Texas Governor Explains His New Stance On Hemp Products As Ban Quickly Advances In Special Legislative Session

The governor of Texas is detailing where he stands on a renewed push in the legislature to ban most consumable hemp products, seemingly departing from a proposal that advanced through a Senate committee this week by calling for regulated access to low-THC hemp items for adults.

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) made headlines last month after vetoing a controversial hemp THC ban bill, after which point he convened a special session with a mandate to legislators to take the issue, as well as others, back up. But advocates say a new measure from Sen. Charles Perry (R), SB 5, that cleared the Senate State Affairs Committee on Tuesday would effectively create the same prohibition the governor vetoed—and it’s moving quickly through the process.

Asked about the proposal, Abbott told FOX 4 on Tuesday that he stands “in favor of doing all we can to protect the lives of our children, while also protecting the liberty of adults.”

“So the structure of what I’m looking for is this, and that is, we must continue to criminalize marijuana in the state of Texas—no change in the marijuana laws,” he said. “We need to ban THC, as well as hemp products, for children under the age of 21. We don’t want them to be exposed to that.”

He added that the state needs to “ban synthetics that are laced onto hemp products that are extraordinarily dangerous.” But once those safeguards are in place, the governor said “we need to have a highly regulated hemp industry to ensure that farmers are able to grow it, and that hemp products that do not have an intoxicating level of THC on it and can be sold in the marketplace for adults to be able to use.”

This morning I sat down with Gov. @GregAbbott_TX. He laid out what he is for and not for when it comes to a #THC ban in Texas. We also talked about redistricting. You can see that later today on @FOX4@FOX26Houston@fox7austin and also Sunday on TX The Issue Is. #txlegepic.twitter.com/wyLIC8VeKu

— Steven Dial (@StevenDialFox4) July 22, 2025

That’s where there’s some apparent splintering between what the governor is describing as his preference and what’s moving through the Senate.

Abbott gave a somewhat confusing definition of what he’d be comfortable with as far as allowable THC limits in hemp, saying there should be a “three percent” or “three milligram” cap, which is a meaningful difference. SB 5, on the other hand, would prohibit products with any quantifiable amount of THC or most other cannabinoids—explicitly exempting CBD and CBG from the ban, but industry stakeholders say that’s logistically unfeasible and would decimate the market.

“To be clear, with regard to adults—again, with minors, no access to it at all. For adults, we do want the THC level to be below 3 percent, or we’re doing it in milligrams, three milligrams of THC, and it’s called non-intoxicating levels of hemp that would be marketed,” Abbott said. “But it would be a highly regulated system where, from the farmers to the wholesalers to the distributors to the retailers, there would be checks along the way to make sure that anybody involved in that entire system would not be able to be selling, transmitting, moving or involved in any hemp-based product that had more than three milligrams of hemp in it.”

“At the same time, we want to make sure that there’s strict enforcement. And so the only way we’re going to be able to do this is through tough enforcement,” he said. “The money for enforcement would would come from all the market participants, and we would create an enforcement structure like what we have in the alcohol system that would ensure that the [Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission] would be involved in the process to make sure this can be completely monitored, and there’s going to be criminal consequences for anybody who violates these standards.”

The interviewer pointed out that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who strongly advocated for the vetoed hemp ban bill and continues to support outright prohibition, believes the hemp market is too large to effectively regulate.

Abbott acknowledged that “every law enforcement official I’ve talked to has said the same thing, and that is, they don’t have the resources to regulate it… If they’re measuring the hemp product not based upon the current methodology, 0.3 percent THC, but on the milligram basis, it’s a whole lot easier to be able to measure it.”

Again, that’s not quite what SB 5 would accomplish—and stakeholders are voicing concern about the expedited legislative process that it’s moving through, urging supporters to contact their representatives and ask them to oppose the legislation.

“Even after hours of compelling testimony, the Senate State Affairs committee voted unanimously to approve SB 5, advancing the bill to the Texas Senate for a vote,” Heather Fazio, director of the Texas Cannabis Policy Center, said in an action alert on Wednesday.

She added that the Senate meets on Thursday and “could vote on SB 5.” However, she added that once it reached the House, “representatives are much more inclined to support regulation.”

(Disclosure: Fazio supports Marijuana Moment’s work via a monthly Patreon pledge.)

