As Texas Prepares to Regulate Hemp THC, Scientists Urge Nuance Amid Political Alarm

As Texas prepares for a special legislative session, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s vocal campaign against hemp-derived THC products has placed the issue in the political spotlight. For months, Patrick has portrayed THC as an unregulated threat driving addiction and mental health crises among youth. While researchers acknowledge that high-potency cannabis poses real risks, especially for teens and those with mental health conditions, many experts caution that Patrick’s alarmist rhetoric oversimplifies a complex public health issue.

“This isn’t black and white, it’s many shades of gray,” said Dr. Deepak Cyril D’Souza, director of Yale’s Center for the Science of Cannabis and Cannabinoids. With over three decades of research behind him, D’Souza emphasizes the need for balanced messaging: “The risks are real, and increasing. But we also need regulatory structure, not fear,” as reported by The Texas Tribune.

While Texas law already mandates labeling of THC concentrations, ingredients, and manufacturer contact details for consumable hemp products, experts say regulatory gaps remain, particularly around semi-synthetic cannabinoids like delta-8 and delta-10, which are widely available but poorly studied. Dr. Ziva Cooper of UCLA notes that some of these compounds haven’t even been tested in animals, highlighting the need for stronger oversight. 

Patrick has made protecting youth a central theme of his campaign against THC, and experts agree that adolescents face heightened risks, from memory issues to a greater likelihood of developing cannabis use disorder. However, Patrick’s rhetoric has drawn criticism for being alarmist, especially when citing tragic cases like the suicide of a 22-year-old after consuming a THC-infused product. While studies do link high-potency THC to increased chances of temporary psychotic episodes, such cases are rare and tend to affect individuals with underlying mental health vulnerabilities. Researchers like Dr. Deepak D’Souza caution against sweeping conclusions, noting that evidence on long-term cognitive harm remains mixed. As lawmakers head into the special session, they face the challenge of balancing real health concerns with measured policy, not panic.

“Science doesn’t support blanket statements,” said Katharine Neill Harris, a drug policy expert at Rice University. “But it does support tighter oversight, especially when it comes to youth and synthetic compounds.”