Travis County Judge blocked DSHS rules that changed the THC formula and effectively banned smokable hemp. Full breakdown of what the TRO does and the April 23 hearing.
Texas cannabis advocates are watching closely as neighboring states tighten regulations around hemp-derived intoxicating products, a pattern that could signal what enforcement looks like if federal rescheduling finally moves forward. New Jersey's Senate Bill 3945 took effect Monday, reclassifying hemp products containing more than 0.3 percent total THC—including delta-8, delta-10, and THCA—as marijuana, available only through licensed dispensaries. Colorado's Marijuana Enforcement Division simultaneously announced a crackdown on companies illegally selling cheaper hemp products as marijuana, citing "serious risks to public safety, market integrity and the tax revenue framework" for the state's regulated cannabis industry. Both moves reflect a growing regulatory squeeze on the uncontrolled hemp market that has flourished in states where cannabis remains federally illegal.
The tension runs deeper than simple compliance. Creating liquid distillate for vapes and edibles from hemp costs significantly less than using marijuana, giving manufacturers a competitive advantage that threatens tax revenue in regulated states. But Colorado regulators have documented serious safety concerns: manufacturers rely on toxic chemicals like methylene chloride—banned by the EPA and Colorado itself—to convert CBD into THC. In 2024, investigators found popular marijuana vapes sold in dispensaries contaminated with that exact chemical. One company, Ware Hause, surrendered its marijuana license in response. 💰 MONEY MOVES When unregulated hemp products undercut licensed cannabis sales, states lose tax revenue that funds education, healthcare, and drug treatment programs, while consumers face products potentially contaminated with banned solvents.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, momentum on cannabis rescheduling appears stalled. President Trump complained Saturday that the Department of Justice is "slow-walking" him on moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III—an order he issued four months ago that still hasn't been executed.
Attorney General Who Opposed Florida Cannabis Now Replaced by Trump; Rescheduling Still Stuck
Trump fired Bondi, who historically opposed marijuana reform, signaling potential frustration with her performance. However, her replacement, acting AG Todd Blanche, has indicated he'll take time to study the issue before moving forward. Longtime Trump advisor Roger Stone recently suggested someone in the administration is deliberately "holding up" the rescheduling proposal, though no official has been publicly identified.
🎭 Former AG Pam Bondi / Trump administration
🗣️ Says:
“Trump directed rescheduling "in the most expeditious manner" four months ago”
👁️ Does:
Bondi (opposed cannabis reform as Florida AG) was fired this month, but rescheduling remains incomplete under acting AG Todd Blanche, who says he needs to "carefully consider" the matter
🎤 MIC DROPFour months and a personnel change later, federal cannabis rescheduling—a move Trump publicly ordered—remains in limbo.
For Texas, these developments matter enormously. Texas currently allows only low-THC cannabis for specific medical conditions and has no legal recreational market. The hemp-derived product boom that Colorado and New Jersey are now restricting has created a gray market where consumers purchase delta-8, delta-10, and other intoxicating cannabinoids online and in smoke shops—products that exist in federal and state legal limbo. If federal rescheduling happens and states follow New Jersey and Colorado's lead, that entire market could collapse overnight, or shift into the regulated cannabis system. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT Colorado banned intoxicating hemp products years ago, yet manufacturers still found ways to exploit regulatory gaps and sell contaminated products through dispensaries—what enforcement gaps might Texas face if federal rescheduling suddenly forces it to build a regulated adult-use market from scratch?
Texas voters overwhelmingly support legal medical marijuana access, but most have no idea their state already has a program to provide it. A new poll by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates—the firm that served as chief pollster for President Trump's campaigns—found that 75 percent of Texas registered voters favor "legalized marijuana in Texas for medical use," with backing spanning across party lines: 85 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans, and 81 percent of independents. Yet only 11 percent of respondents said they'd recently seen, read, or heard anything about the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), which has been providing legal access to low-THC cannabis products for patients with limited qualifying conditions since its passage.
The disconnect matters because it signals both opportunity and frustration. When voters were informed about the state's recent expansion law—signed by Gov. Greg Abbott last year—support jumped to 62 percent, with majorities backing it across party lines. That law expanded TCUP's qualifying conditions to include chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, Crohn's disease, and other inflammatory bowel diseases, while also allowing end-of-life patients in palliative or hospice care to access cannabis. Texas officials have already begun approving new medical marijuana business licenses to implement the expansion. Yet the polling also revealed the political reality: 57 percent of voters believe "state leaders have moved too slowly in expanding and improving" the medical marijuana program, with majorities of Democrats and independents agreeing—and a plurality of Republicans as well.