Separately, a spokesperson for the governor issued a statement that largely aligns with what Abbott described in the interview.

Regarding what Governor @GregAbbott_TX is looking for regarding THC… This statement was sent to me from @Mahaleris , Press Secretary for the Governor. #txlegepic.twitter.com/9t8zqCaLvG

— Chad Hasty (@ChadHastyRadio) July 22, 2025

“Governor Abbott has been clear that Texas must do all we can to protect the lives of children while protecting the liberty of adults. Hemp products should be banned for those under the age of 21, with a full ban on extraordinarily dangerous synthetic products,” they said. “Adults should be able to access heavily regulated, nonintoxicating levels of hemp, and there should be strict legal enforcement of hemp that exceeds 3.0 milligrams total THC per serving. The Governor will continue working with the legislature to establish a framework that meets those goals.”

Meanwhile, response to questions from senators during Tuesday’s Senate committee hearing, most law enforcement speakers said they supported an all-out ban on hemp products containing any THC rather than attempts at regulation. Some later added, however, that they felt the state’s limited medical marijuana program, known as the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), should be expanded to ease access by patients—especially military veterans—who could benefit from therapeutic cannabis.

Notably, Abbott in June signed a bill into law that expanded the state’s list of medical cannabis qualifying conditions, adding chronic pain, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory bowel diseases, while also allowing end-of-life patients in palliative or hospice care to use marijuana.

SB 5 is among a small handful of bills introduced for the new special session to address consumable hemp products.

Among the other proposals are measures to require extensive product warning labels and limit how hemp products are packaged.

Abbott has specifically asked lawmakers to prioritize hemp regulatory issues during the special session that kicked off on Monday. Two other newly introduced bills are HB 160 from Rep. Charlene Ward Johnson (D) and SB 39 from Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D).

The former would require a number of warning labels to be carried on hemp products with any more than trace amounts of THC, cautioning that the products can cause “cannabis poisoning that can be life-threatening to children,” harm brain development in youth, increase “risk of mental disorders like psychosis and schizophrenia” and lead to anxiety, depression and substance abuse disorders.

SB 39, meanwhile, would prohibit hemp products from being packaged or marketed “in a manner attractive to children,” limiting packaging shaped like humans, animals, fruit, cartoons or “another shape that is attractive to minors” as well as packaging that looks similar to legal products already marketed to children, for example candy or juice. It would also outlaw misleading product packaging. Violations would be a Class A misdemeanor, carrying up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

Separately, last week Rep. Nicole Collier (D) introduced a one-page bill, HB 42, designed to protect consumers in the state from criminal charges if what they believed was a legal hemp product turned out to contain excessive amounts of THC, making it illegal marijuana. It would prevent the criminalization of someone found in possession of a product that’s labeled as hemp but is determined to contain “a controlled substance or marihuana.”

In order for the person to obtain the legal protection, the product would need to have been purchased “from a retailer the person reasonably believed was authorized to sell a consumable hemp product.”

The governor also said last month that rather than ban consumable hemp products outright, he wants to see lawmakers establish a regulatory framework that treats cannabinoids “similar to the way alcohol is regulated.”

Lawmakers at Tuesday’s hearing said that criminalization of possession would only kick in on a person’s third offense, however that provision does not seem to be included in the current version of SB 5.

Ahead of the governor’s recent veto of SB 3, hemp advocates and stakeholders had delivered more than 100,000 petition signatures asking Abbott to reject the measure. Critics of the bill argued that the industry—which employs an estimated 53,000 people—would be decimated if the measure became law.

Texas lawmakers legalized the sale of consumable hemp in 2019, following enactment of the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which legalized the plant nationwide. That led to an explosion of products—including edibles, drinks, vape products and cured flower—now sold by an estimated 8,000 retailers.

Military veterans advocates, including Texas Veterans of Foreign Wars, also called on the governor to veto the hemp ban, saying it “would cause irreversible harm to communities across the state.”

Farmers said the prohibition would devastate a key sector of the state’s agriculture industry.

Following his veto, Abbott proposed an extensive list of policy changes that he said he would support—and which the legislature will have the chance to enact during the special session.

“Texans on each side of the Senate Bill 3 debate raise serious concerns. But one thing is clear—to ensure the highest level of safety for minors, as well as for adults, who obtain a product more dangerous than what they expected, Texas must strongly regulate hemp, and it must do so immediately,” Abbott said.

