The governor of Texas “wants to legalize recreational marijuana,” the second highest official in the state said following the veto of a bill that would’ve banned hemp products containing THC—while implying that Gov. Greg Abbott (R) lied about his motivations for blocking the prohibition and recommending an alternative regulatory framework instead.

In a somewhat surprising rebuke of Abbott, the lieutenant governor held a press briefing on Monday where he sharply criticized his counterpart over the veto and related proclamation where he put forward various recommendations for regulating hemp. At several points, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) explicitly accused the governor of wanting to legalize adult-use cannabis because he rejected the hemp legislation.

“It puzzles me why my friend Greg Abbott—Governor Abbott—would at the last minute, at about 22 minutes after [11:00PM CT], decided to veto this bill,” the lieutenant governor said, referring to the midnight deadline for the governor to act on the bill on Sunday. “I know he gave the reasons in his proclamation, but our team simply doesn’t agree with those reasons.”

“One can only come to this conclusion, which surprises me: The governor of the state of Texas wants to legalize recreational marijuana in Texas,” he said. “That’s the headline, folks. Because that’s what his proclamation does now—whether it’s unintentional and he didn’t think through it, or whether it’s intentional—that’s the result of the veto.”

“Again, what Governor Abbott proposes is for us to legalize marijuana in Texas by regulating it,” Patrick said.

Taking questions from reporters, the lieutenant governor expressly challenged the governor to “put out a statement that you do not want to legalize marijuana for adults in the state of Texas, because that’s what either by default you’re doing or on purpose you’re doing.”

He also challenged the underlying legal argument Abbott described in his veto message, explaining that the federal law that legalized hemp provides that states can take steps to enact more restrictive regulations and he disputed the governor’s position that the law would ultimately be nullified in court due to litigation.

“Since when did we care who sued us when we passed a bill?” he said.

“What the federal law says is we can ban it. The only thing we can’t do is stop transportation through the state. You know, he actually mentions that in his proclamation,” Patrick said. “He mentions that one of the problems with this bill is about stopping transportation—but he didn’t write the entire sentence. He’s a lawyer, not me. It says you can’t pass a bill to ban transportation through a state.”

“That’s not what he wrote [about the state’s medical marijuana] program,” he said, referring to separate legislation to expand the state’s medical cannabis law that Abbott approved over the weekend. “He signed that bill. That’s worthless now.”

“What puzzled me was, the last time I talked to the governor in the Capitol before session, he said, ‘Don’t worry about the bill.’ He said, ‘Your bill is fine.’ That’s what he told me in front of witnesses,” the lieutenant governor said. “In fact, he asked a couple of lawyers on my staff—he said, ‘Can you give me some answers I can give because, when I sign this, I need some answers to give.’ So what happened? Who convinced him? On the staff, on the outside, to kill Senate Bill 3?”

It should be noted that, while the lieutenant governor is evidently irate over the veto and leveling accusations that Abbott is tacitly endorsing adult-use legalization, the governor had made clear he opposes that reform—and he’s even pushed back against local efforts to simply decriminalize cannabis for adults.

In his veto message, the governor did say that, rather than outright ban consumable hemp products, lawmakers should establish a regulatory framework that treats cannabinoids “similar to the way alcohol is regulated.”

Abbott proposed an extensive list of policy changes that he says he would support—and which the legislature will have the chance to enact during a special session the governor is convening next month.

“Legislators could consider a structure similar to the way alcohol is regulated, with strict enforcement by an agency like the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission,” he said, adding a list of recommended policies he wants to see lawmakers adopt that include age restrictions, zoning requirements and bans on public consumption.

Abbott on Sunday called a special session of a legislature to begin on July 21, saying in a press release that SB 3 and other vetoed bills would be placed on the agenda for further consideration.

Hemp advocates and stakeholders had delivered more than 100,000 petition signatures asking Abbott to veto the measure. Critics of the bill argued that the industry—which employs an estimated 53,000 people—would be decimated if the measure became law.

