Speaker 1: Today's episode of The Trip Cast is sponsored by the
Safer Texas Alliance and the Beer Alliance of Texas. Welcome
to the Trip Cast. I'm Eleanor Clibanoff, women's health reporter
here with my colleague Jasper Sharer. Share. Yeah, every time
I panic share.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's spot on coming from clib and Off. That's yeah.
Very excited to have you here. Jasper has been gone.
Speaker 2: It's good. Good. Happy to talk THHC and uh Dan Patrick,
I feel like that's been occupying a lot of my
my coverage lately.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, but before we start, I know, and you
had like a really specific topic you wanted to get
into on this. You've been deeply watching Megan Markle's new
show on Netflix. You wanted to offer some thoughts on
that to the audience. Uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, that's we were definitely talking about that before
and I yeah, you had to cut me off because
I was just droning on and on about that. So
glad you put me on the spot. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: You're welcome. Yes, that was our April Fool's joke. We
had a long debate in the office before you showed up.
And this is why you should never show up. Moments
before the trip cast, I brought that on much about
what we could use to prank you. Original I was
going to ask you to do a deep analysis between
the House and the Senate budget comparison, and Rebecca or
our managing editor for Enterprise and Politics, was like, he
would just do it. Yeah, he would just offer it
and then you won't be able to get him to stop,
and that's not that fun.
Speaker 2: I think Rebecca's instincts were probably yeah correct on that.
Speaker 1: We're like, what politics topic can we talk ask Hi about?
That would panic him? And I don't think there's anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it was so out of bounds that
I knew there was something going on. But no, I
feel like you always have something up your sleeve, as.
Speaker 1: Even on April Fool's Day. Yeah, yeah we are. Are
you a big April Fools guy? You know?
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say so. I'm kind of just, but I
always appreciate it, you know, especially if I'm like, you know,
the butt of the joke, like I'm just if someone
else wants to have fun with it, I'm all for it.
Speaker 1: I love that. Yeah. My college roommate and now one
of my best friends is like very into it, and
you're like, oh, there's a there's a fine line. I'm
not good at pranks because I go too far or
not far enough. She in college would be like, can
you call my parents and be like, I haven't seen
we haven't heard from her in three days. I'd be like, no, no, yeah,
there doing that.
Speaker 2: There is a line. I feel like you did not
cross it though with them got close.
Speaker 1: I wasn't even Yeah. Also Rebecca was like, I bet
Jasper has seen that show. I might have opinions on it.
Speaker 2: Are we talking about We're not.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about suits. We're talking about her new
very controversial, not very controversial, her new somewhat U discussed
show about her it's not actually even in her home,
but allegedly in her home.
Speaker 2: I have heard some some griping though about the authenticity
of it.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, well that's not what we're here to discuss, unfortunately,
or the budget, thank god. But we are here to
talk about a very important topic, as you alluded to,
a huge conversation in the Texas legislature this session, which
is about the regulation or perhaps banning of THHC products.
We are joined for this conversation by Heather Fazio, the
director of the Texas Cannabis Policy Center, which advocates for
expanded access to medical cannabis, supports statewide cannabis decriminalization, and
notably for this episode, is opposed to the what's been
called Senate Bill three, the ban on THHC products. Heather,
thank you for joining us, so glad to be here.
Thank you. Are you a prank person?
Speaker 3: Not much, but I do appreciate a good one.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, So before we get into like talking about
Senate Bill three and THHC and all of that, maybe
you can just give us the lay of the land
on like Texas's cannabis laws. Generally speaking, where do we
stand in Texas?
Speaker 3: A lot has changed in the ten years that we've
been doing this work. From over seventy five thousand people
being arrested every year when we started to numbers plummeting.
Now seeing I say, only twenty thousand our fewer than
it used to be. Twenty thousand too many, though, in
my opinion, we've also and the results of that, not
only because sentiments are changing with district attorneys, but also
city councils passing resolutions or ordinances forbidding their police officers
from arresting people. They understand that it's not worth the
resources that go into it. Plus, saddling people with criminal
records really causes so much harm, and so we've seen
that changing locally, piece by piece, creating a patchwork policy
across the state. I think that's why there's more of
an appetite for decriminalization. We've seen it pass in the House.
