Texas Senate Bill 3: A Controversial Hemp Ban That Threatens Industry and Medical Access

Texas Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), passed in the 89th Legislative Session of 2025, aimed to impose a near-total ban on consumable hemp products containing any form of THC, including delta-8 and delta-9, limiting legal hemp derivatives to CBD and CBG. Despite its passage through the Texas Senate (24-7) and House (95-44 on second reading, 87-54 on third reading), Governor Greg Abbott vetoed the bill on June 22, 2025, citing conflicts with federal law and its devastating economic impact. However, the bill’s implications, its favoritism toward politically connected allies, and its restrictive licensing program have sparked widespread criticism, particularly for its potential harm to medical users.

Economic Devastation and Overregulation

SB 3 threatens to dismantle Texas’s $4.3 billion hemp industry, which supports 53,000 jobs and generates $268 million in tax revenue. By banning all THC-containing hemp products, the bill would shutter over 7,000 licensed dispensaries, forcing small businesses, farmers, and retailers out of the market. Critics, including Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, argue that the bill’s blanket prohibition is an overreach, ignoring sensible regulation in favor of destroying an industry. The Texas Hemp Business Council emphasizes that this could push economic activity to unregulated black markets, increasing risks to public safety.

Governor Abbott’s veto highlighted SB 3’s legal vulnerabilities, noting its conflict with the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which legalizes hemp derivatives with less than 0.3% THC. A lawsuit filed in Travis County District Court further argued that the bill is preempted by federal law and could constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property, potentially criminalizing farmers, pharmacists, and consumers using federally legal products.

Political Favoritism and Limited Licensing

One of the most contentious aspects of SB 3 is its limited licensing program for medical cannabis, which critics argue benefits only a handful of politically connected allies of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the bill’s primary proponent. The program restricts medical cannabis dispensaries to just three operators statewide—Compassionate Cultivation, Surterra Texas, and Goodblend—all of which have ties to influential political figures or donors. This exclusivity would severely limit access for medical users, creating significant barriers:

• Geographic Inaccessibility: With only three dispensaries for a state as vast as Texas, patients could face drives of hundreds of miles to access medical cannabis. For example, rural patients in West Texas or the Panhandle might need to travel over 500 miles to reach a dispensary in Austin or Houston, a burden that could render treatment inaccessible for those with mobility issues or limited resources.

• Limited Dispensary Capacity: The small number of dispensaries would struggle to meet the needs of Texas’s estimated 150,000 medical cannabis patients, leading to supply shortages, long wait times, and potential price gouging. This contrasts sharply with states like Florida, which has over 600 dispensaries for a similar population.

• Barriers for Low-Income Patients: The combination of travel costs, limited dispensary hours, and potential price increases would disproportionately harm low-income patients, veterans, and those with chronic conditions who rely on medical cannabis for affordable relief.

Critics argue that this restrictive licensing model prioritizes political cronies over patient access, contrasting with more open systems in states like Oklahoma, where thousands of dispensaries serve patients efficiently. The Texas Cannabis Policy Center has called the program a “monopoly for the well-connected,” noting that it stifles competition and innovation in the medical cannabis sector.

Public Health Risks and Black-Market Concerns

SB 3’s ban on THC products could drive consumers to unregulated black markets, increasing the risk of unsafe, untested products. Unlike legal hemp products, which undergo testing for purity and potency, black-market alternatives often lack oversight, potentially containing harmful contaminants. The Texas Hemp Business Council and advocates like Mark Bordas argue that regulation, not prohibition, is the solution, pointing to alcohol-style oversight as a model that could ensure safety without eliminating access.

The bill’s criminal penalties—Class A misdemeanors for possessing or selling banned cannabinoids and Class B misdemeanors for sales near schools or to minors—have also drawn criticism for their severity. Although amendments by Rep. Moody reduced some penalties to Class C misdemeanors with expungement options, opponents argue that criminalizing low-THC hemp use unfairly targets patients, veterans, and small business owners.

Medical Benefits of THC at Risk

THC, the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis, has well-documented medical benefits that SB 3 would restrict for Texans. According to research from sources like the National Institute on Drug Abuse and medical studies:

• Chronic Pain Management: THC is effective in reducing chronic pain, particularly neuropathic pain, in conditions like fibromyalgia, arthritis, and multiple sclerosis. A 2015 meta-analysis in JAMA found cannabis-based medicines significantly reduced pain in 79% of studies reviewed.

• PTSD and Anxiety: Veterans, such as those represented by Dave Walden of the Texas Veterans of Foreign Wars, rely on low-THC hemp products to manage post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety. Studies, including a 2020 trial in Psychopharmacology, showed THC reduced PTSD symptoms in 75% of participants.

• Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders: Low-dose THC and CBD combinations, like those in FDA-approved Epidiolex, reduce seizure frequency in conditions like Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. SB 3’s ban could limit access to these treatments for Texas children.

• Cancer Symptom Relief: THC alleviates nausea and vomiting in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, with a 2015 Cochrane Review confirming its efficacy in 83% of cases. It also stimulates appetite in patients with cachexia.

• Neurological Disorders: THC shows promise in managing spasticity in Parkinson’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), improving quality of life for patients with limited treatment options.

By banning THC, SB 3 would force patients to seek alternatives like opioids, which carry higher risks of addiction and overdose. The Texas Cannabis Policy Center notes that hemp-derived THC has caused zero deaths or overdoses, making it a safer option for many.

Public and Political Backlash

SB 3 faced unprecedented opposition, with a petition garnering over 100,000 signatures and thousands of letters sent to Governor Abbott’s office, reportedly making it the most opposed bill in Texas history. Polls show 61% of Texans, including both Republicans and Democrats, oppose the ban, with 57% saying it erodes trust in the legislature. Conservative figures like Dana Loesch criticized the bill as government overreach, comparing it to gun bans.

The veto also exposed tensions between Governor Abbott and Lt. Governor Patrick, who accused Abbott of misleading him about signing the bill and claimed it effectively legalizes marijuana—a charge refuted by hemp advocates who note the clear distinction between low-THC hemp and high-potency marijuana. This political feud underscores the bill’s contentious nature and the broader debate over cannabis policy in Texas.

In his veto message, Abbott called for a special session starting July 21, 2025, to develop a regulatory framework that aligns with federal law, protects public safety, and preserves the hemp industry. He advocated for alcohol-style regulations, including age restrictions, product testing, and local government authority to restrict sales. The Texas House’s House Bill 28, which proposed stricter oversight without a THC ban, offers a potential model for balanced reform.

Texas SB 3 represents a misguided attempt to address hemp regulation through prohibition, threatening an industry that supports thousands of jobs and provides critical medical benefits to Texans. Its limited licensing program would favor a few politically connected operators while leaving medical patients with inadequate access, forcing many to travel long distances or turn to dangerous black markets. By ignoring the proven medical benefits of THC for conditions like chronic pain, PTSD, epilepsy, and cancer-related symptoms, SB 3 risks harming vulnerable populations. As Texas moves toward a special session, stakeholders hope for a regulatory approach that prioritizes safety, access, and economic viability over political favoritism and outdated prohibitionist policies