Texas lawmakers legalized the sale of consumable hemp in 2019, following enactment of the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which legalized the plant nationwide. That’s led to an explosion of products—including edibles, drinks, vape products and cured flower—sold by an estimated 8,000 retailers.

Military veterans advocates, including Texas Veterans of Foreign Wars, have also called on the governor to veto the hemp ban, saying it “would cause irreversible harm to communities across the state.”

Farmers have also said the prohibition would devastate a key sector of the state’s agriculture industry.

Meanwhile, a recent survey from a GOP pollster affiliated with President Donald Trump showed that Texas Democratic and Republican voters are unified in their opposition to the hemp ban bill.

Another poll commissioned the Texas Hemp Business Council (THBC) found that Texas Republican primary voters oppose the proposal.

On Saturday, the governor signed bill to significantly expand the state’s medical marijuana program with new qualifying conditions additional product forms and more dispensary locations.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Abbott separately signed a bill into law this month to create a state-backed research consortium to conduct clinical trials on ibogaine as a possible treatment for substance use disorders and other mental health conditions. The ultimate goal of the project is to develop the psychedelic into a prescription drug with federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, with the state retaining a portion of the profit.

The measure expands the state’s list of medical cannabis qualifying conditions to include chronic pain, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory bowel diseases, while also allowing end-of-life patients in palliative or hospice care to use marijuana.

Separately in Texas, a House committee approved a Senate-passed bill last month that would prohibit cities from putting any citizen initiative on local ballots that would decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances—as several localities have already done despite lawsuits from the state attorney general.

Under the proposal, state law would be amended to say that local entities “may not place an item on a ballot, including a municipal charter or charter amendment, that would provide that the local entity will not fully enforce” state drug laws.

While several courts have previously upheld local cannabis decriminalization laws, an appellate court comprised of three conservative justices appointed by the governor has recently pushed back against two of those rulings, siding with the state in its legal challenge to the marijuana policy in Austin and San Marcos.

Despite the ongoing litigation and advancement of the House and Senate bills, Texas activists have their targets set on yet another city, Kyle, where they hope put an initiative before voters to enact local marijuana reform at the ballot this coming November.

A recent poll found that four in five Texas voters want to see marijuana legalized in some form, and most also want to see regulations around cannabis relaxed.

Alabama Cannabis Regulators Grant Medical Marijuana Testing License To Foley-Based Lab

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

A Drug Enforcement Administration judge has formally sided with the agency in its attempt to ban two psychedelic compounds that researchers say hold significant therapeutic potential, recommending that they be placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

In a ruling on Friday, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Soeffing said he advised the agency to move forward with its plan to place the psychedelics—2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—in Schedule I.

This follows administrative hearings where researchers and advocates, including Panacea Plant Sciences (PPS) and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), have fought against DEA to ensure that the psychedelics can continue to be utilized in research.

But in the 118-page ruling, Soeffing ultimately said that “the record contains substantial evidence regarding the eight factors required for consideration under 21 U.S.C. § 811(c) to support recommending the scheduling of DOI and DOC,” referring to an administrative standard for determining the health risks and benefits of substances before when placing them in the CSA.

“Furthermore, I find that the record contains substantial evidence regarding the three factors required for consideration under 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1) to support recommending the placement of DOI and DOC in Schedule I,” he said, adding that the fact that the United Nations put DOC specifically on its own controlled substances list justifies its prohibition.

The bulk of the recommendation, which must be approved by the DEA administrator before potentially being codified, recounts the competing arguments between DEA and organizations opposing the scheduling action. But this ruling could reignite an ongoing legal challenge that PPS levied against the agency, challenging the fundamental constitutionality of the ALJ proceedings in drug scheduling rulemaking.

“It’s not a surprise that a DEA employee would side with the DEA,” PPS CEO David Heldreth told Marijuana Moment on Friday. “We find that the supposed impartiality of the judge is highly questionable due to that, and we plan to appeal this ruling and continue our lawsuit against the DEA.”