Of course, the Senate spend more of a challenge. But
then we have medical that's been expanded several times since
it was originally enacted. And now we have this flourishing
hemp industry that has really brought us about to the
THHC conversation in a different way than we expected.
Speaker 1: Jasper talked to us little about DHC, like, how did
we get here? Take us back in time a couple
of years when this all started blowing up.
Speaker 2: Well, a lot of this is it can get technical,
just when you get down to the distinctions between you know,
delta eight and delta nine, which is sort of at
the root of why we're having this conversation. But essentially
this goes back to the twenty eighteen Federal Farm Bill
that authorized and sort of gave the green light for
states to authorize you know, consumable hemp products, which is
what Texas followed suit and did in twenty nineteen. You know,
the authors behind that bill have been you know, basically
they've expressed that their intent was not to create this
this sort of explosion of you know, we're at over
eight thousand licensed temp retailers now and you know Dan
Patrick who signed off on that at bill, Charles Perry,
the author in the Senate who is now leading the
charge on SB three, as you referenced earlier, that has
sort of been their main talking point that you know,
they this was more just intended to be, you know,
an agriculture based bill. It was not supposed to green
light all these these products. But you know, as as
I'm sure we'll discuss, there is also this this countervailing
point that a lot of folks have become just accustomed
to and and sort of come to rely on these
these products, and some of the pushback has come to
this proposed ban has come even from you know, like
veteran groups who you know, folks who are using these
hemp products for you know, even even medicinal reasons, because
the state's medical program is so is so limited, so
a lot of nuance to this discussion. And yeah, also
I think it's hard to predict where this is going
just because of, you know, the differences between the House
and Senate. So it's kind of been a fascinating political
issue to observe.
Speaker 1: Right, So to summarize twenty eighteen federal green light, twenty nineteen,
Texas green lights right twenty twenty five, either a yellow
light or a red light, we assume, and we're going
to get more into the specifics, but the House is
sort of seems to be pushing more of a yellow
light regulation. Let's like pump the brakes a little bit.
How Senate seems to be pushing more slam on the brakes.
This is over. There's a great quote in I think
it was a Senate committee hearing about this where Charles
Perry said, you know who's the senator who who carried
the twenty nineteen bill and is now carrying the bill
to ban these products. He said, I told these retailers,
if you guys screw this up by being cute and
getting people high off of it, there will be consequences.
Appointed But I'm not surprised that we're here today. Which
is funny to me because it's also what your parents
would say to you if you got high in high school.
Speaker 2: You just tell the tone of disappointment in his voice.
Yeah right.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he has kids, but it has
that vibe for sure. He has kids and is used
to lecturing them about there.
Speaker 2: Trying to temporary or permanently ground the industry.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, Yeah, So you know this industry in between
twenty nineteen and now, this industry has popped up. This
is flourished. We've seen, you know, part in the pun
the highs and lows of this heather. It tell us
little bit about you know where the industry stands now.
Speaker 3: Sure, well it's been six years since the original legislation
paths that enabled this. We did get talked about in
terms of industrial applications of this plant, which we certainly
hope to see really take off as investments to catch
up and there becomes more consumer demand for things like
hemp paper and hemp rope things like that. But there
also was that kind of tangent of CBD and consumable
hemp products, and that's what the Department of State Health
Services understood their task to be. But because of the
way the law was written. Ultimately, THHC products have made
their way legally to the market, and the Department of
State Health Services really hasn't ever caught up to regulating
this industry effectively. There are rules on the books at
the federal and the state level. It's regulated by multiple agencies.
So it's really silly when we hear this as an
unregulated industry. It certainly is regulated, but it's not being
enforced adequately by our state government. So we need them
to step up to the plate to make sure that
we're holding bad actors accountable, because while there are many
good actors, high quality products on the market, there are
bad actors flying under the regulatory radar, and that's our
biggest concern, right.
