In a move stirring fierce debate across the state, Texas lawmakers have taken significant steps toward prohibiting the sale and consumption of hemp-derived products containing certain forms of THC. The Texas House has dramatically expanded a Senate-backed bill, introducing a 123-page committee substitute that could reshape the state’s hemp industry and ignite further controversy.
At the center of the debate is Senate Bill 3 (SB 3)—a legislative priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has framed the proposal as a “life or death issue.” In a recent press conference, Patrick reiterated his commitment to “banning THC in Texas,” underscoring that he, House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock), and Gov. Greg Abbott are aligned on pushing the measure through during the 89th legislative session.
“This is about protecting children and communities,” Patrick said, referencing a map showing the proximity of THC retailers to schools and other sensitive areas. “We cannot continue to allow these products to be sold with impunity.”
The original SB 3, sponsored by Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), would have banned the manufacture, sale, and possession of consumable hemp products containing any cannabinoid aside from CBD (cannabidiol) and CBG (cannabigerol)—effectively outlawing popular products like delta-8 THC and delta-9 THC edibles. However, the House version modifies and expands the bill dramatically.
Among the notable changes in the House’s substitute bill:
Regulatory Authority Shift: Oversight is moved from the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC), signaling a more robust enforcement mechanism akin to how alcohol is managed.
Local Control: Counties are granted the power to ban hemp sales within their jurisdictions, potentially creating a patchwork of regulations across the state.
Delta-9 THC Allowance: While the Senate version banned delta-9 entirely, the House bill allows less than 10 milligrams of delta-9 THC in beverages, provided they are not “attractive to children.”
Packaging and Location Restrictions: Retailers would be barred from selling THC products within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, playgrounds, and other vulnerable locations. All packaging must be child-resistant.
Inhalables Ban and Purchase Limits: The new bill bans devices used for inhaling hemp products and restricts purchases to one ounce of hemp flower per customer per day.
Training and Labeling Requirements: Employees must undergo mandatory training, and each product must include a QR code linking to its state registration.
Product Restrictions: Beverages cannot be mixed with alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, kratom, kava, or psychoactive mushrooms.
In-State Growth Requirement: All natural hemp flower sold in Texas must be grown within the state and test below 0.3% THC.
To aid implementation, the House version establishes a multi-disciplinary advisory group—composed of law enforcement, scientists, and legal experts—to develop detailed rules and enforcement standards. Additionally, a small tax will be levied on initial hemp product sales at a rate of 0.02 cents per 2.5 milligrams of delta-9 THC.
Speaker Burrows, speaking on Inside Texas Politics, expressed optimism that bipartisan support exists for “banning a good number of those products” while still allowing for limited, regulated use. Gov. Abbott echoed this view, telling Fox26 Houston that the House and Senate “will work out the differences before the end of the session.”
Still, public and industry reaction has been swift and divided.
Opponents argue that the bill, even in its revised form, threatens small businesses, disrupts a legal and growing industry, and infringes on personal liberties. Supporters counter that these products are underregulated and pose risks, particularly to minors.
“This isn’t a partisan issue,” said Rep. Erica Martinez (D-Houston), who supports tighter regulation but opposes a full ban. “It’s about science, safety, and common sense. But a complete prohibition may do more harm than good.”
With the House committee substitute now approved and headed for floor debate, SB 3 enters its next political battleground. Whether lawmakers strike a balance between public safety and economic liberty—or deepen the divide—remains to be seen.
.jpg)
.jpg)