SSDP was among stakeholders who requested the psychedelics hearing in the first place, in hopes of challenging what they view as a lack of evidence justifying DEA’s proposed ban. Researchers have pointed out that DOI and DOC, as currently unscheduled substances, have been key components in psychedelics research that show potential in the treatment of anxiety and depression, for example.

Researchers have also argued that DEA has failed to meet the statutory burden of demonstrating that either psychedelic compound has high abuse potential. There are no documented cases in medical literature of “distressing responses or death” related to human consumption of DOI, nor has there been any established evidence of a high risk of dependence, SSDP said in a pre-hearing filing in July.

The initial scheduling of the administrative hearing on DOI and DOC came about two months after a federal court dismissed the case challenging the constitutionality of DEA’s process for adjudicating scheduling actions as the agency has pursued the  ban the two psychedelic compounds.

DEA first attempted to ban DOI and DOC in 2022, only to withdraw the proposal amid pushback from the scientific community. The agency separately withdrew from a proposal to ban five different tryptamine psychedelics in 2022.

In 2023, DEA announced that it would be trying to enact the DOC and DOI ban again. The agency’s notice about the scheduling proposal still lacks evidence that directly connects the compounds to serious adverse health events or demonstrated a high abuse potential.

“To date, there are no reports of distressing responses or death associated with DOI in medical literature,” it said. “The physiological dependence liability of DOI and DOC in animals and humans is not reported in scientific and medical literature.”

DEA said that anecdotal reports posted by people online signaled that the substances have hallucinogenic effects, making it “reasonable to assume that DOI and DOC have substantial capability to be a hazard to the health of the user and to the safety of the community.”

It did point to one report of a death of a person who had used DOC in combination with two other unspecified drugs—as well as two reports of hospitalizations that it said were attributable to the use of DOC with other drugs—but scientists say that hardly constitutes reason enough to place them in the most strictly controlled schedule.

Kat Murti, executive director of SSDP, said in a press release on Monday that the timing of the DEA ALJ’s new recommendations, which coincided with World Psychedelics Day, is “no coincidence.”

“The DEA has relied on similar shady tricks throughout this process—such as announcing their intent to schedule these substances during the winter holidays in 2023 after withdrawing their 2022 attempt, which SSDP also opposed,” she said. “Their strategy throughout has been to try to sneak this ruling by unnoticed because they know the American public and anyone who cares about public health is on our side.”

“DOI and DOC are crucial tools for understanding how serotonin works in the body,” Murti said. “By adding them to Schedule I, the DEA is forcing medical science into the dark ages.”

Alaina Jaster, who has a PhD in pharmacology and Toxicology and serves as co-chair of SSDP’s Science Policy Committee, said the DEA judge’s decision is “disappointing and the almost 120-page record seems to reflect a very different reality than the one I experienced on the stand” when testifying in the case.

“Despite the stipulations of fact that themselves state there is no documented use of DOI, no deaths or overdose, no diversion, and it’s impossible to know whether anecdotal reports which the DEA rely upon actually contain DOI, the administrative judge has recommended placing DOI/DOC in schedule I,” she said. “As someone who has extensively studied the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of DOI and related psychedelics, it’s baffling to me that the government is going after DOI/DOC.”

In the background of this latest development, proceedings on a proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III have stalled amid challenges from witnesses in the administrative hearings. Those hearings are being overseen by a different DEA ALJ, John Mulrooney.

Amid the stalled marijuana rescheduling process that’s carried over from the last presidential administration, congressional researchers are reiterating that lawmakers could enact the reform themselves with “greater speed and flexibility” if they so choose, while potentially avoiding judicial challenges.

Meanwhile, last month a Senate committee advanced the confirmation of Terrance Cole to become the administrator of DEA amid the ongoing review of a marijuana rescheduling proposal that he’s refused to commit to enacting.

Cole—who has previously voiced concerns about the dangers of marijuana and linked its use to higher suicide risk among youth—said he would “give the matter careful consideration after consulting with appropriate personnel within the Drug Enforcement Administration, familiarizing myself with the current status of the regulatory process, and reviewing all relevant information.”