Speaker 1: I mean it is. I mean, we talked about this
a lot on this podcast that, like on almost every issue, right,
there is some area of agreement, there's a real disagreement
on how to what to do with that. Once we
agree on that, right, Like both sides of this sort
of agree that there may be too unfed like the
access to these consumable hemp products, these THHC products may
be too unfettered. Right, there are people who are like
children are able to, you know, walk into a store
and buy these like they There's many of these products
that are sort of modeled to look like candy products
or to look like something you would want to have
if you were a child, and there's like insufficient age
regulate or age monitoring, there's insufficient consequences maybe for people
who are trying to As you said, Flanner, the radar.
Speaker 3: Is that right, absolutely, and those are the types of
regulations that have been we've been asking for for some
time now. The legislature has fallen short two sessions now
since the original legalization of HEMP to institute these kinds
of regulations, and so now there's this sense of urgency,
some heresy going on, you know, and just such strong
language being used to demonize this industry that many of
which are really wanting to see that kind of regulation,
because of course, nobody wants to see young people having
access to THHC. That never would have been on the
table for consideration if we were sitting down and having
an adult conversation about these policies. The lawmakers, especially our
publican leaders, have been putting there, keeping us at hands
arm's length and not allowing this meaningful conversation about how
do we do this right. We know that prohibition does
not work. It doesn't keep it out of the hands
of young people, it doesn't make sure that we have
safe products on the market, it doesn't ensure consumer protection,
and so of course that's why we'd like to see
regulation as an alternative to prohibition so we can actually
get a good grip of this industry.
Speaker 2: I was kind of curious what you make of, you know,
the Tenant governor's comments, and you know, I think Senator
Perry has said something to this effect too, just that
sort of the opposite of what you're saying about prohibition,
that it's you know, they don't feel that that regulation
is is possible. Essentially that they feel we've got to
push for a full ban, you know, like more regulation
is great, but at the end of the day, this
needs to be a band because it's not going to
be possible to you know, adequately oversee the industry. You know,
I don't know exactly how they've phrased it, but I kind.
Speaker 1: Of said to exactly how you phrases you just can't
regulate it. You've got to take it out. You're never
going to be able to regulate it, right.
Speaker 2: I'm curious what you make of that well, and for me,
it just seems totally flipped.
Speaker 3: You cannot prohibit these products. Even under policies of prohibition,
people still have access to them. These are federally legal
products that are prevalent across the country, and we're going
to be rounding people up and arresting them and charging
them a class A misdemeanors when we putting people in
jail for up to a year for the possession of
these hemp products. I mean, it just doesn't seem feasible.
This cat isn't going back in the bag. And really
what they're doing is said putting themselves in a corner
and setting us up to have nothing pass, which means
we don't get those age restrictions in place, we don't
get the types of restrictions on advertising and packaging to
stop appealing to kids. We don't get more resources and
a green light for the regulatory agency to step in
and start really enforcing the rules that are on the books.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's an argument you made right that like
the industry will sort of respond to. Right, if there's
a total ban, there's like less incentive. I mean, particularly
with the state the size of Texas to be producing
these products that are so appealing to children or so
appealing to that demographic. I mean, this is slightly different
in some ways than you know, just marijuana decriminalization, right, Like,
there's differences in how we might be able to regulate
versus prohibit this newish industry.
Speaker 3: Sure well, I mean the question is do we want
to be able to make sure that products that are
available in the state, that exist in the state are
tested and labeled. Is that a priority, as consumer safety
a priority? Or do we just want to hand this
market over to the illicit industry because somebody is going
to be profiting off of this. Is it going to
be those willing to break the law and traffic the
products in or is it going to be licensed and
regulated business owners who have an incentive to comply with
the law. You know, many of the people operating now
are complying with the law. The law just simply isn't
sufficient to get us where we need to go.
Speaker 1: Are there states that have successfully regulated this?
Speaker 3: In your opinion, I think that this is We're in
a really unique position here in Texas because the states
that have you know, Senator Perry has talked about how
California and New York have banned these products, but really
what they did is pull them into their already regulated
cannabis industries. We don't have that here. We have a
very much struggling medical cannabis program and we have no
adult use program for THHC. So we don't have a
place for this to go. We need to create a
lane so that this can be controlled through the state
with reasonable regulations.