Part of the rationale behind his veto was the risk of litigation over “valid constitutional challenges” that he suggested would hold up in court. Multiple top Texas hemp companies had already filed a preemptive lawsuit challenging the legislation before the governor’s veto.

“If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed,” Abbott said in his veto message. “Texas cannot afford to wait.”

Rather than face the possibility of having the law enjoined, or indefinitely delayed, the governor said the state “must enact a regulatory framework that protects public safety, aligns with federal law, has a fully funded enforcement structure, and can take effect without delay.”

—Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.—

Meanwhile, a recent survey from a GOP pollster affiliated with President Donald Trump showed that Texas Democratic and Republican voters are unified in their opposition to the hemp ban bill.

Another poll commissioned the Texas Hemp Business Council (THBC) found that Texas Republican primary voters oppose the proposal.

Last month, the governor signed bill to significantly expand the state’s medical marijuana program with new qualifying conditions additional product forms and more dispensary locations.

Abbott separately signed a bill into law to create a state-backed research consortium to conduct clinical trials on ibogaine as a possible treatment for substance use disorders and other mental health conditions. The ultimate goal of the project is to develop the psychedelic into a prescription drug with federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, with the state retaining a portion of the profit.

The measure expands the state’s list of medical cannabis qualifying conditions to include chronic pain, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory bowel diseases, while also allowing end-of-life patients in palliative or hospice care to use marijuana.

Separately in Texas, a House committee approved a Senate-passed bill in May that would prohibit cities from putting any citizen initiative on local ballots that would decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances—as several localities have already done despite lawsuits from the state attorney general.

Under the proposal, state law would be amended to say that local entities “may not place an item on a ballot, including a municipal charter or charter amendment, that would provide that the local entity will not fully enforce” state drug laws.

While several courts have previously upheld local cannabis decriminalization laws, an appellate court comprised of three conservative justices appointed by the governor has recently pushed back against two of those rulings, siding with the state in its legal challenge to the marijuana policy in Austin and San Marcos.

Despite the ongoing litigation and advancement of the House and Senate bills, Texas activists have their targets set on yet another city, Kyle, where they hope put an initiative before voters to enact local marijuana reform at the ballot this coming November.

A recent poll found that four in five Texas voters want to see marijuana legalized in some form, and most also want to see regulations around cannabis relaxed.

Photo courtesy of Brendan Cleak.

Trump’s Choice For Surgeon General Voiced Support For Medical Marijuana, But Also Linked Cannabis Use To Heart Problems

President-elect Donald Trump has announced his intent to nominate physician and Fox News correspondent Janette Nesheiwat to become the next U.S. surgeon general. And as far as marijuana policy is concerned, she’s said that she’s “all for” the use of medical cannabis for certain conditions.

While Nesheiwat’s stance on broader reform is unclear, her social media posts and media appearances signal that she’s at least supportive of allowing access to medical marijuana for patients with conditions like seizure disorders or cancer. However, she’s also promoted research linking cannabis smoking to cardiovascular issues.

Citing a study last year, Nesheiwat said “if you use marijuana—whether you smoke marijuana or vape or use edibles—then you have an increased risk by about 25 percent of developing a heart attack, or about 42 percent increased risk of developing a stroke, which can leave you paralyzed or take your life.”

“Why is this? When you inhale marijuana, for example, you are inhaling particulate matter, which is causing inflammation to the blood vessels—inflammation and irritation to blood vessels to your heart, to your brain and to other organs in your body,” she said. “So you might want to think twice before you light up. Make sure you take care of yourself.”

Do you smoke pot? 🪴 New info published by the American Heart Association found that people who smoke marijuana have a higher risk of heart attack & stroke. 800,00O Americans have a heart attack/stroke each year. Knowing this information, will you quit smoking? pic.twitter.com/bFq7eOgVSN

— Dr Janette Nesheiwat (@DoctorJanette) March 1, 2024

In 2019, she also weighed in on a lung injury crisis that stemmed from contaminated vape cartridges containing “both nicotine and THC, the high-inducing chemical in marijuana.”

