Republican voters were divided on the issue with 46 percent supporting a ban and 39 percent opposing it.

By Alejandro Serrano, The Texas Tribune

A majority of Texas voters oppose a comprehensive ban on hemp-derived THC products like the one recently vetoed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), according to a statewide poll released this week.

The survey from the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin found that 53 percent of Texas voters opposed the ban approved by the Legislature, Senate Bill 3, during the regular session that ended earlier this month. Thirty-one percent of voters voiced support for the ban.

Republican voters were divided on the issue with 46 percent supporting a ban and 39 percent opposing it, according to the poll that was conducted in early June after the Legislature adjourned but before the governor spiked SB 3 Sunday night.

Abbott’s veto of SB 3 drew immediate condemnation from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), the state’s second-in-command who had championed the ban. Patrick, the presiding officer of the state Senate, also rejected Abbott’s call for lawmakers to more strictly regulate the products—in lieu of a ban—during an overtime legislative session next month.

“The Legislature looks toward a potentially heated special session,” the pollsters wrote, noting voters’ divided views on the issue.

SB 3 would have banned consumable hemp products that contained tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive compound in marijuana known as THC. Such products have become widely available at gas stations and smoke shops across the state since lawmakers authorized the sale of consumable hemp in 2019.

Since the last-minute veto, Patrick has blasted Abbott in a rare rift between the state’s top two elected officials, who have typically been friendly during the decade they have each served in their respective roles overseeing Texas’s rightward shift.

“This is a fight that didn’t need to be,” Patrick said Monday. “Where has he been all session? Where has he been? We get this [veto] proclamation from him last night after midnight, and he parachutes in at the last moment with arguments that we do not think are valid.”

On Tuesday, Patrick said, “it won’t be long before 8,000 smoke and vape shops will be out of business in Texas” after a federal appeals court let a similar ban resume in Arkansas.

Abbott had cited the Arkansas case in his veto proclamation, where he argued that SB 3 could not withstand legal scrutiny and would be tied up in the courts for years. Responding to the Tuesday ruling, Abbott said on social media that there were key differences between the Texas and Arkansas THC bans..

“Even though the Arkansas law was not plagued with the same legal defects as the Texas bill, it still was unenforced for two years and will be further tied up in court for years to come,” Abbott wrote. “I vetoed the Texas bill because we do not have time for a protracted legal fight — we must act now to keep Texas children safe. That process begins next month.”

The governor has not otherwise responded to Patrick’s criticism and accusations.

The divided views among Republican voters on the THC ban reflect their changing attitudes on the legal status of marijuana, according to Texas Politics Project polling.

A decade ago, 31 percent of Texas Republicans said marijuana possession should not be legal under any circumstances. That figure now stands at 21 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of Republican voters who backed legalization of small amounts of marijuana for any purpose increased from 23 percent in 2015 to 31 percent in April.

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.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/25/texas-poll-voters-oppose-thc-ban-sb-3/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

GOP Congressman Behind Hemp THC Ban Says He’s Not Worried About Potential Senate Opposition To The Proposal

“This bill is critical to the success of the recreational marijuana industry due to the inability of licensees to find locations to operate.”

By Briana Hill, Spotlight Delaware

The battle over marijuana shop locations in Delaware may be ending, after state lawmakers approved a bill that opens the door for the businesses to operate in more places across the state.

The bill now awaits a signature from Gov. Matt Meyer (D) before it would become law, but it’s unclear how he will act.

Meyer’s office did not respond to requests Thursday for comment on whether he would sign or veto the bill. The former county executive had openly supported marijuana legalization efforts in recent years, but the legislative debate on Senate Bill 75 really centers on a question of whether state government should overrule local decision-making.

“This sets an ugly precedent for overriding county ordinances,” Rep. Valerie Jones Giltner (R-Georgetown) said during the floor vote of the House of Representatives.

But proponents, such as House Majority Whip Ed Osienski (D-Newark), say the marijuana industry will only succeed if businesses can find suitable places.

“This bill is critical to the success of the recreational marijuana industry due to the inability of licensees to find locations to operate,” Osienki said during Wednesday’s House floor vote.

Senate Bill 75, sponsored by Osienski and Sen. Trey Paradee (D-Dover), would override county-level zoning laws that dictate how far marijuana dispensaries must be from sensitive places like schools, libraries, and treatment centers—reducing the buffer to no more than 500 feet.

The bill also requires that existing medical marijuana businesses that were granted conversion licenses to become retail stores be allowed to continue operating in their current locations, even if local zoning laws change in the future.

Municipal bans have proliferated

In recent weeks as lawmakers debated the bill, state regulators prepared for the rollout of the recreational adult-use cannabis industry. During that time, marijuana licensees have noted that they have little space to set up their businesses.

