July 30, 2025 – The Texas Senate has passed Senate Bill 5, a full ban on THC, in a 21-8 vote. The bill is very similar to SB 3 from the regular session, which Gov. Greg Abbott ultimately vetoed, saying it would not hold up in court. That version of the bill also passed 21-8. That a full ban on THC passed in the chamber that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick presides over isn’t surprise. The Lieutenant Governor has been a major proponent of banning THC, and has argued that legal hemp-derived products are marketed to children with harmful consequences.
Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, delivered remarks on the Senate floor in response to Abbott’s legal critique in the veto proclamation.
The Republican lawmaker on Wednesday, ahead of a preliminary vote on SB 5, also pushed against Gov. Greg Abbott’s suggestion to regulate hemp like alcohol, saying law enforcement doesn’t have the manpower to regulate the alcohol industry, let alone the THC market. He also doesn’t believe the hemp market actually wants to be regulated.
“There business model is not based on low level, it’s based on getting you out of your issue for as long as they can and for as much as they can,’ Perry said from the floor Wednesday. What happens to all the hemp products when it becomes illegal? Perry said it wasn’t his concern.
Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, on Friday said there should be a compromise because nobody has testified that protecting children shouldn’t be a priority. He said he is concerned an outright ban is a step too far. “The only therapy where we get between a patient and a doctor is this. That doesn’t make sense to me,” he said. “The narcotics they hand out to our vets and our hospice patients, those should be illegal. I think this bill is going to push people back to opioids. I worry about that.”
On Wednesday, Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas, filed two bills that offer regulation over a ban. Senate Bill 53 would create safety standards for hemp-derived products, including raising the age to 21, capping consumable products at 5 mg per serving, mandatory child-safe packaging, and redirecting tax revenue from THC to support public health and law enforcement. His Senate Bill 54 would decriminalize personal marijuana use in small amounts.
This clash of options is expected to play out over the next couple of weeks as a section of lawmakers, including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Perry, are determined to ban the product outright, while others are looking for a way for THC products to stay but be regulated.
Abbott has asked lawmakers to prioritize hemp regulatory issues during the 30-day special session, which began last week. SB 5 is essentially a revival of Senate Bill 3 from this year’s regular legislative session, which lawmakers passed but Abbott vetoed.
Abbott, in his veto, urged lawmakers to regulate hemp sales similarly to liquor sales, by prohibiting sales near places frequented by children, and banning sales to anyone under the age of 21, with strict penalties for any retailer that fails to comply. The hemp industry has primarily been amenable to these restrictions.
Abbott’s office recently clarified that he supports a ban for those under 21, with a full ban on “extraordinarily dangerous synthetic products.” The veto came after immense pushback from hemp supporters, including veterans and chronically ill people, who said hemp has been a cheaper and more accessible alternative to the medical marijuana program. Patrick, who was a large supporter of a THC ban, lambasted the veto as an attempt to legalize adult-use cannabis.
How the THC debate will play out in the House is currently unknown, but several bills have been filed, showing factions in the chamber. On Monday, Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston, filed on House Bill 5, a companion bill to Senate Bill 5, which bans THC products, while House Bill 195 by Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, would make cannabis legal for adults.
HB 195 would allow adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis, with no more than 15 grams of that being in concentrated form. It would put the state’s commercial cannabis market under the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations. At home, adults could keep up to 10 ounces of THC products, with any amount over 2.5 ounces needing to be stored in a locked container or other restricted area.
Other lawmakers have submitted their version of THC bills that differ from either a ban or outright legalization.
House Bill 160 from Rep. Charlene Ward Johnson, D-Houston, would require several warning labels to be carried on hemp products that contain THC. The labels would include warnings about cannabis poisoning, stunted brain development and the risk of mental health disorders.
Senate Bill 39, by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, would prohibit hemp products from being packaged or marketed to children and makes any violation of this a misdemeanor. House Bill 42, by Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, would provide protections for people who buy what they thought was legal hemp products that might contain an illegal amount of THC.
Perry and Sen. Molly Cook, D-Houston, engaged in a floor debate over the decision between regulation, as Abbott suggested in his veto proclamation, and a total ban. Cook pointed to the fact that the government regulates other things, including intoxicating products like alcohol. Perry appeared to suggest that alcohol should be banned too.
“[The alcohol] ship has sailed,” Perry said. “The difference is, I’m told the THC component goes from 18 hours to four days in the body, that you could literally be tripping for four days on some of this stuff.”
Cook pointed to the fact that THC can have therapeutic benefits, while alcohol does not, but still has consequences. “I think alcohol has very, very few therapeutic benefits. I think cannabis has a lot of therapeutic benefits. Alcohol is an unbelievably high-risk substance — DUIs, overdoses, liver disease,” Cook said.
The arguments between regulation and ban are the same arguments the legislature has heard for months, both in floor debate and in public testimony. Now, the bill must clear the Senate one last time before heading to the House for consideration. It is unclear if Abbott would sign a nearly identical bill to the one he vetoed last month.