Speaker 2: I'm wondering if you've had much conversation with folks in
the House just to get a sense of how much
appetite there is for a full ban as opposed to
you know, how I guess committed that that chamber is
to pursuing the regulations. I mean, it's for me, it's
it's been hard to get folks to you know, talk
on the record or really I mean sort of my
starting point here is just looking at what has been
in there, the bill that they've presented. But curious if
you've had any you know, conversations to get a better
sense of, you know, where the House might be headed
on this.
Speaker 3: Well, they're certainly behind schedule in the House. Things are
moving slowly getting out of there with new leadership, some
challenges with that, and we're just really getting the ball
rolling on the House side of things. But I can
tell you from my conversations and conversations from our allies
with legislative offices, including Republican offices who have supported decriminalization
in the past, medical expansion in the past, you're right
there is not an appetite in the House for outright prohibition.
They know that that's not the right way to go.
Now what is the right way to go? That's up
for us as advocates to help illuminate a path that
makes sense for regulation. And now in the State Affairs Committee,
there are three different bills that are sitting on their
table ready for a hearing. We've got Senate Bill three,
outright prohibition. We've got House Built twenty eight, which is
Chairman King's bill, which prohibits a lot. It's not a
great bill, but it doesn't prohibit everything entirely, which is good.
And then we have a Representative Kines House Bill forty
two forty two, which is a regulatory bill rather than prohibition.
So we've got the options on the table now, and
State Affairs is going to be considering that.
Speaker 1: You know, the House holds a lot of power here, right,
I mean, the Senate has been very clear about what
they want. They've passed this, it sits before the House.
Like you said, they have a series of choices. The
Senate does, or at least Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick believes
he has sort of a break glass in case of
emergency approach. If this doesn't pass. He has said he
is willing to go to a special session, which is
actually not his purview to call, but he has said,
you know, basically he will use the tools he has
available to him to force a special session if this
doesn't pass. He has he told the Texas Tribune Jasper,
there aren't many things you go down that path for,
but the life and health of people is one I
couldn't in good conscience leave here and knowing if we
don't do something about the next two years, how many
kids get sick? Jasper? Talk about you know how that
might play out if he does decide to if the
House doesn't pass what he wants and he decides to
sort of break class.
Speaker 2: Well, this is something that he has He's gone down
this road in multiple sessions before, or at least has
sort of used this as like a potential bargaining chip,
and in recent sessions when he's made this threat, he
hasn't needed to force Governor Abbott to call a special
session because they have both agreed that the session was necessary.
But going back to twenty seventeen as a model, you know,
as you said, the Lieutenant governor does not have the
power himself to call a special session, but he could
hold up, for instance, the state budget that is the
only item that the legislature is constitutionally obligated to pass
every session. And that's just sort of the most obvious, uh,
I guess, hostage potential for Dan Patrick, which as Lieutenant
governor he has the power to prevent anything he wants
from coming to the floor. So there's the state budget
that could be held up. There are you know, what
are known as sunset bills to continue the life of
key agency State agencies like the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice is up for sunset review, so kind of need
the you know, that one to keep going in some form.
So a lot of potential there and it you know,
it could get messy and you know, spill over into
other business that's completely unrelated to THHC IF if we
do end up going down that road.
Speaker 1: Right because Governor Abbott has not been as clear spoken
about this, right like last year when we had special
or last session when we had special sessions on vouchers
for example, Like that's something Dan Patrick did not need
to you know, some in that much political capital to
get Governor Abbott to call that. Governor Abbott has said,
like he's basically said like he's waiting to see what
the legislature gives him, right, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: Which I mean is I think unless it's an issue
that he's really you know, come out proactively on, that
is kind of standard operating procedure for him, I think.
And you know, we've we also haven't heard a ton from,
if anything, from Speaker Burroughs on the issue. So I
think at one of his recent press conferences, Patrick was
saying basically he was sort of speaking on behalf of
the rest of the Big Three, saying, you know, we've
met at our breakfast and I think we're all on
the same page, but we have not heard it directly
from from the Governor's mouth how he feels on this. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, and his bully tacked and coercives coercive strategy works
in the Senate every time, but it's having less of
an influence on the people's House. In Texas, they're much
more closely related to the House or to their constituents,
and that's why they are wanting to reflect The polling
numbers would show that sixty two to sixty eight percent
of Texans want to see these products regulated and available
for adult use. So hopefully that prevails this session and
they stick to the people that elected them rather than
this top down, coercive strategy that is being really pushed
on them by the other chamber.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about a little bit more about
this sort of Republican divide on this issue. Sorry, but
before we do that, let's take a quick break and
think our sponsors. The Safer Texas Alliance supports SB three,
advocating for responsible THC policies that protect public health and safety.