🚀 THIS IS COOL Research continues to validate what these voters intuitively support. A new study involving 3,528 patients in Germany found that medical cannabis helped people dramatically reduce their reliance on other prescription medications. Across all drug categories, patients reduced other prescription use by an average of 84.5 percent after starting medical cannabis, with 58.9 percent stopping other medications completely. The results were particularly striking for specific drug classes: 93.4 percent of patients on prescription sleeping pills reduced their use by at least half, and 75.5 percent quit them entirely. Sixty-one percent of patients previously dependent on opioids were able to discontinue them completely with medical cannabis, while 77.3 percent of ADHD medication users stopped their prescriptions. Beyond symptom management, 60.7 percent of patients reported experiencing no medication-associated side effects after switching to cannabis—a significant quality-of-life improvement that extends to work and social function.
🤔 THINK ABOUT IT Prescription opioids kill over 16,000 Americans every year, sleeping pills carry substantial overdose risk, and antidepressants come with their own side effect profiles. Cannabis has never recorded a fatal overdose in human history. Texas voters clearly understand that expanding access to a product with zero recorded deaths—especially for patients seeking to reduce reliance on far more dangerous medications—is worth pursuing. The gap between what voters want (expanded medical access) and what they know about existing programs (almost nothing) suggests a communication and implementation problem, not a policy problem.
💰 MONEY MOVES The Texas expansion represents real economic movement in the state's emerging cannabis market. New business licenses under the expansion are being conditionally approved, which means capital deployment, job creation, and tax revenue—all tied to how aggressively the state moves forward. Meanwhile, in Ohio, two smoke shops won a temporary restraining order from Franklin County Judge Jeffrey M. Brown to sell off existing inventory after the state's new restrictions took effect in March. Happy Harvest locations and Get Wright Lounge can now sell products to adults 21 and older under the TRO, a grace period their attorney Scott Pullins argued the legislature should have provided. The judge expressed concern about retailers who'd made significant investments in inventory that suddenly became unmovable and unsellable—a financial blow that hits small businesses harder than large distributors.
The Texas story ultimately reflects a normalization pattern playing out across the country: voters want cannabis access, medical evidence supports its benefits, and state governments are slowly catching up. The question isn't whether Texas should expand its program—voters and evidence both say yes. The question is how quickly the state will match its policies to what the majority of Texans have already decided they support.
Cannabis policy is moving faster on multiple fronts this week, with bipartisan momentum building around hemp protection while Trump administration priorities continue to reshape the federal landscape around intoxicating plants.
💰 MONEY MOVES Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) confirmed that he and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) plan to file legislation as soon as this week to prevent what Paul called the "disaster" of federal hemp THC recriminalization scheduled for November. The hemp industry has grown into a multi-billion-dollar sector since the 2018 Farm Bill legalized products containing less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a drug-weight basis. However, legislation Trump signed late last year will redefine hemp to allow only 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container—a threshold that effectively eliminates most current products. The Paul-Klobuchar bill would allow states to opt out of the federal prohibition and conduct interstate commerce among themselves, protecting Kentucky's thriving hemp sector and similar industries in other states. Paul emphasized the stakes during a town hall: farmers need to know whether to plant this year if their crop becomes federally illegal in November.
Meanwhile, 🚀 THIS IS COOL Trump is reportedly planning to issue an executive order as soon as this week to boost research into ibogaine, a psychedelic compound with potential therapeutic applications. This move comes nearly four months after Trump's executive order directing the Department of Justice to expedite cannabis rescheduling from Schedule I to Schedule III—a process that has not yet been completed. The administration's dual focus on both cannabis and psychedelics signals a potential shift in how the federal government approaches drug policy and research priorities.
In Congress, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)—who continues to lead the charge for federal cannabis descheduling—made headlines this week with a tongue-in-cheek comparison of cannabis safety to fast food. Speaking at a book event, Booker joked that while he champions removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, "we should schedule McDonald's french fries" instead, describing them as "an illegal substance" given their addictive properties. The remark echoed similar quips Booker made during his 2020 presidential campaign about scheduling fast food fries. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT How many Americans die annually from cannabis overdose versus fast food-related health complications? Zero for cannabis. Hundreds of thousands from diet-related diseases. Yet one remains Schedule I while the other remains completely legal and widely marketed.
Booker told Marijuana Moment in January that while Trump's rescheduling order contains "things that look promising," he remains "very concerned about where the DOJ will land"—suggesting uncertainty about whether the administration will actually complete the rescheduling process despite the executive directive. Meanwhile, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) defended significant amendments she proposed to her state's recreational marijuana legalization bill, saying she consulted with governors from other states that have legal markets. She reported hearing consistent advice: "make sure you get it right the first time and don't rush it because there will be things that come up."
