Texas Moves to Ban Smokable Cannabis

_{Filed Under: Selective Morality}

---

Texas did not legalize cannabis. It legalized hemp under a narrow federal definition, then failed to build a regulatory framework capable of managing what followed. What is happening now is not a response to new information or a sudden rise in harm. It is the consequence of a political system that could not pass a ban, could not defend a ban in court, and shifted responsibility to regulators to finish the job quietly.

If the Texas Department of State Health Services rules take effect on January 25, 2026, smokable cannabis products currently sold under hemp law will effectively vanish from the legal market. This will not happen through legislation or a public vote. It will happen through administrative redefinition.

The products themselves will not disappear. Legal access will.

This is not a prohibition through statute. It is a prohibition through process.

In early 2025, Senate Bill 3 was introduced as a response to what state leaders labeled a public safety crisis. The proposal sought to eliminate intoxicating hemp-derived THC products across the retail landscape, including edibles, vapes, beverages, and flower, removing any legal pathway for psychoactive cannabis, regardless of how it was produced or sold.

The bill was authored by State Senator Charles Perry and championed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Patrick framed the issue as a moral emergency, describing THC products as dangerous and retailers as exploiting legal loopholes. The Texas Senate passed the bill, and the Texas House approved it later in the session. SB 3 reached Governor Greg Abbott’s desk in May.

Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3.

In his veto statement, Abbott said SB 3 conflicted with federal law, criminalized products legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, and would likely be blocked in court. He cited Arkansas, where a similar ban had been enjoined, leaving the market intact while litigation continued.

Abbott warned that Texas could not afford to pass a law that would be immediately tied up in litigation and unenforceable.

For a short time, the ban appeared finished.

It was not discarded. It was redirected.

In September 2025, Abbott issued an executive directive instructing state agencies to tighten enforcement of existing hemp law. The move was presented as a regulation rather than a prohibition. That distinction mattered politically and legally. It did not alter the practical effect.

The Texas Department of State Health Services subsequently released proposed rules that would change how THC content is calculated in hemp products.

Under current law, hemp is defined as cannabis containing no more than 0.3 percent delta nine THC by dry weight, a standard established by federal statute. The proposed rules alter that calculation.

THCA, a non psychoactive compound found in raw cannabis flower, would be counted toward total THC. When exposed to heat, THCA converts into delta nine THC. By counting it before combustion, nearly all smokable cannabis flower currently sold as hemp would fail compliance testing.

The rules do not announce a ban. They redefine measurement. The outcome is the same.

Smokable cannabis would be removed from the legal market without being explicitly prohibited by statute.

The proposal extends beyond chemical thresholds. The DSHS rules include licensing fees that would increase by more than 13,000 percent. Hemp manufacturers would face annual licensing costs of up to $25,000 per facility. Retailers would be required to pay $20,000 per location each year.

DSHS projects more than $200 million in annual revenue from these fees, based on the assumption that existing retailers remain operational and compliant.

---

HELP POT CULTURE MAGAZINE STAY ALIVE, AND INDEPENDENT

---

Industry operators argue that the assumption ignores economic reality.

Independent retailers operate on narrow margins. Smoke shops, wellness stores, and small cannabis businesses cannot absorb five-figure annual fees layered on top of rent, payroll, insurance, mandatory testing, and reduced legal inventory. Large multi-state operators may survive. Local businesses are likely to close.

This is not neutral oversight. It is market elimination.

Consumer demand for cannabis has persisted through every era of prohibition. When legal access is removed, consumption shifts rather than disappears.

Illicit markets do not verify age, test products, or conduct recalls. Claims that these rules protect children ignore enforcement history and market behavior.

During public hearings on the proposed rules, veterans repeatedly testified about their reliance on hemp-derived cannabis products.

Veterans described using smokable cannabis to manage PTSD, chronic pain, insomnia, and anxiety, often as an alternative to prescription opioids and sleep medications. Others testified that Texas’s medical cannabis program offered no practical substitute.

Texas allows limited medical cannabis use under its Compassionate Use Program, which remains narrowly defined with low THC limits and restricted product forms.

Hemp filled the gap.

The proposed rules close it.

Patients will not automatically qualify for medical cannabis if smokable hemp products are removed from the market. Consumption will shift outside regulated channels.

Governor Abbott’s role remains politically contradictory.

Abbott vetoed SB 3, citing constitutional conflicts and unintended harm to veterans, patients, and small businesses. Months later, his administration advanced regulatory rules that would eliminate the same products through administrative enforcement.

Abbott maintains that this approach is different. Legally, it may be. Functionally, it is not.

The outcome does not change.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick continued to push for THC bans during subsequent special sessions. Those efforts failed.

Patrick frames the issue through moral language rather than regulatory structure. Public records show that Patrick’s campaign received a $250,000 contribution from John Nau, CEO of Silver Eagle Distributors, a major Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and a $25,000 contribution from the Beer Alliance of Texas PAC.

Alcohol remains legal in Texas. Cannabis does not.

This is not about accidental exposure. Packaging standards address that. Age restrictions address that. Enforcement addresses that.

This is about control.

Texas legalized hemp without constructing a system capable of regulating it. When lawmakers failed to correct that mistake, they pursued prohibition. When prohibition collapsed, regulators pursued elimination through cost and redefinition.

The state is not regulating cannabis. It is regulating access out of existence.

Pot Culture Magazine contacted Texas NORML for comment regarding the proposed DSHS rules and their impact on consumers, patients, veterans, and cannabis markets in Texas. No response was received at the time of publication.

If the rules take effect as proposed, Texas will functionally ban smokable cannabis without passing a law stating that intent. Litigation is likely. Enforcement will vary. Small businesses will close. Consumers will adapt.

The state will declare success.

The market will tell the truth.

Prohibition did not end in Texas. It changed uniforms.

---

_{^{©2025, Pot Culture Magazine. All rights reserved. This is the property of Pot Culture Magazine and is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission of this work, in part or in whole, without the express written permission of Pot Culture Magazine is strictly prohibited.}}

---