Explore it's Safertexas Alliance dot com and the Beer Alliance
of Texas. SB three puts public health over profits by
banning consumable THC HEMP products in the state, and the
Beer Alliance of Texas is proud to support this legislation.
Learn more at Beer Alliance dot com. So you know
this is like, I think that alone speaks to like
this is a divisive issue that's getting a lot of attention.
People are sort of taking sides. It's certainly forming another
thing we talked about a lot on this podcast, which
is that when you are essentially a one party state
for so long, you start to see sort of cracks
in the you know, we can't all agree on everything
all the time, and this is certainly playing out that way.
I mean, even the fact that the very Republican Texas
legislature is debating do we ban or do we regulate
two things that party doesn't tend to love to do,
is notable. I mean, Jasper lay out a little bit
the you know, factions here on this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think it's some of it. It's
not as clear cut factionally as you know, maybe some
other issues, like when you think about vouchers, it's you know,
very much like a rural or been divide among Republicans.
But you know, I do think generally and sure you
have thoughts on this too, just it's you know, thinking
about the Libertarian Party had some representation testifying against SB
three the other week, and you know, just sort of
that side of the party and some of the even
folks I would put in the farther right end of
the spectrum. You mentioned Representative Kine's bill. You know, I
think he's kind of been on this train for a while,
and just you know, the fact that the House has
supported decriminalization in the past just speaks to I think,
just kind of the party's overall evolving attitude on this issue.
I am curious to hear if you have any thoughts
on sort of how it breaks down factionally. But you know,
my sense is that especially folks who are maybe a
little more libertarian minded, that was at least where maybe
these shifting attitudes started. Maybe that was kind of at
the forefront of the GOP's evolution on the issue. But
I mean, it does feel like even folks who are
you know, modern Republicans of all stripes or at least
maybe not willing to like go to the mat on
this issue like they might have been, say twenty years ago.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, there's good reason for somebody of any political
persuasion to support regulation and support freedom on this issue.
This is a matter of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise,
and when we lean into those values that so many
of us hold deer and politicians like to talk about
when we apply them here, it makes sense to move
forward with a safe and legal market for cannabis rather
than continuing to push it into the shadows, which is
certainly not where anything good ever comes from.
Speaker 1: I mean, what is your sense of I mean when
you look at you said, like, the last ten years
of this, have you seen the Republican Party evolve on
this issue? Like, have you have defections formed in different
ways over the last decade?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, there has been a shift that was
pretty steady. In two thousand and In fourteen, they added
hemp into the platform for the Texas GOP. Twenty sixteen
they added medical cannabis into the platform, twenty eighteen, they
added decriminalization into the platform, and each subsequent legislative session
we saw the ball move on each of those issues.
Then the pandemic hit twenty twenty convention cycle was kind
of chaos, especially for the GOP, and sadly since then
we have seen kind of the party's position reverting away
from freedom and liberty and towards more social conservatives wanting
to control what people. Do you know you talked about
Senator Perry and almost seems scolding, like he's talking to
a child. And sadly, the nanny state, something that a
lot of these Republicans talk about not wanting, is coming
through on this. It is not their job to decide
what adults choose to consume. If they want to keep
dangerous products off the shelf, we can do that. We
want to keep it away from kids, we can do that.
But this for me, and this is what's motivated me
for nearly a decade doing this is again that individual liberty,
personal responsibility, and free enterprise.