The activism side is also mobilizing. The Marijuana Policy Project is collecting cannabis arrest stories from individuals to document "the true impact of the ongoing scourge of prohibition" in a forthcoming report—a move designed to center the lived experiences of those affected by decades of enforcement under the current Schedule I classification, which has remained in place for over 50 years despite the Nixon administration's own Shafer Commission recommending decriminalization back in 1972.
Missouri's hemp industry is bracing for impact as Governor Mike Kehoe faces pressure from an unprecedented grassroots campaign. Small-business owners, farmers, and customers gathered 10,000 handwritten letters in just 10 days urging the governor to veto legislation that would ban intoxicating hemp products statewide. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Dave Hinman (R), would eliminate all THC-containing hemp products from shelves starting November 12—a move that goes beyond federal restrictions Congress recently imposed through a spending package provision. 💰 MONEY MOVES The hemp industry trade association warns the state-level ban could wipe out an entire economic sector, particularly if Congress chooses to delay or modify its own federal ban on intoxicating hemp products.
The core tension reveals a mismatch in policy timing and scope. Congress set a federal ban to take effect on November 12, but left room for potential legislative reversal or product-specific exemptions—beverages and CBD products with trace THC could survive federal review. Missouri's bill offers no such flexibility. If federal regulators soften their stance, Missouri would only permit intoxicating hemp products in licensed marijuana dispensaries, effectively strangling the legal retail market that currently sells THC seltzers in bars and grocery stores across the state. If Congress delays the ban entirely, Missouri would still eliminate nearly all intoxicating hemp products, carving out only beverages—a scenario that would leave Missouri's regulatory framework significantly more restrictive than federal law.
Jay Patel, president of the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, framed the stakes clearly during a Capitol steps press conference: the bill would "effectively eliminate an entire industry in Missouri—the hemp industry—regardless of any federal change in legislation." Kehoe's office received the bill Tuesday and has 15 days to make a decision. Spokeswoman Gabrielle Picard noted this is the first time this year the governor's office received such a large volume of handwritten opposition letters, calling it "somewhat unique" in general—a signal that grassroots concern is genuine and mobilized.
🤔 THINK ABOUT IT What does it say about state-level drug policy when elected officials move to ban a product with zero recorded overdose deaths while alcohol continues to kill roughly 95,000 Americans annually? The hemp industry's concern isn't purely economic—it's about regulatory consistency and the precedent of one state imposing a unilateral ban that contradicts federal policy space. Veterans who rely on legal THC products for PTSD, chronic pain, and anxiety management will also feel the ripple effects if Missouri eliminates their access to regulated, legal alternatives. The hemp trade association's mobilization represents a rare moment of unity across small business, agriculture, and consumers—a coalition defending access to a federally legal product facing state-level elimination.
Governor Kehoe's decision will land in the next 15 days. The outcome could signal whether Missouri follows federal guidance with built-in policy flexibility or charts its own maximalist prohibition course, regardless of what Congress ultimately decides on the national stage.
# News Briefing: Cannabis Policy Moves Across America
Pennsylvania lawmakers are advancing separate tracks of cannabis reform this week, even as the state considers broader legalization. The House Health Committee approved HB 2254 in a 23-3 vote Tuesday, legislation that would require hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and personal care homes to allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis on premises. Rep. Dan Frankel (D), who chairs the committee, framed the bill as addressing a critical gap: while Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act theoretically allows end-of-life patients access to cannabis, implementation remains inconsistent across the state, leaving many terminally ill patients unable to access symptom relief during inpatient care. Under the bill, facilities would have 180 days to develop written guidelines covering storage, safety protocols, acceptable forms of cannabis, and documentation procedures. The law would allow cannabis use in edible, oil, or pill form—but notably excludes vaporization, citing concerns about impacting care for other patients.
That restriction takes on new significance given 🚀 THIS IS COOL a study released this week by PAX, the vaporization device manufacturer. Research by the company's director of product integrity, Richard Rucker, and senior chemist Derek Shiokari found that vaporizing cannabis reduces harmful inhaled byproducts by up to 99 percent compared to smoking joints. The team analyzed 16 harmful or potentially harmful compounds (HPHCs)—including benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—across multiple consumption methods using the same batch of cannabis. Vaporization heats cannabis below combustion point while still releasing cannabinoids and terpenes, a fundamental difference in chemical exposure. "Combustion produces harmful byproducts—whether it's tobacco, wood or cannabis," Rucker noted. The implication is straightforward: if Pennsylvania's hospitals are concerned about patient safety and respiratory impact, vaporization would theoretically present a lower-risk option than the smoking and edible forms currently allowed under the proposed policy.
