The hemp-derived THC industry in Texas is breathing a $5.5 billion sigh of relief after Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a bill that would have outlawed hemp-derived THC’s biggest individual market.
Defying state law enforcement officials and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who had campaigned for an intoxicating hemp band, Abbott on Sunday vetoed Senate Bill 3 while also signing into law an expansion of the state’s limited medical marijuana program.
Abbott said he will convene lawmakers for a session next month to regulate a hemp-derived THC industry with roughly 8,500 retailers in the state who sell an estimated $5.5 billion worth of products.
Texas’ medical marijuana market no longer ‘limited’
Meanwhile, Abbott signed House Bill 46 into law, making Texas the 40th U.S. market to officially legalize medical marijuana, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project.
Until now, the Texas Compassionate Use Program was so limited as to be virtually unworkable.
Medical marijuana products in the state can now:
- Contain up to 10 milligrams of THC per dose, with no more than 1 gram of THC per product.
- Be available to patients with chronic pain, Crohn’s disease and traumatic brain injury. That’s considered a major improvement for a state with a high concentration of military veterans.
- Be dispensed at up to 12 more outlets, up from the three allowed under the previous state law.
Intoxicating hemp ban went too far, governor says
In his veto message on Sunday, Abbott noted the legal challenges that have already been filed against the bill and observed that hemp regulations in other states such as Arkansas proved vulnerable to litigation.
The law also conflicts with the current federal status quo created by the 2018 Farm Bill, Abbott said.
As passed, SB3 would have banned any consumable hemp product with “any amount of any cannabinoid other than” CBD or CBG.
Federal law does allow for hemp to contain 0.3% THC or less by dry weight.
That “puts federal and state law on a collision course,” Abbott wrote.
“At worst, Senate Bill 3 would have been permanently invalidated by the courts; at best, its implementation would be delayed for years as the case winds its way through the legal system,” he added.
“We can do better.”
Medical Disclaimer:
The information provided in these blog posts is intended for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. The use of any information provided in these blog posts is solely at your own risk. The authors and the website do not recommend or endorse any specific products, treatments, or procedures mentioned. Reliance on any information in these blog posts is solely at your own discretion.