Speaker 2: I think, you know, kind of what you were getting
at there too makes me think of I think that
sort of runs parallel to the GOP's evolving stances on
just criminal justice issues as a whole. If you think
back to you know, eighties and nineties when Texas was
sort of this you know, law and order, let's you know,
crack down on everything, expand the prison system. Then going
into the two thousands, it was you know, sort of
this this bipartisan coalition where the Republicans, especially in the House,
were all about reforming that that system. You know, it
wasn't a sustainable you know, prison boom situation, and I
think the evolving attitudes on on marijuana and marijuana adjacent
products kind of went hand in hand with that, and
as you were alluding to that, we've sort of seen
a contraction of that where it's the kind of the
social conservative folks and especially you know, Dan Patrick in
the Senate have kind of they've wanted to crack down
on it, and that has also been the faction that
has sort of turned the tide against that expanding criminal
justice attitude. So it's kind of an interesting parallel there well.
Speaker 1: And like the issue that this is currently paired with
in Dan Patrick's mind, at least in terms of a
special session, is like bail reform or you know, which,
as we've discussed in the newsroom, like bail reform expression
that's used by both sides and nobody knows what reform
needs in that situation in the eye of the beholder,
in the eye right reform and the eye of the beholder.
But yeah, I think, like you know, this sort of
things are not always a clean pendulum, right, like things
come and go, and certainly right now this seems to
be as you said, like he there you know a
lot of urgency around this issue, a lot of like
coming out swinging hard. And you know, Lieutenant Governor Dan
Patrick has often pressed these big issues into, you know,
into a special session. Saw this with the bathroom bill,
which you know ultimately did not pass, right. We saw
us with the vouchers, which you know, which was more
Governor Abbott but still with his support, which did not
pass last session. Now here we are it's likely to
be passing this session. So you know, certainly this seems
like the bugaboo of the session.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's fair to say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Heather, are you expecting any movement on any other funds?
I know there's a bill also by Senator Perry on
the compassionate Use program. Where are you expecting to see
movement on that?
Speaker 3: Well, we certainly hope to see the compassionate use program
not only improved, which is what Senator Perry's would the
bill would do, we'd like to see it expanded as well.
Far too few people have access to this program. We've
seen it really looking like it's on the verge of
implosion because of how few people are participating. And certainly
there are some people who are going to the hemp
market and finding products that are comparable and that they like,
but there are other people who would rather go through
their doctor and be able to track their progress and
really identify how this is helping them from a medicinal standpoint,
and so we want them to have access to this.
The biggest key to opening up access would be allowing
pain as a qualifying condition. Right now, patients are really
looking at opioids, which are dangerous and addictive. We know
the harm that those medicines have ravished on our country,
and offering people an alternative to that really would help
to save lives and improve the quality of life for
so many people in Texas.
Speaker 2: And that bill what's on the table of the session.
I mean, so it would double the number of licensed vendors.
I guess that would be facilitating the passionate use program.
What's kind of the cliff notes of what's in that build?
Speaker 3: Sure, So in addition to opening up six licensed businesses
rather than the three that we've been stuck at since
they were first issued in seventeen, it would allow satellite locations.
So currently the licensed business owners have to deliver hand
deliver medication two patients across the state, which, as you
can imagine, it's very expensive. There's no mechanism for them
to have even a storage facility, let alone another storefront
in the different major areas of the state. That's been
a huge reason why the cost of this medicine has
been so high. Of course, we also have to talk
about the half a million dollars to get a license,
three hundred and fifteen thousand dollars to renew every two years,
something the government can control to tighten up bring down
those costs. But having satellite locations is really going to help,
not only those three, but then we're going to have
six and all the different public health districts throughout the
state of Texas, so that should really help. Additionally, there
are some restrictions on the THHC that's allowed, and originally
I thought this was a big concern. We're limiting it
to five milligrams. They can only have three hundred and
fifty milligrams in a package, they can only have ninety
day supply. But after talking to the licensees, there is
no restriction on the milligrams a patient can have total.
It's just the individual unit can only be five milligrams.
So I'm less concerned about those as I was originally
big concern with that six license is that's a cap
at six. Currently we have a mandatory minimum of three
that had to be licensed and they've kept it at
that even though there was no cap on the number
of licenses they could issue. Now this six institute's a
cap and I'm concerned about that. From a big picture standpoint,
free markets is something that I value, and if we're
going to have this industry thrive, it's going to be
through competition. It's going to be through the best of
products and services available on the market.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the hearing, the first hearing about the SB three
the ban got kind of contentious. It was huge turnout
clearing the gallery. A lot of big feelings around this issue.