Meanwhile, Maryland continues moving in a different direction on cannabis policy. The House of Delegates approved SB 439 on Monday in a 108-23 vote, sending legislation to Gov. Wes Moore's desk that would protect firefighters and rescue workers from employment penalties for lawful off-duty medical cannabis use. The bill represents years of advocacy from first responders who experience chronic pain, injuries, and anxiety as occupational consequences. Del. Adrian Boafo highlighted the choice firefighters currently face: use prescribed opioids to manage pain on the job, or risk retaliation for using legally prescribed cannabis off-duty. "Public safety remains a top priority," Boafo said, "but our state must modernize its laws to protect employees who use medically certified cannabis responsibly and outside of the workplace." The legislation explicitly preserves zero tolerance for impairment during work hours and maintains reporting requirements to state emergency medical services regulators.
🤔 THINK ABOUT IT Prescription opioids kill over 16,000 Americans annually and carry high addiction potential, yet firefighters have faced employment consequences for choosing a plant with zero recorded overdose deaths in human history as an alternative for chronic pain management. Maryland's legislature appears to be recognizing that keeping public servants in pain—or dependent on pharmaceuticals with documented lethality—doesn't serve public safety better than allowing responsible off-duty use of a federally classified Schedule I substance that has never killed anyone. The question isn't whether cannabis works for these conditions; it's why employment law should penalize workers for choosing a zero-overdose treatment over one that kills tens of thousands annually.
These three separate legislative moments—Pennsylvania's hospital access bill, Maryland's first responder protection, and the newly published vaporization safety data—reveal a pattern accelerating across states: cannabis is being normalized not through aggressive legalization pushes, but through evidence-based policy adjustments that acknowledge medical reality. Pennsylvania is carving out space for end-of-life patients. Maryland is protecting workers from employment discrimination. And the science is quietly showing that consumption methods matter far more than anti-cannabis rhetoric has traditionally acknowledged. None of these developments require wholesale legalization or culture war rhetoric. They simply recognize that a plant with no overdose deaths deserves more rational policy than a Schedule I classification born from 1970s politics.
A Texas judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of new state rules that would restrict access to hemp-derived products including smokable THCA flower, marking the latest legal challenge to state-level crackdowns on the booming hemp market. The temporary restraining order pauses what would have been a significant tightening of regulations in the nation's second-largest state, even as federal legislation signed by President Trump moves toward recriminalizing hemp products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container—a ban scheduled to take effect in November.
The Texas decision comes amid a broader pattern of legal and regulatory turbulence surrounding hemp products. 💰 MONEY MOVES Target, the major Minnesota-based retailer, just expanded its footprint in the hemp-derived THC beverage market by securing 72 new licenses from Minnesota regulators to sell lower-potency hemp edibles across all of its stores in the state. Target now holds more lower-potency hemp edible licenses in Minnesota than any other company, a dramatic expansion from its pilot program at just 10 stores last year. The move is notable precisely because it's happening in direct defiance of the clock—Target is expanding retail hemp operations even though Congress has already passed legislation that will effectively ban these products nationwide in months.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is simultaneously doubling down on hemp access through a different pathway: the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced a program covering up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products annually for eligible Medicare patients, focusing largely on CBD but also allowing certain THC quantities. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz are actively defending this policy in court against anti-cannabis advocacy groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which filed suit to block the program. Federal lawyers argued in a brief Thursday that the plaintiffs lack legal standing because they haven't actually been harmed—the program is voluntary for providers and patients alike. As the brief noted pointedly: the complainants' alleged injury "is that he might be offered a product he will decline. That is not an Article III injury. It is an offense to his sensibilities."
🚀 THIS IS COOL The Medicare hemp coverage initiative represents a genuine recognition that cannabis-derived compounds have therapeutic applications—particularly for seniors managing pain, anxiety, and other chronic conditions without the overdose risks associated with prescription opioids. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT The federal government is simultaneously moving to criminalize hemp while also creating pathways for vulnerable populations to access it through Medicare, which suggests the policy conversation is fracturing along practical versus ideological lines.
The contradictions are sharp: Target is betting that hemp beverages will remain on shelves and consumer palates through November; state judges are blocking restrictions on hemp access; and the federal administration is creating new coverage pathways even as Congress legislates a ban. What emerges is a snapshot of an industry and regulatory framework in genuine flux, where major corporations, federal agencies, state courts, and Congress are all operating from different playbooks simultaneously. Whether this represents a transition period before the federal ban takes full effect, or the beginning of yet another reversal in cannabis policy, remains to be seen—but the market clearly isn't waiting for clarity.