State lawmakers legalized the recreational marijuana industry in 2023. As part of that law, municipalities are allowed to ban marijuana establishments, while counties can set restrictions on where they can operate.

Since 2023, at least 19 of Delaware’s 57 municipalities have passed bans on marijuana-related stores within their town limits, making it difficult for some operators to find a space to locate. The small town of Camden in Kent County joined them this month.

The 125 cannabis business owners who were awarded licenses late last year are only allowed to operate in one of Delaware’s three counties. New Castle has 59 licenses, while Sussex has 41 and Kent has only 25.

Sussex County, where more than half of the municipalities have outlawed such businesses, has also set the widest buffers between shops and sensitive areas at 3,000 feet.

New Castle County – which has a majority of the state’s residents – currently has its buffer set at 1,000 feet.

Issue among ‘home rule’ debates

In recent weeks, the bill has been part of a “home rule” debate in Delaware – along with other pieces of legislation that local officials say undermine counties’ rights to govern land use issues. As part of the debate, all three county governments have passed resolutions urging the General Assembly to “defer and respect the principle of local governance.”

Earlier this month, the Delaware League of Local Governance, an organization that represents counties, cities, and towns across the state, sent a letter to the General Assembly, urging lawmakers to protect and reaffirm the authority of municipalities in zoning and land-use decisions.

Among those who signed the letter were Sussex County Council President Doug Hudson, Kent County Levy Court Commissioner Jeff Hall, and Dover Mayor Robin Christiansen.

The issue was also raised by Jones Giltner during the House meeting, who argued that the local governments know how to make such decisions from a holistic view, keeping the needs of their residents in mind.

But Osienski emphasized that the state passed similar proposals in the past, highlighting the 1971 passage of the Coastal Zone Act and the Quality of Life Act, which passed in 1988.

The bill passed 25-8, with only one Democrat representative, Sherae’a Moore, voting against the measure.

Despite the bill’s passage through both chambers, Sussex County officials say they remain hopeful that Gov. Meyer will veto the legislation.

“The County Council, in joining the other two counties by adopting a resolution, has made clear its position on this and other ‘local control’ bills under consideration in this year’s General Assembly session. That viewpoint remains: that a heavy-handed, top-down approach to managing land use from Dover, rather than in our municipalities and counties, threatens to erode each community’s voice across the state,” County Council officials said in a statement to Spotlight Delaware.

Sussex County Councilman Steve McCarron said that as a result of the bill, marijuana businesses are likely to start appearing just outside municipal borders, and could end up being associated with those towns regardless.

While he opposes the bill, McCarron noted that municipalities might need to revisit their local laws to consider allowing dispensaries within town limits. By doing so, they could charge business license fees and generate revenue to support public safety and law enforcement.

If the bill becomes law, Osienksi says he hopes marijuana retailers will demonstrate they can be good neighbors, encouraging communities to be more open to allowing additional dispensaries in their area.

“Over time, people have realized this is a good thing,” he said.

This story was first published by Spotlight Delaware.

Delaware Lawmaker Withdraws Bill To Regulate Hemp-Derived THC Drinks

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

“It is much too late to stop the secretary of state from putting the medical cannabis initiatives on the ballot.”

By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner

A Lancaster County District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to void Nebraska’s medical cannabis laws on the grounds that they violate federal laws against marijuana.

Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong, in a 16-page opinion Thursday, ruled that John Kuehn, a former state senator and longtime marijuana opponent, could not prove injury to sue, the legal term of art known as “standing.”

Strong, citing past case law, said such injury would need to be “concrete,” “distinct and palpable” and “actual or imminent.”

“Plaintiff admits that he has not suffered an injury-in-fact resulting from defendants’ actions, and the court finds that he lacks standing under any of the exceptions to the rule requiring an injury-in-fact,” Strong wrote.

Instead, Kuehn sought to get his foot in the courthouse door arguing that any Nebraskan should be able to challenge ballot measures (even after an election), that he has standing as a taxpayer to prevent the “illegal expenditure” of public funds and that he should have standing because the laws constitute a “matter of great public concern.”

Strong ruled against Kuehn on all three points.

More than 71 percent of Nebraskans approved legalizing medical cannabis, and 67 percent approved a regulatory system.

On the election-related challenge, Strong said Kuehn isn’t challenging the legal sufficiency of a ballot measure. Strong ruled over a separate Kuehn case last fall where she upheld the legality of the measures to legalize and regulate medical cannabis after Kuehn, and later top state officials, accused campaign workers of fraud and malfeasance. She rejected those claims.

“It is much too late to stop the secretary of state from putting the medical cannabis initiatives on the ballot,” Strong wrote.