You were there, talk to us a little bit about
what happened there and like what you're expecting to hear
from people and how people might make their voices heard
the rest of the session.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, you know, this is an eight billion dollar
industry when it was last tallied in twenty twenty two.
I think it's much more than that now, fifty thousand employees.
There are people put their lives on the line to
open a business in Texas to follow the rules that
are on the books and now are risking having that
pulled out from underneath them. And so that's why we
saw such a tremendous turnout at the Texas Senate hearing
for this bill. We saw lots of people testifying, sharing
their personal stories and experience, including consumers. One of the
most explosive testimonials was from a woman named Piper Lin Deen.
She's a mom who her child has seizures. They've tried
the Compassionate Use program products they didn't work. Now they
use hemp products that they trust from another state, actually
somebody's reputable. It's working for her son, and this would
take their access from that medicine away, and so they
are very concerned. And she was very emotional because there
just wasn't very much engagement from the the committee members
and she her mama bear a mode became chalked full force,
and you know, of course the audience responded, and that
was when the House gallery ended up getting cleared by
the chairman. And I I'm sure that's not the first
time that's ever happened, but I've never seen it happen,
and it really showed just how high the tensions are
on this and I think that we can expect to
continue to see that kind of energy coming in hopefully.
Of course, we encourage everyone to try to be as
positive as possible coming into the house. We know that
that's where our shot is because again House members are
listening and just.
Speaker 1: Where there's been I mean, on the other side of this,
right press conferences from people talking about their children saying, oh,
you know, they've they've been harmed by these products. I mean,
what sort of what are we expecting to hear on
that from that side of things?
Speaker 2: I think, I mean, the gist of it that I've
picked up is just sort of anecdotal representations of cases
where you know, parents have experienced you know, teenage kids,
you know, experiencing schizophrenia, or just you know, feeling dependent
on THHC products or just you know, various types of
I guess psychiatric related issues, and it sort of seems
to vary case by case, and I'm not fully advised
on all the you know, the science behind it, so
I'm hesitant to like say, definitively what is actually caused
by these products, But that is sort of the argument
against it. And of course, in addition to that, just
you know, what we're hearing from the legislative leaders that
you know, they feel that these products are, as we've discussed,
just not adequately regulated. And some of those issues arise
when there are products that you know, are maybe not
going through enough testing to ensure that there aren't these
you know, massively high levels of THHC sort of inadvertently
being consumed.
Speaker 1: But unquestion like marketing and targeting, you know, like is
this could someone mistakenly take this right?
Speaker 3: And things like that, Well, nobody wants to undermine these
very real experiences that these families have gone through, especially
if they're young. The young people in their lives had
a predisposition to schizophrenia. Cannabis isn't for everybody, and there
are certain people that should not be using it, and
those may be some of those examples. I think that
we also need to ask about evidence of was it
a bad product, was it a black market product? What
else was in it? Was it the actual cannabinoids that
caused this, or was it one of the residual solvents
or something left over in it? You know, we talk
about poison control calls have gone up in recent years.
I think people are more comfortable calling in because it's
not illegal, but also what were the outcomes of that?
Did people just get really scared because they took too
much and just have to sleep it off, or was
this a real true poisoning where they needed medical intervention.
Same with the emergency room visits, which have increased, still
not to alarming numbers, but they have increased. But what
were the outcomes of those situations? We haven't really been
hearing that from the people who are talking about them,
and in a way that is meant to instill a
sense of fear rather than public information so that we
could all make the right choices for ourselves.
Speaker 1: We can anticipate that all of those arguments are going
to be heard a lot over the next couple months,
as as this issue moves through the chambers and possibly
even into the summer and possibly into the fall and
possibly forever. But unfortunately that we are not going to
get into all of that today. So that is it
for today. You can find all episodes of the Tribcast
on YouTube or wherever you find your podcast. Be sure
to like, subscribe, and share the podcast on all of
your platforms. If you'd like to get in touch with
the team, you can reach us at Tribcast at Texastribune
dot org. Heather, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: We want to thank our sponsors, the Safer Texas Alliance
and the Beer Alliance of Texas. Our producers are Robovula
and Chris Spobada. Our theme music is composed by Rob
and we will see you next week