abbott's message. "Texas needs a bill that is enforceable and will make our communities safer today, rather than years from now."
After the governor's veto, hemp industry leaders released statements praising the governor for his decision but also warning that the issues at hand still need to be addressed more meaningfully.
"We respect Governor Abbott's decision and understand his concerns about unintended consequences. That said, the rapid proliferation of high‑potency hemp products in Texas has highlighted a regulatory gap that simply can't be ignored. I hope this signals a renewed commitment to crafting thoughtful legislation that effectively addresses public health and youth protection, without undermining safety," said Jason Vedadi, CEO of Story Cannabis.
Others are reading: Delta what? Here's how to understand the difference between Delta 8, 9 and 10
"While the bill's failure to move forward keeps the status quo in place, it should not be mistaken for a long-term solution. There is growing concern around unregulated psychoactive hemp products being marketed without proper safeguards or age restrictions. Lawmakers will need to revisit this issue soon to ensure Texas has a cannabis framework that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and public health. Consumers deserve better than loophole-driven policies," said Sara Gullickson, CEO of Cannabis Business Advisors.
"We applaud Governor Abbott's decision regarding Senate Bill 3, which recognizes that sensible regulation is superior to outright prohibition. This outcome preserves thousands of Texas jobs and billions in economic activity while maintaining the state's ability to implement appropriate safeguards. The hemp industry has consistently supported responsible regulation, including strict age verification, product testing, and transparent labeling," said Reid Stewart, CEO of Frozen Fields.
As stated above by the governor, lawmakers will be able to address the shortcomings — rather the overreach of SB 3 in a special session in July.
The special session is set to convene in Austin on July 21, 2025 and will last 30 days.
Mateo Rosiles is the Government & Public Policy reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Got a news tip for him? Email him: mrosiles@lubbockonline.com.
This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Texas Gov. Abbott calls special session to address proposed THC ban
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-Clinton official applauds Trump's 'courageous' Iran call, doubts Harris would've had the nerve
A former Clinton-era National Security Council staffer broke with his party and heaped praise on President Donald Trump's successful strikes on Iran over the weekend, while remarking former Vice President Kamala Harris would have likely lacked the "courage" to execute such a mission if she were commander-in-chief. "I am not a fan of many of Donald Trump's actions, but I will speak openly and honestly when he takes bold steps defending America's interests, as he did tonight," Jamie Metzl, founder of the international social group One Shared World, posted to X on Saturday evening. Metzl served on former President Bill Clinton's National Security Counci and was former President Joe Biden's deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he heaped praise on Trump repeatedly on X over the weekend, while also taking a shot at Harris' lack of "courage and fortitude." "But I'm not a blind tribalist and am perfectly comfortable praising President Trump for bold and courageous actions in support of America's core national interests, as he took last night," Metzl posted to X on Sunday morning. "Although I believe electing Kamala Harris would have been better for our democracy, society, and economy, as well as for helping the most vulnerable people in the United States and around the world, I also believe VP Harris would not have had the courage or fortitude to take such an essential step as the president took last night," he added. Metzl continued in his X messages that "Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years," and was aiming to build a nuclear weapon with the intention of wielding it over the U.S and its allies. "Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years. Its regime has murdered thousands of American citizens. Its slogan 'death to America' was not window dressing but core ideology. It was racing toward a nuclear weapon with every intention of using it to threaten America, our allies, and the Middle East region as a whole. No actions like this come without risks, and I imagine the story will get more complicated over time, but that's why these types of decisions are complicated," he wrote. Fox News Digital reached out to Harris' office regarding Metzl's post, but did not immediately receive a reply. Metzl's comments are among a cacophony of Democratic elected officials and traditional anti-MAGA voices who have come out to praise Trump since the successful attack on Iran, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer." "The destruction of Iran's nuclear program is essential to ultimate peace in the Middle East. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue — dealing with the Iranian threat is central to America's national security. The world is safer because of the actions of our brave service members. I'm praying for the safety of our service members in the region," New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer said in a statement over the weekend, for example. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS," Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman wrote on X on Saturday. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." While New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, a frequent Trump critic, wrote in an opinion piece that Trump made a "courageous and correct decision that deserves respect, no matter how one feels about this president," while fellow Times columnist David French also said it was the "right decision" on social media. Other Democrats and frequent Trump critics, such as New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, have slammed Trump over the strikes, arguing they bypassed Congress. Trump announced the Saturday evening strikes on Iran in a Truth Social post that was not preceded by media leaks or speculation that strikes were imminent. The unexpected social media post was followed just hours later by a brief Trump address to the nation while flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. "A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," Trump said from the White House late on Saturday in an address to the nation regarding the strikes. "Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success." The strikes "obliterated" Iranian nuclear facilities and backed the nation into a corner to make a peace deal, Trump said. This mission was also celebrated by Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine as one that was cloaked in secrecy and intentionally deceptive to confuse the enemy. "It involved misdirection and the highest of operational security. Our B-2s went in and out of… these nuclear sites, in and out and back, without the world knowing at all," Hegseth said. "In that way, it was historic." The operation included the longest B-2 spirit bomber mission since 2001, the second-longest B-2 mission ever flown and the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, Hegseth and Caine said during the Sunday press conference. Operation Midnight Hammer followed Israel launching preemptive strikes on Iran on June 12 after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program. Netanyahu declared soon afterward that the strikes were necessary to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival."
