Texas leaders remain divided on THC as Abbott backs regulation, Patrick pushes ban

Texas is once again at the center of a debate over hemp-derived THC, with Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick at odds over how far the state should go in regulating — or prohibiting — the growing industry. Abbott’s recent executive order (EO) aimed at curbing youth access has triggered praise from industry leaders, but it has also drawn sharp criticism from Patrick, who continues to push for an outright ban.

The friction underscores a broader challenge: balancing public safety concerns, political divisions, and an industry worth billions to Texas’ economy.

Abbott’s Executive Order: A Limited Approach

On the heels of a contentious legislative season, Governor Abbott signed an executive order directing the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to take steps restricting hemp-derived THC sales to minors. The EO does not define a specific age cutoff, though Abbott has previously signaled his support for setting the age at 21.

The order also tasks DSHS with reviewing current rules related to THC content in products, labeling, and record-keeping. In essence, the EO gives regulatory agencies the power to tighten oversight — but leaves much of the detail to be determined later.

The move came after Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3, which aimed to ban THC products, and after two special sessions where lawmakers could not agree on how to regulate the market. The executive order represents Abbott’s attempt to act unilaterally in the absence of legislation.

Patrick Pushes Back

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has long supported banning hemp-derived THC outright, wasted no time responding.

“On this issue, we disagree,” Patrick wrote in a Friday press release, criticizing Abbott’s order as too weak. He argued that the EO “intentionally or not, has sent a signal to the THC industry that they have a state seal of approval on the current THC market.”

Patrick accused hemp businesses of exploiting regulatory gaps and selling unsafe products to young Texans. “These are the same people who have been selling dangerous THC products to kids and teens for the last four years in thousands of locations across Texas,” he said.

The lieutenant governor also revealed details of his recent conversations with Abbott, saying there had been tentative agreements that the EO failed to deliver. According to Patrick, both leaders had discussed banning smoke shops, gas station convenience stores, and corner stores from selling THC products. They had also considered restricting sales to Texas-grown hemp products, banning smokable THC, and prohibiting synthetic cannabinoids such as Delta-8 and Delta-10.

“The executive order does none of this,” Patrick wrote. “Most of the issues in the executive order are left for agencies to look at in the future.”

Industry Celebrates Legitimacy

If Patrick sees danger, hemp industry leaders see opportunity.

The Hemp Business Council, a trade group representing producers and retailers, praised Abbott’s order for “preserving lawful adult access, promoting responsible commerce, and discouraging the growth of illicit markets.” The group also reiterated its support for safeguards like child-resistant packaging and a 21-year age limit.

Hometown Hero, a hemp company based in Austin, was even more enthusiastic. The company called the EO “huge” for its industry, saying the new rules “solidifies that our industry is legitimized and here to stay!”

The celebratory tone from businesses appeared to fuel Patrick’s frustration, who characterized their reaction as “boastful.”

Agriculture Commissioner: “Better Than Nothing”

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, who has often walked a middle line in the cannabis debate, told Fox 7 Austin that while Abbott’s EO may not satisfy everyone, it represents progress.

“It’s much better than no regulation at all,” Miller said. “It’s probably not everything that some people would want but it’s a great start.”

A Billion-Dollar Industry at Stake

Behind the politics lies a powerful economic reality. A March report prepared by Whitney Economics for the Hemp Business Council estimated that Texas’ retail hemp sector generates $4.3 billion annually. The industry supports an estimated 53,000 jobs across the state.

Those numbers make Texas one of the largest hemp markets in the country. Any policy shift — whether a ban, stricter regulation, or a lighter touch — could have ripple effects for businesses, workers, and consumers.

Supporters of the EO argue that measured regulation preserves those jobs while ensuring safer products. Critics like Patrick counter that the very existence of hemp-derived THC in Texas endangers public health, particularly for minors.

The Roots of the Dispute

The legal gray area surrounding hemp-derived THC in Texas dates back to 2019, when the Legislature legalized hemp production in line with the federal Farm Bill. Lawmakers did not anticipate that products containing Delta-8 THC, a compound chemically derived from hemp, would flood the market.

Because Delta-8 can produce intoxicating effects similar to marijuana, opponents have argued that the products exploit a loophole in state law. Efforts to close that loophole have repeatedly stalled, reflecting sharp divisions not just between Democrats and Republicans, but also among Republicans themselves.

Abbott’s veto of Senate Bill 3 earlier this year illustrated the governor’s reluctance to pursue a full ban. His executive order attempts to strike a balance: restricting youth access and improving oversight without eliminating the industry altogether.

What Comes Next?

With agencies now tasked with reviewing labeling, THC limits, and record-keeping, the practical effects of Abbott’s EO may take months to materialize. The question of age limits is also unresolved, though Abbott has expressed his preference for 21.

Meanwhile, Patrick’s opposition signals that the issue is far from settled. As presiding officer of the Senate, Patrick has significant influence over future legislation, meaning the 2025 legislative session could reopen the debate in full.

For hemp businesses, the EO provides short-term stability and the promise of legitimacy. For opponents, it represents a missed opportunity to rein in a market they view as dangerous. And for consumers — especially younger Texans — the rules governing what products are available, where they can be sold, and who can buy them remain in flux.

Conclusion: A State Divided

The clash between Abbott and Patrick over hemp-derived THC is emblematic of a larger tension in Texas politics: how to reconcile economic opportunity with public safety concerns.

Abbott’s executive order stops short of the sweeping restrictions Patrick and other critics want, instead favoring incremental regulation. Industry leaders see that as validation. Patrick sees it as surrender.

What is clear is that the issue is not going away. With billions of dollars, tens of thousands of jobs, and the health of young Texans at stake, hemp-derived THC will remain a political flashpoint in the state for the foreseeable future.