However, during an in-person hearing before the Judiciary Committee in April, he said examining the rescheduling proposal will be “one of my first priorities” if he was confirmed for the role, saying it’s “time to move forward” on the stalled process—but again without clarifying what end result he would like to see.

“I’m not familiar exactly where we are, but I know the process has been delayed numerous times—and it’s time to move forward,” he said at the time. “I need to understand more where [agencies] are and look at the science behind it and listen to the experts and really understand where they are in the process.”

Cole also said he feels it’s appropriate to form a “working group” to look at the federal-state marijuana law disconnect in order to “stay ahead of it.”

Read the DEA ALJ’s ruling and recommendation on the psychedelics ban below: 

‘Justice Is Still Being Denied’ To People With Past Marijuana Convictions As Legalization Spreads, Review By Advocacy Group Says

Image courtesy of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

Consumable hemp products containing THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids will remain legal under Texas law after Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3 on June 22—the last day for executive action on bills.

The legislation, spearheaded by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, would have led to the demise of an $8-billion industry that employs some 50,000 workers at roughly 8,000 Texas businesses that manufacture or sell hemp-derived products like delta-8 THC gummies and THCA liquid diamond vapes. Only nonintoxicating CBD and CBD would have remained legal under Patrick’s plan.

However, Abbott suggested in his veto proclamation that while S.B. 3 was “well-intentioned,” it would never go into effect because of constitutional challenges.

“Litigation challenging the bill has already been filed, and the legal defects in the bill are undeniable,” Abbott wrote. “If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuse unaddressed. Texas cannot afford to wait.”

While the governor signed 1,155 bills that the Texas Legislature passed this legislative session, S.B. 3 was one of the 28 bills he vetoed; however, Abbott identified S.B. 3 as one of five bills that will be placed on the agenda for the upcoming special legislative session next month for further consideration.

As a former Texas Supreme Court justice and the state’s former attorney general, Abbott said his conclusion of S.B. 3 is not speculative. He compared it to an Arkansas bill that Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed in April 2023 to ban intoxicating hemp products. A federal judge blocked the Arkansas ban in September 2023, and the law has remained dormant as legal proceedings unfold.

While the 2018 Farm Bill, which federally legalized hemp, allows states to enact more stringent regulations surrounding the plant, Abbott called into question whether states can recriminalize hemp-related acts that conflict with federal law.

“I know that Senate Bill 3 is vulnerable to the same legal attacks [as in Arkansas],” the governor wrote. “At worst, Senate Bill 3 would be permanently invalidated by the courts; at best, its implementation would be delayed for years as the case winds its way through the legal system. We can do better.”

By vetoing S.B. 3, Abbott sided with more than 150,000 petition signers who urged the governor to veto the legislation over the supermajority of Texas legislators who backed the bill, as well as law enforcement officials who called for his signature. The petition signers included veterans, business owners, farmers, industry leaders, and, perhaps more importantly, Texas voters.

Jonathan Miller, general counsel at industry advocacy organization U.S. Hemp Roundtable, said the governor’s veto sends a clear national message that “blanket” hemp bans are bad policy.

“Last night’s gubernatorial veto of hemp-killing S.B. 3 in Texas should prove to be a seminal moment for hemp farmers and businesses across the country,” Miller said in a statement provided to Cannabis Business Times. “Members of Congress, governors and state legislators must take notice that hemp bans are not only bad policy, but they are also deeply unpopular, even among the most conservative voters in a red state like Texas.”

With the Texas special session scheduled to begin July 21, Miller said the “correct” response is for lawmakers to regulate hemp products over a “misguided prohibition.”

State lawmakers who backed S.B. 3 did so in the name of public health and safety concerns, suggesting that Texas’ youth had unfettered access to intoxicating products in smoke shops, gas stations and convenience stores. Patrick, who championed the bill as the presiding officer in the Texas Senate, continued to push for support for S.B. 3 even after its passage, suggesting in a May 28 press conference that hemp product manufacturers and retailers “are people that want to kill your kids. And they don’t give a damn.”

