Is that only on the hemp side or is D8 aloud medically? I think my state is allowing it with a licence only.
Texas medical is a joke
Hmm HHC CBN ??? BUELLER
I’ve been following this and it seems like TX Hemp growers are doubling down on their fear-mongering.
From the instagram post - "Here’s the full quote, from Oct. 11, 2021: "Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 443 (HSC 443), established by HB 1325 (86th Legislature), allows Consumable Hemp Products in Texas that do not exceed 0.3% Delta-9 THC. Per HSC 481.032 all other forms of THC, including Delta-8 in any concentration and Delta-9 exceeding 0.3%, are considered Schedule I controlled substances. Sale and possession of these products currently constitutes a criminal offense in Texas. Complaints should be referred to local law enforcement agencies or, if those agencies do not wish to pursue, to DPS. DSHS has no regulatory authority over hemp products other than those that meet the definition of “Consumable Hemp Products” in HSC 443.001(1).”
HSC 443.002 (5) - “Controlled substance” means a substance, including a drug, an adulterant, and a dilutant, listed in Schedules I through V or Penalty Group 1, 1-A, 1-B, 2, 2-A, 3, or 4. The term includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or other substance containing a controlled substance. The term does not include hemp, as defined by Section 121.001, Agriculture Code, or the tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.
If anyone can provide further clarification, that would be appreciated. Why does this quote completely ignore 443.002 (5)? I’m confused as to why TX Hemp Growers have their logo on this “official statement” and if they have any source from the DSHS for the statements supposedly made to the Houston Business journal on Oct. 11.
I agree there are politics at play
I hope puriso handles it well
DHS has no power imo to claim criminal anything
The weird stamp is idk
I think they’re capable.
Interesting timing, with their new subsidiary name reveal just a week ago…
TX Hemp Growers are claiming the DSHS have control over the TX CSL. I cannot find the comment anymore, probably since deleted.
EDIT: Definitely looks like a smear campaign now.
…and this is why I’m so confused… I’ve had to back away from some major deals over the handling of hemp in TX.
Maybe @MillerliteRN can help us out… Make the CBD, and ship the disty to a legal state to process further?
He’s definitely closer to producing in Texas than most. Hope to see him today if he’s not too busy
Sec. 481.034. ESTABLISHMENT AND MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULES BY COMMISSIONER. (a) The commissioner shall annually establish the schedules of controlled substances. These annual schedules shall include the complete list of all controlled substances from the previous schedules and modifications in the federal schedules of controlled substances as required by Subsection (g). Any further additions to and deletions from these schedules, any rescheduling of substances and any other modifications made by the commissioner to these schedules of controlled substances shall be made:
(1) in accordance with Section 481.035;
(2) in a manner consistent with this subchapter; and
(3) with approval of the executive commissioner.
(b) Except for alterations in schedules required by Subsection (g), the commissioner may not make an alteration in a schedule unless the commissioner holds a public hearing on the matter in Austin and obtains approval from the executive commissioner.
(c) The commissioner may not:
(1) add a substance to the schedules if the substance has been deleted from the schedules by the legislature;
(2) delete a substance from the schedules if the substance has been added to the schedules by the legislature; or
(3) reschedule a substance if the substance has been placed in a schedule by the legislature.
(d) In making a determination regarding a substance, the commissioner shall consider:
(1) the actual or relative potential for its abuse;
(2) the scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;
(3) the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the substance;
(4) the history and current pattern of its abuse;
(5) the scope, duration, and significance of its abuse;
(6) the risk to the public health;
(7) the potential of the substance to produce psychological or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) whether the substance is a controlled substance analogue, chemical precursor, or an immediate precursor of a substance controlled under this chapter.
(e) After considering the factors listed in Subsection (d), the commissioner shall make findings with respect to those factors. If the commissioner finds the substance has a potential for abuse, the executive commissioner shall adopt a rule controlling the substance.
(f) Repealed by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1099, Sec. 17.
(g) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, if a substance is designated, rescheduled, or deleted as a controlled substance under federal law and notice of that fact is given to the commissioner, the commissioner similarly shall control the substance under this chapter. After the expiration of a 30-day period beginning on the day after the date of publication in the Federal Register of a final order designating a substance as a controlled substance or rescheduling or deleting a substance, the commissioner similarly shall designate, reschedule, or delete the substance, unless the commissioner objects during the period. If the commissioner objects, the commissioner shall publish the reasons for the objection and give all interested parties an opportunity to be heard. At the conclusion of the hearing, the commissioner shall publish a decision, which is final unless altered by statute. On publication of an objection by the commissioner, control as to that particular substance under this chapter is stayed until the commissioner publishes the commissioner’s decision.
(h) Not later than the 10th day after the date on which the commissioner designates, deletes, or reschedules a substance under Subsection (a), the commissioner shall give written notice of that action to the director and to each state licensing agency having jurisdiction over practitioners.
Looks a lot like the health and safety commissioner can ban whatever. Legislature can ban/unban, but as of now they haven’t done anything to protect it it would seem
Does TX have medical? I must have missed that…
0.5% THC limit
OMG so then hemp buds are still illegal according to that then… damnit TX
Very little diagnosis approve for 0.5%thc
They’re cbd players waiting for pharma to take over Texas and to expand their licenses, probably one of the most obvious big money plays ever in cannabis. Bleeding out for years
Seems now that txhempgrowers have actively reported Pur Isolabs to the TX DPS as well as the “proper authorities”, seemingly in retaliation for Pur Iso Labs accusing them of spreading misinformation.
The DSHS has yet to provide the clarification requested by txhempgrowers. — “We have been in contact with DSHS and have requested that they add their statement to the hemp licensee page, so that naysayers who are in denial might be placated.”
Any luck tracking down the official statement? Very curious about it too.
Nope. From what I understand, they are stating themselves as the source of the quote at this moment. In addition to the hemp licensee page request, they also claim in IG comments that the Houston Biz Journal are in the process of writing a piece on the quote from the DSHS.
They say it could take a few days for the Journal to finish the article. So now their hopes of supporting their claims rely on direct clarification from the DSHS, or indirect clarification through the Houston Biz Journal.
I’ll shoot an email to the DSHS commissioner and see what they say
Texas Hemp Convention should be interesting next month.