Happy #LaborDay! You can catch me on @AmericaNewsroom@FoxNews TODAY @ 10:45am EST— I’ll discuss the hundreds of severe lung injuries that have been reported in #teens and young adults from #vaping both #nicotine and #THC, the high-inducing chemical in #marijuana—Tune in! pic.twitter.com/RjheXWMEKJ

— Dr Janette Nesheiwat (@DoctorJanette) September 2, 2019

But in 2018, she expressed support for the use of medical cannabis, at least for select conditions. In response to a social media post calling for marijuana reform, she said “I’m all for medical marijuana. seizures, cancer patients etc.”

I’m all for medical marijuana. seizures, cancer patients etc

— Dr Janette Nesheiwat (@DoctorJanette) May 9, 2018

In 2021, Nesheiwat seemed to criticize the decision to suspend U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson from the Olympics over a positive THC test, challenging the idea that marijuana is a performance enhancing drug.

“Marijuana doesn’t makes you run faster. She did not use anabolic steroids. It was pot,” she said. “Let her run.”

Let her run.

— Dr Janette Nesheiwat (@DoctorJanette) July 2, 2021

While the surgeon general doesn’t play an especially direct role in policymaking around drugs, the position has served as a key messaging vehicle for White House health platforms.

Under the Biden administration in 2021, for example, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy weighed in on marijuana decriminalization, saying “I don’t think that there is value to individuals or to society to lock people up for marijuana use. I don’t think that serves anybody well.”

Meanwhile, Jerome Adams, the surgeon general under the first Trump administration, issued an advisory in 2019 that warned about the risks of using marijuana, particularly for pregnant women and adolescents. It also contained misleading statements about the cannabis legalization movement.

So far, the president-elect’s cabinet choices have run the gamut as far as their cannabis positions are concerned.

For example, the next head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could be a vociferous opponent of marijuana reform if the former GOP Florida congressman that Trump selected for the job, Dave Weldon, is ultimately confirmed.

Trump’s pick to run the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also a medical marijuana skeptic, promoting claims that cannabis use is linked to cardiovascular issues and mental health problems for youth. He has also suggested that marijuana is a gateway drug.

In contrast, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the president-elect’s choice for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that oversees FDA, supports ending marijuana prohibition and legalizing certain psychedelics for therapeutic purposes.

Meanwhile, pro-legalization former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was recently replaced by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R), who opposed medical cannabis legalization in the state, as Trump’s choice to for U.S. attorney general.

A non-governmental advisory body that Trump is putting together will have two familiar names helming the ship: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. And while both are proponents of marijuana and psychedelics reform, giving hope to some reformers that the new entity will recommend scaling back the costly war on drugs, Ramaswamy has previously insisted on expanding the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Legalizing Medical Marijuana In Utah Helped Reduce Opioid Use By Pain Patients, Study Finds

California Should Cap THC Levels In Marijuana And Test A Government-Run Cannabis Monopoly, State-Commissioned Report Says

A new report released on Wednesday by a panel of experts convened by California’s Department of Public Health (CDPH) makes a number of major policy recommendations that would radically alter the landscape of the state’s marijuana market, for example by limiting the THC potency of cannabis flower and concentrates, requiring products be sold in plain packaging and setting up a government-run cannabis monopoly along the lines of how stores work in Quebec, Canada.

The new recommendations come in a report from the High Potency Cannabis Think Tank, which consists of scientists and public health experts tapped by CDPH “to provide analysis of the problem of increasing potency of cannabis and cannabis products and to formulate regulations to address it.”

Other recommendations include taxing marijuana based on THC potency and more strictly limiting advertising that might appeal to children.

Members of the committee represent institutions such as RTI International; the University of California in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Irvine; the University of Southern California; the University of Washington; Stanford University; the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; the Public Health Institute; and Kaiser Permanente’s research division.

The report highlights 10 top suggestions in terms of their likely policy impact, including around product potency, advertising, taxation, packaging and labeling, public education and more. It says the recommendations’ goals are intended to reduce the incidence of cannabis use disorder and negative mental health consequences associated with cannabis use, minimize use and frequent use by people under 21 and reduce use by drivers and during pregnancy.

“In developing the recommendations, we sought policies that would not contribute to stigma related to cannabis use, nor recreate past inequitable patterns of penalization, focusing primarily on addressing the supply side, pricing, and educating consumers,” the report says.