However, Patrick’s own experience visiting Austin-based hemp retailer Happy Cactus was very different just a few months ago, when he was carded and did not find any products with noncompliant serving sizes.

Patrick, who could become a political opponent who challenges Abbott’s pursuit of a fourth gubernatorial term in 2026, took issue with the governor’s veto

“Throughout the legislative session, @GregAbbott_TX remained totally silent on Senate Bill 3, the bill that would have banned dangerous THC products in Texas,” Patrick wrote June 23 on X. “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. I feel especially bad for those who testified and poured their hearts out on their tragic losses. I will have much more to say at a press conference tomorrow in Austin.”

This represents a U-turn from May 28, when Patrick told reporters, “I’m not worried about the governor. I speak with the governor every day.”

Patrick also called a reporter’s question “stupid” that day when the lieutenant governor was pressed on the idea of more tightly regulating consumable hemp products over prohibition. “That’s crazy talk,” Patrick said.

After Patrick’s May 28 press conference, Lukas Gilkey, the CEO of Austin-based consumer-packaged goods brand Hometown Hero, accused the lieutenant governor of “spitting out lies” after Patrick held up a package of the company’s cereal bites, claiming “no one knows what’s in it.”

Gilkey posted a video on social media on that same day, explaining the product’s package had 10 individually wrapped pieces containing 20 milligrams of delta-9 THC, with a full list of ingredients on the back and a QR code for the certificate of analysis.

“[He’s] just spitting out lies like he always does,” Gilkey said. “He just held up one of our products, this exact product, and said it had 6,000 milligrams [of THC], which it does not. … It is very clearly stated what this is: 20 milligrams delta-9 THC and 20 milligrams CBD per piece. … There’s a COA, per state law in Texas, because this is a regulated product.”

In addition to prohibiting the manufacture and sale of hemp products with even trace amounts of THC, S.B. 3 would have made it a third-degree felony to deliver or possess with intent to deliver consumable hemp products with intoxicating cannabinoids. It would also be a third-degree felony to falsify laboratory reports or to possess, manufacture or sell the products without a license or registration.

Those convicted of third-degree felonies in Texas face two to 10 years imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine. Under current Texas law, possessing 4 ounces or less of cannabis is a misdemeanor with the possibility of up to one year behind bars.

In Sunday night’s veto proclamation, Abbott called S.B. 3’s language a legal problem, as the 2018 Farm Bill defines hemp as containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weigh basis during a pre-harvest field test. The federal legislation does not regulate finished goods. The U.S. Ninth and Fourth Circuit courts ruled this definition to be “unambiguous.”

“[S.B. 3] criminalizes what Congress expressly legalized and puts federal and state law on a collision course: Today, federal law promises Texas farmers that they may grow hemp without fear of criminal liability,” Abbott wrote. “But under Senate Bill 3, the seeds used to grow those plants are ‘consumable products’—currently available in stores—and they naturally contain cannabinoids. What’s a Texas farmer to do? Trust the federal government’s promise, or fear criminal liability from the state?”

As passed by the Texas Legislature, S.B. 3 would not only have been a criminal entrapment for Texas farmers, but it would have also criminalized “innocent” Texans, Abbot said, referring to pharmacists stocking health supplements, veterans treating post-traumatic stress disorder, and parents caring for epileptic children with medicine approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Facing a potential “lengthy” legal battle, Abbott said S.B. 3 would have resulted in consequences opposite of its intent. Instead, the governor called on lawmakers to go back to the drawing board to craft a regulatory framework that protects public safety while also aligning with federal law.

The governor provided a sample list of 19 potential regulations that could work, including many suggestions that would more closely align the state’s hemp regulations with those of alcohol. The sample list is viewable here.

“Passing a law is not the same thing as actually solving a problem,” Abbott wrote. “Texas needs a bill that is enforceable and will make our communities safer today, rather than years from now.”