Nebraska Supreme Court appeal pending

Kuehn had targeted Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and the trio of ballot sponsors of the 2024 medical cannabis campaign in the earlier case and again added them to this one.

Despite being a defendant, Evnen and his state attorneys, including Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R), all but embraced Kuehn’s arguments and sought to overturn Evnen’s placing of the ballot measures on the 2024 ballot just months before.

That earlier case, Kuehn v. Evnen et al., heads to the Nebraska Supreme Court this fall on appeals from Kuehn and Evnen.

This time around, Kuehn also targeted Gov. Jim Pillen (R), initially seeking to stop the governor from ceremoniously declaring the ballot measures successful. Strong did not let Kuehn do so, and Pillen certified the new laws, effective December 12.

In January, Kuehn added CEO Steve Corsi of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, State Treasurer Tom Briese, Tax Commissioner Jim Kamm and the members of the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission that voters overwhelmingly approved creating in November to regulate the medication.

Among Kuehn’s main contentions in the federal preemption case was that Nebraska shouldn’t be able to create a medical cannabis program because of federal law classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug. A Schedule I drug is one that the federal government says has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical uses. A bipartisan swath of advocates has called for rescheduling the drug for decades.

Nearly 40 states, including Nebraska, have laws on the books for medical cannabis.

‘A clear message’

Crista Eggers, executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, one of the three ballot sponsors targeted in the Kuehn cases, said she appreciated Strong’s “thoughtful decision.” She said the ruling “should send a clear message to the opposition that they have lost.”

Eggers said Strong’s dismissal upholds many years of hard work and hints “that we will finally see the day that we, and all Nebraskans, have fought for.”

Daniel Gutman, who represented the ballot sponsors in both Kuehn cases before Strong, said her order was consistent with other dismissals nationwide on procedural and substantive grounds.

“This is yet another failed attempt to undermine the will of Nebraska voters,” Gutman said in a statement.

The AG’s Office, representing all state defendants except for the Medical Cannabis Commission members, as well as a separate attorney representing the commission, declined to comment on the dismissal.

Kuehn’s attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

An ‘exception’ vs. a ‘rule’

Strong called Kuehn’s allegations of “taxpayer standing” “remarkably broad,” ranging from allegations that Briese or Kamm would illegally be expending funds by collecting sales taxes on medical cannabis or by issuing guidance or investigating complaints against doctors who recommend cannabis. Medical cannabis would be sales tax exempt under current law. DHHS had not issued guidance or investigated complaints as of earlier this week.

Strong did say that Kuehn’s “strongest case” for taxpayer standing is against the commission itself, though Strong she noted none of the members are compensated for their duties and that the voter-approved laws did not give specific funds to the Medical Cannabis Commission.

The Legislature set aside an additional $30,000 in spending authority for Liquor Control Commission employees who might take on joint duties with medical cannabis regulations. Strong’s ruling noted that the new state budget didn’t earmark any specific funding for the Medical Cannabis Commission.

Strong said that if “employee time” was enough for taxpayer standing, it would no longer be an “exception,” which attorneys for the Medical Cannabis Commission and ballot sponsors had argued.

“It would be the rule anytime a statute requires a government employee to do anything,” Strong wrote. “That result would be inconsistent with the principle that ‘[e]xceptions to the rule of standing must be carefully applied in order to prevent the exceptions from swallowing the rule.’”

On standing for a “matter of great public concern,” Strong said it’s unclear whether the Nebraska Supreme Court has applied the exception since it was created in 1979.

“If the proliferation of gambling and harm to the state’s natural resources are not matters of great public concern, then the court is hard-pressed to say that the legalization and regulation of medical cannabis is,” Strong wrote, citing cases from 2000 and 2015.

No shortage of ‘strong political opinions’

Strong said it is also relevant that other people could challenge the medical cannabis laws in court, one of which she said “obviously” is the federal government to enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Others could sue, too, such as a landowner near a registered cannabis establishment if property valuation, use or enjoyment is impaired or someone fined by the Medical Cannabis Commission, Strong said.

Another party that has voiced intentions to sue if establishment licensing begins by an October 1 deadline, as required under law, is the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office. Hilgers and his staff, including in this case, have repeatedly said they plan to sue if licensing begins, part of why his office supported dismissing Kuehn’s latest case.

Strong said she does not decide in the present lawsuit whether Hilgers and his office would have standing to challenge the medical cannabis laws.

“Nebraska, like other states, has no shortage of citizen-taxpayers with strong political opinions. That is not necessarily a bad thing,” Strong wrote. “But it would be bad if all those citizens could sue whenever a law requires a government employee to do something.”

This story was first published by Nebraska Examiner.

Nebraska Medical Marijuana Regulators Approve Emergency Rules Banning Flower Access For Patients