Texas Governor Abbott Vetoes THC Ban Calls for Regulatory Session

What Happened

On June 22, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), which aimed to ban all consumable hemp products containing any THC, including delta-8 and delta-9. This decision came just before the legislative deadline and was met with significant backlash from Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who had prioritized the ban throughout the legislative session. Abbott’s veto not only preserved the existing Texas hemp industry but also prompted him to call for a special legislative session starting July 21 to discuss a regulatory framework for THC products instead.

In his veto statement, Abbott expressed concerns that SB 3 would not withstand constitutional scrutiny and would create conflicts with federal law, particularly the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp products. He argued that a total ban would not effectively address public safety issues and instead proposed a regulatory approach that would include measures to protect minors and ensure product safety.

Key Details

• Senate Bill 3: Proposed a complete ban on consumable hemp products containing THC. It was a significant legislative priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has been vocal about the dangers of high-potency THC products.
• Governor’s Veto: Abbott vetoed SB 3, stating that it would likely face legal challenges and would not effectively improve public safety.
• Special Legislative Session: Following the veto, Abbott called for a special session to discuss regulations for THC products, emphasizing the need for a framework that aligns with federal law and includes enforcement provisions.
• Political Reactions: Patrick criticized Abbott’s veto, arguing it abandoned families affected by THC products. Conversely, supporters of the veto, including the Texas Hemp Business Council, praised Abbott for prioritizing a regulatory approach over a ban.
• Economic Impact: The Texas hemp industry has grown significantly since the legalization of hemp products in 2019, contributing approximately $8 billion in tax revenue and supporting around 50,000 jobs.

Multiple Perspectives

The situation surrounding SB 3 has elicited diverse opinions from various stakeholders:

• Supporters of the Ban: Advocates for SB 3, including Lt. Gov. Patrick, argue that the ban is necessary to protect children from high-potency THC products, which they label as dangerous. Patrick has called these products a “poison” in public spaces and has emphasized the need for stringent measures to prevent youth access.

• Opponents of the Ban: Those against SB 3, including many in the hemp industry and advocates for medical cannabis, argue that a complete ban would harm legitimate businesses and limit access to beneficial products for individuals managing chronic pain and other conditions. They contend that a regulatory framework is a more effective solution to ensure safety without stifling the industry.

• Governor Abbott’s Position: Abbott’s veto reflects a middle-ground approach, suggesting that regulation, rather than prohibition, is necessary to address public safety while also supporting the economic benefits of the hemp industry. His call for regulation has received support from various political factions, indicating a shift in the conversation around cannabis policy in Texas.

Context & Background

The debate over THC regulation in Texas has intensified since the 2019 legalization of hemp products, which inadvertently led to a surge in the availability of THC-infused products. Critics argue that the lack of clear regulations has allowed the industry to exploit loopholes, resulting in widespread availability of potentially harmful products. The rapid growth of the hemp market has created a complex landscape where public safety concerns clash with economic interests.

The political dynamics surrounding SB 3 also highlight the tensions within Texas’s Republican leadership. Abbott’s veto places him at odds with Patrick, who has been a prominent figure in advocating for stricter cannabis policies. This conflict could have implications for their respective re-election campaigns, as both are up for election in the upcoming cycle.

What We Don’t Know Yet

As the situation evolves, several uncertainties remain:

• Future Legislative Actions: It is unclear what specific regulations will be proposed during the special session called by Abbott. The details of any new framework for THC regulation will be crucial in determining the future of the hemp industry in Texas.

• Public Response: The public and political response to Abbott’s veto and the subsequent special session could influence upcoming elections. How voters perceive the handling of THC regulation may impact the political landscape in Texas.

• Legal Challenges: Should any new regulations be enacted, the potential for legal challenges remains. The interplay between state and federal law regarding hemp and THC products will continue to be a critical factor in shaping Texas’s cannabis policy.

In conclusion, the veto of SB 3 and the call for a regulatory framework mark a significant moment in Texas’s approach to THC products, reflecting broader debates about public safety, economic interests, and the evolving landscape of cannabis legislation.