Associated Press
33 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Republican Derek Merrin launches bid for rematch against Rep. Marcy Kaptur
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A potential rematch for one of the nation's most hotly contested House seats, representing Ohio's 9th Congressional District, could be in the works for 2026. That's after Republican Derek Merrin, a former four-term Republican state representative, announced Monday that he plans to try again to defeat Democratic U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, the longest-serving woman in Congress. Merrin, 39, launched his latest campaign on X, vowing that 'this time, we're going to FINISH THE MISSION.' He won the chaotic 2024 Republican primary with the help of Donald Trump's endorsement before losing to Kaptur, 79, by fewer than 2,400 votes. 'I'll fight for the America First agenda, strengthen the border, cut taxes, protect our freedoms — and give Northwest Ohio the bold, conservative leadership it deserves,' he wrote. Merrin is the third candidate to join the Republican primary in the past few days. Toledo native Alea Nadeem is a self-described 'independent-minded conservative,' military veteran and Air National Guard officer from a union family. Wayne Kinsel is also a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, as well as director of Voodoo Brewing Company in Toledo. Merrin left Columbus in December due to term limits. He made a splash at the Ohio Statehouse when he led an intraparty rebellion in the House after losing a bitter battle for speaker. Katie Smith, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement that Kaptur will run on her record of fighting for the working people of northwest Ohio. 'The clown car of a Republican primary has already devolved into infighting and backstabbing,' she said, 'and no matter which corporate lapdog who wants to gut Medicaid and Social Security comes out the other end, Marcy will defeat their special interest agenda again because Ohioans know she fights for them.' Kaptur's is one of three congressional seats in Ohio targeted by the National Republican Congressional Committee next year. The GOP also hopes to defeat Reps. Emilia Sykes in Akron and Greg Landsman in Cincinnati.
New York Times
33 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Danger of an Unrestrained President to the World
Acting on President Trump's orders, the U.S. military conducted a strike early Sunday morning against three Iranian nuclear facilities. Few knew of the strikes in advance. Mr. Trump did not seek advance approval from Congress or the U.N. Security Council, as required by law. The unlawful strikes have thus laid bare the dangerous absence of any effective legal constraints — whether domestic or international — on the decision of the American president to use deadly force anywhere in the world. It has become almost quaint to observe that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. Yes, the president is commander in chief of the military, but he is obligated to seek authorization from Congress before he initiates a war. The 1973 War Powers Resolution does not change this. Enacted in response to President Richard Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, that legislation is meant to prevent a president from launching illegal wars by legally requiring the president to seek approval of Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces 'into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' The only case in which the president is not required to seek the advance approval of Congress is when the United States has been attacked and the president must act quickly to protect the country. That was not true when it came to Iran. Quite the opposite. In a speech claiming credit for the attacks, Mr. Trump pointed to the fact that Iran had been making threats against the United States for '40 years.' Nothing in what he or Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has subsequently said points to an urgent threat to America that prevented the president from seeking Congress's consent before unleashing deadly force that could provoke retaliation against the United States and U.S. forces in the region. (And indeed, such a retaliation appears to have just taken place, as Iran fired missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar.) Nor can these strikes be shoehorned into the existing congressional authorizations for the use of force — one in 2001 against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and another in 2002 against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The president has thus claimed for himself power that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress. Just as the president is legally bound to seek authorization from Congress before launching a war, so too is he required to seek authorization from the United Nations Security Council. In the wake of World War II, the United States designed and championed a global system where the use of coercive authority by any state against another was subject to collective checks. The United Nations Charter provides that signatory states must 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.' This prohibition on the unilateral resort to force is the foundational principle of the postwar legal order. Only if the Security Council votes to authorize a war — or where a state is the subject of an 'armed attack' — may a state that has ratified the U.N. Charter resort to force against another state. Yes, the requirement of gaining support from the Security Council is an obstacle, but it is an obstacle to Russia and China as much as it is to the United States. The requirement to seek and obtain Security Council authorization before using force, moreover, gives the United States extraordinary power: The United States holds one of five permanent seats on the Security Council and, with it, has a veto over any decision to authorize the use of force. While no legal system is perfect — and this one is no exception, as today's global conflicts show — the U.N. Charter has nevertheless helped produce the most peaceful and prosperous era the world has ever seen. Donald Trump has now fully embraced the so-called Bush Doctrine, a foreign policy stance that holds that the United States can use force pre-emptively against a perceived threat — to itself or others. This was the key legal basis for the disastrous 2003 war in Iraq, held up as necessary to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction — weapons that, it turned out, did not exist. Even then, President George W. Bush at least engaged with the Security Council and sought and won authorization from Congress before he launched that war. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
