Dan Patrick’s THC Fight Has Plenty Of Government Left In It

AUSTIN—Texas has demonstrated that defeating a THC prohibition does not require government to leave the gummy aisle. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s campaign for a blanket ban met Gov. Greg Abbott’s veto in June 2025. The September 2026 landscape instead features controlled-substance restrictions, substantial licensing fees and disputes over how the state tests the merchandise. Personal choice has received extensive administrative attention.

Patrick framed prohibition as necessary to protect children. In his September 2025 criticism of Abbott’s regulatory approach, he argued that a ban was the only way to keep the products from them. Abbott favored regulation over Senate Bill 3’s prohibition and warned of constitutional challenges. These were competing approaches to hemp-derived THC, not an agreement to legalize recreational marijuana. Nor did the veto settle what agencies and courts could do next.

The Department of State Health Services says its delta-8 scheduling action took effect July 31, 2026. Its current notice distinguishes naturally occurring trace amounts from products labeled to contain delta-8 or containing more than trace amounts, which may be detained and referred to law enforcement. It separately recognizes the statutory delta-9 limit for consumable hemp. The political argument offers a yes-or-no question; the shop counter receives several definitions.

The department also lists annual fees of $5,000 per retail location and $10,000 per manufacturing location, plus online fees. At an August 28 hearing reported by KXAN, hemp businesses challenged the state’s testing methodology as inconsistent with state law. The judge took time to consider emergency relief; that hearing was not a final ruling on the merits. Entrepreneurs have been given two recurring expenses: permission to operate and arguments about what operation permits.

Protecting children, setting product standards and banning adult purchases are different policy choices. Patrick’s position would resolve that distinction through prohibition. The system now operating resolves it through agencies, fee schedules and litigation. Texas may disagree about the proper size of government, but it has found room for a substantial presence between the customer and the jar.