In terms of recommended caps on high-potency products, the panel advised a 60 percent THC limit on cannabis concentrates, a 25 percent THC limit on marijuana flower and a limit of 10 milligrams of THC “per physical piece or liquid beverage container” in ingestible products, excluding tinctures.

Further, the panel said that higher-THC products—flower above 20 percent, inhaled products above 35 percent and edibles over 10 mg per package, if permitted—should be sold only in plain packaging, with no branding or marketing allowed.

“Ideally,” the report says, “this should extend to all cannabis products.”

California should also ban “the use of added flavors (including fruits, mint, menthol, vanilla, chocolate, spices, and other common food flavors) in all inhaled products, whether natural or synthetic” as well as “prohibit language and images that could lead consumers to believe the product has flavors other than those of cannabis,” the group says.

Another top suggestion from the CDPH-convened panel is that the state should consider “testing, promoting, or facilitating a Quebec-style public monopoly approach to cannabis sales, particularly in jurisdictions that have not yet legalized cannabis sales.”

NEW REPORT: Scientific panel warns that high-potency #cannabis products in CA pose serious health risks & recommends 20 policies to reduce harms, like #THC caps, flavored cannabis bans & plain packaging.

Read Report: https://t.co/BKz7tKUXv0#CannabisPolicy#PublicHealthpic.twitter.com/xQ4XBaWayD

— Getting it Right from the Start (@GetItRightonMJ) October 30, 2024

Currently all cannabis in Quebec must be purchased through the state-owned Société Québécoise du Cannabis (SQDC).

In California, meanwhile, more than half of cities and counties still locally ban the sale of marijuana following voters’ passage of statewide legalization in 2016.

The state’s tax structure for marijuana products should also be updated to structure excise taxes “to be proportional to the milligrams of THC in the taxed product, applicable to all cannabis products.” Currently taxes are calculated based on a product’s sale price.

Many of the recommendations focus on reducing the appeal of higher-potency cannabis products to youth, such as an advised ban on billboard advertising and “any other general public-facing advertising,” which the report says is because “billboard advertising reaches children, and because a high percentage of the market is high potency.”

“This report provides an urgently needed roadmap for implementing policies that do a better job of balancing the benefits of a legal cannabis market with the potential risks to public health,” co-author Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, a professor and chair of the Health Policy and Management Department at the University of Southern California‘s public policy school, said in a statement about the report.

“Our recommendations focus on regulating cannabis, as the voters intended, but doing so in a way that considers the harms from excess use of a legal intoxicant and protects youth,” she said. “Restricting the availability of high-potency products, redesigning taxes so they are based on THC content, and enforcing youth access laws and marketing restrictions are possible and are strategies already being implemented in other legal jurisdictions.”

Researchers also called for at least another $10 million or more in cannabis tax revenue annually to fund public health campaigns “on the risks of high potency cannabis, including mental health risks,” specifically prioritizing “use during pregnancy, drugged driving, and education for youth and seniors.”

The report says the money should also fund research and testing of public messaging campaigns.

And to better keep tabs on the effects of high-potency marijuana products, the team called for “the tracking and regular reporting of negative health outcomes associated with high potency products in California hospitals, hospital emergency departments, and ambulatory care settings.”

Beyond the top 10 policies in terms of expected impact, the report suggests restricting advertising of cannabis products with over 35 percent THC (or 20 percent THC for flower products), requiring retailers to offer lower-dose (e.g. under 10 percent THC) options, establishing more robust age-gating for cannabis websites, prohibiting discounts of higher-potency THC products, mandating specific warning labels be affixed to higher-potency products and generally stepping up enforcement of regulations already intended to curb products’ appeal to children.

High Potency Cannabis Think Tank / CDPH

“As cannabis legalization advances, our report underscores the urgent need for stronger regulatory protections and public education about the dangers of high-potency cannabis,” said co-author Daniele Piomelli, a professor at UC Irvine School of Medicine and director of the Center for the Study of Cannabis. “It’s critical to limit exposure to these products, especially for youth, pregnant individuals, and people with mental health conditions, to reduce the potential for long-term health harms.”

Marijuana has grown increasingly more potent in recent decades, the report notes, and “over the more than six years of California’s legal adult-use commercial market, the trend toward higher potency has continued unabated, mirroring national trends.”

The report says that while its focus is the state’s regulated adult-use marijuana market, “the parallel emergence of a major intoxicating hemp market cannot be ignored.”

