Abbott vetoes Texas THC ban
Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday night vetoed the THC ban bill pushed by his fellow Republicans in the Texas Legislature.
Why it matters: The move secures the future of the state's multibillion-dollar hemp industry and keeps those who rely on legal THC products with more options — for now.
It also articulates a divide among Texas conservatives in how they view cannabis and how to address its rising popularity.
Between the lines: Abbott waited to act less than an hour before the midnight deadline to veto bills.
Driving the news: Senate Bill 3 sought to ban the possession, sale and manufacture of all THC products — including consumable delta-8 THC which Texas lawmakers legalized in 2019.
Context: Delta-8 THC is a minor chemical variant of the main psychoactive ingredient in traditional cannabis and provides lesser psychoactive effects. It can be coupled with CBD, another hemp-derived compound used for pain relief and mental wellness.
In 2019, Abbott signed the Texas farm bill, which partly legalized products containing small amounts of hemp-derived delta-8 THC, including edibles, beverages, vapes and traditional bud.
Catch up quick: Last year, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed that Texas would once again criminalize all forms of THC after claiming products were being sold with "unlimited THC" and marketed to children with "life-threatening" consequences.
The Senate passed SB 3 26-5 in March, and the House followed suit with an 87-54 vote in May.
Flashback: Thousands of veterans, business owners and THC proponents sent Abbott letters urging him to veto the bill.
The big picture: The move comes as Abbott this weekend expanded the state's medical marijuana program, opening it up for people with chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, Crohn's disease and in palliative care, and as more states have loosened cannabis restrictions in recent years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
High on hemp? New study warns ‘intoxicating hemp' products are everywhere.
The culprit? Intoxicating hemp. Easy to buy at gas stations and corner stores across Massachusetts, hemp products can resemble the candies that they are sold alongside. Some allege they are marketed to children, unexpectedly potent, and not subject to age verification. Advertisement 'The kids will say it's a Rice Krispie treat they found on the ground, but it's not,' Madsen said. Hemp products 'can be tough for the nursing staff to diagnose, and it makes our job of keeping these students safe more difficult. It's everywhere.' The alarm at Springfield High only adds to the concerns about hemp, a pocket of the marijuana industry that has grown exponentially in recent years. Related : Hemp was legalized federally in 2018 to aid its commercial use in textiles, construction, and industrial agriculture, and it typically has a low concentration of THC, the intoxicating compound weed is known for. By law, manufacturers are not allowed to infuse hemp with enough chemical compounds to cause psychoactive effects or change its composition to replicate a marijuana high. Advertisement But that law is often ignored. Pseudo-legal hemp products are cropping up at convenience stores across Massachusetts, says a new study, which claims they are often mislabeled and can pose substantial health risks. Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe Intoxicating hemp can be A new white paper from Easthampton-based cannabis operator INSA shows that the public health concerns may be well-founded. The company — which faces stiff regulations as a licensed cannabis business — purchased dozens of hemp products at eight stores in Boston, Framingham, Pembroke, Springfield, and Worcester and tested them at Green Analytics laboratory in Framingham. It revealed that hemp products are often mislabeled and more intoxicating than the law permits. Nineteen of the 21 smokable hemp products violated the federal limits for intoxicating compounds and contained unsafe levels of pesticides and other contaminants, based on Massachusetts regulations for the legal cannabis market. Some packs of the hemp gummies had 500 mg of THC per serving, 100 times the state's 5 mg limit, according to the study. And the THC in a 'Trippy Diamonds' cannabis vape cartridge sold over the counter was 80 percent delta-8, a psychoactive compound that is illegal in Massachusetts, the study reported. Related : The report touches on research that shows over-intoxication from hemp carries risks including 'strokes, seizures, and psychosis.' Advertisement It also reiterates fears among highly regulated cannabis dispensaries and growers that unlicensed hemp is siphoning away business from the legal market. Licensed cannabis operators are heavily taxed in Massachusetts and held to testing and age verification that hemp products are not. And while cannabis sold at dispensaries must be plainly packaged and kept in child-safe containers, hemp edibles come shaped as bears, rings, and gummy worms, often with 'colorful packaging, catchy product names and cartoon imagery,' according to the report. Take Stoner Patch Dummies, one product INSA found with the same neon branding and bubbly font as the popular candy, Sour Patch Kids. The "Stoner Patch" hemp edibles tested as part of the INSA report. Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe 'These products present a real and present danger to Massachusetts consumers, especially children, which danger will only amplify as more and more manufacturers, who face negligible risks of enforcement or penalties, flood the market with greater quantities of untested products,' reads the report, authored by the Boston law firm Foley Hoag. Not every store that sells hemp products does so openly, said Steve Reilly, co-owner and director of government relations at INSA, which commissioned the white paper. While buying products for the study, Reilly found one corner store that sold empty hemp cartridges at the register, while the owner offered full ones from his car. Others displayed hemp chocolates alongside rolling papers and glass bowls for smoking and marijuana buds at the counter — a practice that is illegal in Massachusetts, but rarely enforced. 'Why would we do all this with legalization if we allow illegal sales to undermine the market?' Reilly asked. 'You don't need to change the law. You just need to enforce it.' Above-board hemp farmers and manufacturers argue that there are many good players who abide by the federal limits. Advertisement Christopher Lackner, president of the Hemp Beverage Alliance, said his members, who manage 140-some brands, commit to including warning symbols, chemical compound labels, and QR codes that link to product safety results on packages. 