[[{“value”:”
The Texas House of Representatives recently passed Senate Bill 3, legislation that effectively bans the sale and possession of products containing hemp-derived tetrahydrocannabinol, also known as THC. THC is a naturally-produced psychoactive compound found in cannabis sativa plants—including legal hemp, which has a far lower THC content compared to marijuana.
Hemp has a variety of uses ranging from CBD oil for pain relief, anxiety and depression, to cooking oil and flour and industrial uses like textiles and building materials. According to the Cannabis Business Times, the Texas hemp market contributes $10 billion to the state’s economy.
Under SB 3, adults in possession of products containing traces of any form of THC or other cannabinoids except CBD and CBG could be subject to prison time. The bill is now sitting on Texas Gov. Greg Abbot’s desk awaiting his decision.
Proponents of SB 3 want to close a loophole in 2019 legislation that made hemp production legal and unintentionally opened a door for THC consumables. They say this law has been abused to sell addictive products, and they argue the original law was only intended to boost the agricultural economy, but it has been twisted to create a habitual drug problem in the state.
Currently, all hemp types must be below 0.3% THC to be legal. If hemp is above the limit, it is classified as marijuana, which is illegal in Texas.
“With 0.3% THC, you could smoke that all day long, and you would get lung cancer long before you would ever get high,” said Calvin Trostle, Texas A&M Extension agronomist and state hemp specialist. “We’re talking about very low levels.”
Although the legal threshold is minimal and does not likely to lead to a psychoactive high, the hemp-derived THC consumables market has found workarounds to increase the concentrations of THC in their products that can give the customer an addictive and intoxicating effect.
“Since 2019, retailers across Texas have exploited a state agriculture law to sell life-threatening, unregulated forms of Ttetrahydrocannabinol to Texans, including children,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement. “These stores which often target children with their marketing, have popped up across the state, threatening the safety of our communities.”
On the other side of the aisle, business owners, farmers and veterans are frustrated with an all-out ban, particularly because the language in SB 3 is not transparent and could affect much more than recreational THC lollipops or gummies. Additionally, many consider these THC consumables to be a safer option than narcotics and believe banning them will lead to more serious addictions to other drugs and an unregulated black market for THC products.
“Senate Bill 3 will take away hemp-derived consumables, which is an important alternative modality to the opioids and anti-depressants that the VA has been negligent in shoving down our throats for the last 25 years,” said Mitch Fuller, a veteran of the Iraq War and national legislative chairman of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of Texas. “Please don’t take something away from us that works. They have helped thousands of veterans in this state and millions across the country avoid the pharmaceutical cocktail of opioids and anti-depressants.”
Those in the legal hemp business have supported age and marketing restrictions to prevent children from purchasing THC consumables, and although the legislature considered those ideas, they thought an outright ban was the better option.
“Prohibition did not work in the 1920s for alcohol and it will not work now for hemp—not with e-commerce and an American public that’s more mobile than ever,” said Mark Bordas, executive director of the Texas Hemp Business Council. “Border security and cartels remain chief concerns for Texans. The number one killer of Americans 18 to 45 years old is fentanyl, according to the CDC. If the cartels didn’t bother to get licensed by the state of Texas, they won’t be bothered by an unenforceable ban.”
Other outlier markets in the hemp conversation are not grown for their THC content—but almost always have natural traces of the compound—and could fall within the consumable category. According to Trostle, the language in SB 3 is unclear when it comes to the definition of consumables.
“The ban was targeted at consumables and to me, the three I’s of consumables are something that you inject, inhale, or ingest,” Trostle explained. “Consumables also apply to creams like CBD cream that you’d put on your cranky knee or cosmetics.”
Trostle questioned if hemp hearts, hemp seed and hemp seed oil will be considered drug-related consumables.
“They don’t produce THC, but they might have some contamination on the surface of the seed from other parts of the plant, and if it was detected, would that mean that somebody could be charged with a felony,” he asked. “I don’t know; the legislation and the parts that I’ve read appear to make no distinction.”
Another sector of the industry that is not grown for THC content is hemp fiber. Trostle is unsure if this falls under consumables as well. He said Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Sid Miller does not feel the ban will apply to fiber, but hemp farmers believe it could. The real issue is transparency of the bill and the full scope of the ban.
Texas Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), who authored SB 3, recently made some statements published in the Austin American-Statesman that could mean industrial hemp does not fall subject to the ban, but the wording is still obscure.
“If you’re under compliance with the federal law and you’re doing stuff for fiber and stock and production for those other products that we hope to do, you didn’t get affected by this,” Perry said at a news conference. “But if you’re doing hemp that ultimately ended up as a Delta-8 (product) or Delta-10 (product), you’re out of business, and you should be.”
Trostle said one company near Wichita Falls, Texas, called Panda Biotech, has heavily invested tens of millions of dollars in fiber hemp processing to make fiber for textiles, animal bedding and construction materials, but if fiber is not exempt from SB 3, it could be a disaster for the future of their business.
He said the bill would also affect contracted hemp acres in states outside Texas. Panda Biotech contracts and transports part of its hemp from states like Kansas, and if the hemp cannot contain any trace of THC, it cannot be brought to Texas without consequences.
Trostle said breeders at Cornell University have successfully developed hemp lines that turn off the production of THC, though on occasion tiny traces might still be detected. But many farmers will not feel comfortable planting these varieties without proof they will not produce THC and/or assurances a finalized Texas law exempts fiber hemp, and that takes time.
“We hope that we don’t have the unintended and unnecessary consequences from the legislation here in Texas, and we need to get clarification from our legislative leaders who promoted and led the passage of the bill,” Trostle said.
Gov. Abbott has three choices now that the bill has been approved by the House. He has until June 22 to sign or veto the measure. If he does neither, it will become law without his signature.
Lacey Vilhauer can be reached at 620-227-1871 or [email protected].
TAGS:
calvin trostle, cannabis sativa, cbd, Dan Patrick, fiber hemp, Greg Abbot, hemp, kansas, marijuana, Panda Biotech, Senate Bill 3, Sid Miller, texas, Texas A&M, Texas House of Representatives, thc, THC consumables, veterans
“}]] Senate Bill 3, which bans THC in hemp, is now sitting Texas Gov. Abbot’s desk awaiting from his signature or veto. The questions is, how would this affect the agricultural side of hemp production? Read More