“Edible hemp products with more Delta-9-THC then legal cannabis edibles can be legally sold to a 10-year-old in our state at any corner store,” the report says. “There is also a vast market of illegally sold inhalable and edible hemp products with high doses of psychoactive cannabinoids like Delta-8-THC, HHC and THC-P, synthetically derived from CBD in hemp.”

Authors noted that recent emergency regulations from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) aim to address the issue of unregulated hemp products. Announced last month, the new rules outlaw intoxicating hemp products and those with any “detectable amount of total THC.”

An industry effort to halt enforcement of the new regulations banning fell short earlier this month, with a state judge denying a request for a temporary restraining order. The suit says the rules are based on a faulty declaration of “emergency” and come after officials failed to effectively implement hemp regulation legislation that was enacted in 2021.

Meanwhile, states around the country are moving to enact similar cannabinoid restrictions in an effort to limit the proliferation of intoxicating hemp-derived products following the federal 2018 Farm Bill’s legalization of the crop. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D), for example, signed a bill into law last month putting hemp products under the purview of the state’s cannabis commission, a move that’s also sparked a court challenge.

Somewhat similar discussions about how to regulate hemp derivatives are playing out at the federal level, as congressional lawmakers consider legislative provisions to impose a general ban on hemp-derived cannabinoids such as delta-8 THC.

Rep. Mary Miller’s (R-IL) amendment to the 2024 Farm Bill, for example, was approved by a House committee in May and would remove cannabinoids that are “synthesized or manufactured outside of the plant” from the federal definition of legal hemp. The change is backed by prohibitionists as well as some marijuana companies, who’ve described the restriction as a fix to a “loophole” that was created under the 2018 Farm Bill that federally legalized hemp and its derivatives.

Anti-drug groups, law enforcement and some health organizations have called on Congress to embrace the ban, arguing that “trying to regulate semi-synthetic cannabinoids will not work.”

In addition to Miller’s amendment in the 2025 Farm Bill, the House Appropriations Committee in July approved a separate spending bill that contains a similar provision to prohibit cannabinoid products such as delta-8 THC and CBD containing any “quantifiable” amount of THC.

Hemp-derived cannabinoids also came up in a recent federal appeals court decision in which judges ruled that cannabinoids derived from hemp, such as THC-O-acetate, indeed qualify as hemp and are legal under the 2018 Farm Bill. In making that ruling, the court rejected the Drug Enforcement Administration’s more restrictive interpretation of the law.

How to address hemp-derived cannabinoids has caused some fractures within the cannabis community, and in some cases marijuana businesses have found themselves on the same side as prohibitionists in pushing a derivatives ban.

As for THC potency, meanwhile, GOP House and Senate lawmakers well-known for opposing marijuana reform earlier this year introduced a concurrent resolution calling on federal agencies to study the potential risks of high potency THC products.

New York’s governor earlier this year, meanwhile, called for the elimination of a THC potency tax as part of her executive budget, aiming to reduce costs for consumers in a way that could make the regulated market more competitive against illicit operators.

Separately, some states have run into issues of lab operators allegedly inflating THC potency numbers in order to boost products’ appeal with consumers, who sometimes shop for products based on their advertised strength.

Meanwhile in California, Newsom recently signed a bill to legalize cannabis cafes in the state—just one day after vetoing a separate proposal to allow small marijuana growers to sell their products directly to consumers at state-organized farmers markets.

He also signed a series of modest reform proposals over the weekend, including a proposal to make it so medical marijuana donated to low-income patients is tax-exempt and another measure to prevent what advocates call the “double taxation” of marijuana by restricting the ability of local governments to calculate their cannabis levies after state taxes are already applied.

While the governor supports cannabis legalization, he’s been notably reserved about various drug policy proposals in recent years, for example vetoing legislation to legalize psychedelics and allow safe consumption sites for illegal drugs, in addition to nixing the farmers market proposal.

Separately, a state-funded effort is underway in California to analyze the genetic information of various marijuana strains in order to preserve the state’s rich history of cannabis cultivation. It’s part of a project meant not only to acknowledge the past but also protect the future of legacy growing regions such as the Emerald Triangle.

Most Trump And Harris Supporters Back Marijuana Rescheduling, But GOP Candidate’s Base Is More Likely To View Cannabis Laws As ‘Important’