'We have no interest in confusing the consumer,' Lackner said. 'We want to empower them with information that allows them to make a smart choice.' Related : But concerns abound about where intoxicating hemp products come from and where they end up. There have been grown and manufactured.) Social media is littered with ads for hemp products that can be bought online. Consumers are rarely equipped to distinguish the good from the bad in hemp products, and it can even be hard to know just how potent a hemp product will be, said Jeff Rawson, founder of the Institute of Cannabis Science in Massachusetts. When testing products himself, Rawson saw that potency of hemp edibles and pre-rolls purchased outside of dispensaries deviated from the products' labelling by as much as 34 percent. By Rawson's calculations, consumers are four times more likely to get an accurate product in a dispensary than a smoke shop or gas station. Some in the cannabis industry are warning that more regulation is needed around the sale of intoxicating hemp products at corner stores and smoke shops around Massachusetts. Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe 'With hemp, you can get a horribly mislabeled product, or even a blank' label, he said. Slowly, hemp is being regulated in Massachusetts. The City of Springfield is working on Advertisement The law would put hemp beverages under the jurisdiction of the Cannabis Control Commission and direct local boards of health to monitor the sale of illicit hemp products and remove them from shelves if necessary. In the past, the Globe 'What would happen is uneven enforcement, which is not good for public health,' she said. Diti Kohli can be reached at
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Because of Trump, this Pride Month feels different. Hateful. But we will win.
Republicans aren't going to stop until we're all back in the closet. We must continue to fight for progress, for the benefit of all. In the end, history will remember who was on the wrong side. For those of us in the LGBTQ+ community, this Pride Month feels different. Hateful, even. To President Donald Trump and those in his administration, that's the point. On June 18, it was announced that the 988 National Suicide & Crisis Lifeline would no longer be partnering with The Trevor Project and other groups to provide specialized support services for LGBTQ+ youth and young adults in crisis. According to the Trump administration, this is 'to focus on serving all help seekers.' To LGBTQ+ people and our allies, it's clearly a move to show that our mental health is not a priority to the Republican Party. And how does removing something help anybody? This isn't the only instance of Trump and Republicans trying to destroy the progress made by LGBTQ+ people in the decades since Pride Month celebrations began. Here are some of the other ways the LGBTQ+ community has been targeted this June. Remember, the point from Republican leaders is to inflict pain for political points. It's not to help children. Unforgivable: It will cost LGBTQ+ lives if Trump shuts down 988 suicide hotline | Opinion Supreme Court rules against trans youth In the months following Trump's second inauguration, the transgender community has borne the brunt of Republican ire. Another blow to the community was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, when the justices voted 6-3 to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The court ruled that the law, which prevents young people from using puberty blockers or hormone therapy, doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union and the first openly transgender person to argue in front of the Supreme Court, called the decision a 'painful setback' but stressed the need to continue the fight for trans rights. The children who do seek this type of gender-affirming care know who they are. Hormones and puberty blockers aren't prescribed unless these children can prove that they are suffering from distress that would be eased by treatment. This ban, and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it, show that the 'debate' over trans people's identity isn't about keeping kids safe. It's about controlling people who are different. It's not about protecting kids; it's about hurting them to make Republican leaders feel good about themselves. Opinion: As a gay man, I'm finally flying a pride flag. I don't know what took so long. Navy may no longer honor Harvey Milk with vessel It's not just the present that is being affected by the Trump administration. It's also how we remember the past. On June 3, U.S. officials confirmed that the USNS Harvey Milk, a naval oil tanker named for the late LGBTQ+ rights activist. Milk, who served as a U.S. Navy operations officer on rescue submarines during the Korean War then went on to become the first openly gay man elected to public office in California, was assassinated in 1978. While it's unclear when the renaming will occur, it's clearly part of the Trump administration's efforts to scrub anything related to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives from the public record. Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point. It's disgraceful that Trump wants to rid the government of as much LGBTQ+ history as possible. It is shameful that something as simple as a dedication is being questioned. It may not seem like a big deal to some people, but it shows that the primary goal of the Trump administration is to make people feel like their lives and their history don't matter. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. All of this started well before this Pride Month. One of the first things Trump did upon his second inauguration was declare that the country would only recognize two genders. In February, his administration removed references to transgender people from the Stonewall National Monument's website. Bills have been introduced in several state legislatures that attempt to overturn the Supreme Court ruling Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage. The LGBTQ+ community is strong. We have remained defiant for decades, and we'll continue to speak out as Trump and Republican lamakers try to silence us. It's just heartbreaking that this is happening during a month that we are supposed to be celebrating. Republicans aren't going to stop until we're all back in the closet. We must continue to fight for progress, for the benefit of all. In the end, history will remember who was on the wrong side of history – and it certainly won't be those of us fighting to keep our rights. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
