This is a bit like saying: in order to prevent minors from getting their hands on Everlear or 151, we must ban all alcohol in all forms.
> Though that 2019 law does not allow products to contain more than trace amounts of delta-9 THC, it did not establish that same threshold for other hemp derivatives. Critics say the hemp industry exploited that loophole to usher in more than 8,000 retailers selling THC-laced edibles, drinks, vapes and flower buds across Texas.
And here lies the real problem I see, when state governments start banning recreational cannabis and instead have "hemp loopholes", you end up with a much sketchier product for consumers. In Colorado I can go to the dispensary and buy "pure pot" that is just flower that was grown, dried and packaged with no other modification. With these hemp derivatives like Delta 8/9/etc, they distill down the various parts into a chemical form and then spray that shit on hemp flower or add it to other products.
Now the question I ask is: how was it distilled? what chemicals were used in the process? are those chemicals safe? and a million other related questions. With regular pot there's none of that.
And the last thing I'll say on this is it seems that pot has unfortunately gotten tangled up in the culture war here in the US. Lots of folks I see now that oppose cannabis legalization don't really have a specific reason to oppose it, they just do because "pot" is now a proxy for "woke" and "liberal" and they have to own the libs.
You absolutely should be asking those questions about “regular pot” as well. AIUI concentrates are among the bestselling and most profitable products in legal states, and they use uncertain chemicals of questionable provenance even if the delta-9 THC is 100% natty. But even if you’re just buying flower you could reasonably be concerned about pesticides or mold [1].
I think there are some quite good reasons to oppose cannabis legalization (for example, it’s made the super-high-potency concentrates which are associated with bad outcomes much more widely available) and it’s possible your own culture war or other biases are getting in your way here. But there are also lots of good arguments in favor of course.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/marijuana-mold-contami...
What about fertilizers? Chemicals sprayed on the flower? Mold or other contaminants? Mystery THC derivatives are bad, but so is cheaply grown weed.
Why aren't we worried about contaminants in liquor and beer? How can that be applied to THC products?
Who determines what is acceptable for that and who does the testing and how? Like, can they spray with neem oil to counter pests and it’s still organic “pure pot” but you would be smoking traces of neem oil? I find the concept of “pure pot” somewhat dubious. Isn’t hash more pure?
It's miracle that Dan Patrick is not in jail and wasn't impeached from his job last year. Tough on crime Republicans in Texas Senate acquitted him of 16 impeachment charges around bribery and corruption.
It's only a matter of time before more states realize how much money they're leaving on the table without legalization.
It's ridiculous. There's no enforcement on all the analogs that work maybe 50% as well as the actual thing. The state has to be happy and looking the other way on all the tax revenue now being brought in by these corner smoke shops.
Molitor5901•2h ago
Full legalization is coming, one way or another, and states opposing it are only hurting themselves.
SketchySeaBeast•2h ago
rco8786•2h ago
> the "narrowly focused, dogmatic" politicians run the two chambers?
Yes. This is VERY Texas. The state government is 100% conservative republican.
"Texas is a majority Republican state with Republicans controlling every statewide office.[1] Texas Republicans have majorities in the State House and Senate, an entirely Republican Texas Supreme Court, control of both Senate seats in the US Congress."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Texas#:~:text=Texa...
SketchySeaBeast•2h ago
beedeebeedee•2h ago
StefanBatory•2h ago
sjsdaiuasgdia•1h ago
dingnuts•2h ago
but yes, to answer your question
sjsdaiuasgdia•2h ago
There's some inertia. For a long time, being against cannabis legalization went hand in hand with being "tough on crime". A politician coming out in support of it ran a high chance of being called "soft on crime" by their opponents. There can also be a racial edge due to people who primarily see crime and cannabis as minority-driven problems.
throw0101c•2h ago
The legislature has a 'mandate' from the people because it was elected. The governor has a 'mandate' from the people because he was elected.
Does one have more of a mandate than the other, or are they equal? What happens when they have different policies?
This is one of the weakness of presidential systems:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#Efficienci...
runako•2h ago
I used to think this, and it may be true in the very long run. However, the country is clearly in the midst of a long pivot backwards. The current backsliding has been going on for the better part of a decade, and there are no indications that it is near its end.
I guess we'll see.
thinkingtoilet•2h ago
sjsdaiuasgdia•2h ago
In the last couple years, I've had several work conversations where someone off hand mentioned the edibles they took for a concert the previous weekend, or the weed vape they took camping, or some other personal life story involving weed. Not in a hushed private conversation, it's in the small talk before a meeting kicks off. It's become very normalized. Even 5 years ago I would be shocked at someone casually discussing their weed usage with coworkers.
And the tax money. Oh boy the tax money.
thinkingtoilet•27m ago
alephnerd•2h ago
And every municipality loves the tax implications - a side effect of the lackadaisical recovery of local budgets from Covid.
runako•1h ago
are not a homogeneous group. Part of the backsliding is that the subset that is socially liberal is losing power, being replaced by those who seek to promote yet more restrictions on individual liberties. There's rich guys on both sides of this.
thinkingtoilet•18m ago
dylan604•2h ago
There's a chasm between legalize and banning. Banning would prevent the compassionate use that has already been allowed. This banning is a knee-jerk reaction to those that have found the loop hole carved out in the compassionate use limits still allow for enough THC that recreational use can still be achieved. Rather than restricting the loop hole to still require prescription, they instead want to ban out right
abirch•2h ago