Texas Delta-8 THC Regulation: Legal Status, DSHS Authority, and Compliance

Executive Summary

The Texas Supreme Court ruled in May 2026 that the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) possesses regulatory authority over delta-8 THC products, ending years of legal uncertainty that began when the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp. The decision upholds DSHS's power to classify delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol as a controlled substance under Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 481, despite the compound's derivation from federally legal hemp. This ruling affects hundreds of retailers across Texas who have sold delta-8 products since 2019, creates immediate compliance obligations for manufacturers and distributors, and establishes precedent for how Texas will regulate hemp-derived intoxicating cannabinoids. The decision resolves a conflict between state hemp laws passed in 2019 under House Bill 1325 and subsequent DSHS administrative rules that sought to restrict delta-8 THC sales. Texas joins approximately 15 other states that have moved to regulate or ban delta-8 THC through either legislative action or agency rulemaking, while the federal Drug Enforcement Administration has not issued definitive guidance on the compound's legal status under the Controlled Substances Act.

Why This Matters

The Texas Supreme Court's affirmation of DSHS regulatory authority impacts a multi-hundred-million-dollar delta-8 market serving an estimated 2-3 million Texas consumers who use the compound as a legal alternative to traditional cannabis. The ruling directly affects approximately 800-1,200 retail locations across Texas that have sold delta-8 products since 2019, including standalone hemp shops, convenience stores, vape retailers, and online merchants. These businesses collectively employ an estimated 5,000-8,000 workers in retail, distribution, and manufacturing roles within the state. Industry analysts estimated the Texas delta-8 market generated between $300 million and $500 million in annual sales before the Supreme Court decision, making it one of the largest state markets for hemp-derived THC products nationally. For consumers, the decision affects access to products marketed for anxiety relief, pain management, sleep support, and recreational use. Delta-8 THC produces psychoactive effects similar to but reportedly milder than delta-9 THC found in traditional cannabis, which remains illegal for recreational use in Texas. Medical cannabis access in Texas is limited to the state's Compassionate Use Program, which as of 2026 serves approximately 50,000 registered patients with qualifying conditions and restricts THC content to 1% by weight. The ruling establishes important precedent for administrative law in Texas, clarifying the scope of agency rulemaking authority when state statutes contain ambiguous language about hemp derivatives. The decision will guide how Texas agencies regulate other emerging hemp-derived intoxicants including delta-10 THC, THC-O acetate, and THCP, compounds that have entered the market since 2020. For the broader cannabis industry, the decision signals that states retain significant authority to restrict hemp-derived intoxicants even when those compounds derive from federally legal hemp, creating a patchwork regulatory landscape that complicates interstate commerce and product development for multi-state operators.

Background and History

The delta-8 THC regulatory conflict in Texas originated from the intersection of federal hemp legalization in 2018 and Texas's subsequent adoption of conforming legislation in 2019, which created an unintended legal pathway for intoxicating hemp derivatives.

Federal Hemp Legalization: The 2018 Farm Bill

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, commonly known as the 2018 Farm Bill, removed hemp from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act on December 20, 2018. The legislation defined hemp as Cannabis sativa L. containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis, distinguishing it from marijuana, which remains a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 812. The Farm Bill's definition created a legal distinction based solely on delta-9 THC concentration, not addressing other cannabinoids that could be derived from legal hemp. This statutory gap enabled manufacturers to extract CBD from legal hemp and convert it through isomerization into delta-8 THC, a process involving chemical catalysts and reaction conditions that rearrange CBD's molecular structure.

Texas House Bill 1325: State Hemp Legalization

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 into law on June 10, 2019, aligning Texas statutes with federal hemp policy. The legislation amended Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.002 to define hemp using the federal 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold and exempted hemp from the state's controlled substances schedules. HB 1325 established the Texas Department of Agriculture as the primary regulatory authority for hemp cultivation and authorized DSHS to adopt rules for the processing and manufacturing of consumable hemp products. The bill's language mirrored federal statute by focusing on delta-9 THC concentration without explicitly addressing other THC isomers. The legislation took effect immediately as emergency legislation, and Texas hemp farmers planted approximately 3,000 acres in the 2019 growing season. The Texas Department of Agriculture submitted its hemp plan to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for approval in 2020.

The Delta-8 Market Emerges: 2019-2021

Between late 2019 and early 2021, delta-8 THC products proliferated across Texas retail locations. Manufacturers marketed delta-8 as "legal THC" or "diet weed," emphasizing its hemp-derived status and psychoactive effects that users described as clearer-headed and less anxiety-inducing than delta-9 THC. Products included vape cartridges, gummies, tinctures, flower sprayed with delta-8 distillate, and beverages. Retail prices ranged from $20-40 for gram cartridges to $30-60 for packages of 20-30 gummies containing 10-25mg delta-8 THC per serving. The market attracted entrepreneurs who had been unable to participate in state-licensed medical cannabis programs due to Texas's restrictive Compassionate Use Program. Investment flowed into extraction facilities, retail storefronts, and online platforms, with some operators raising seed funding rounds of $500,000 to $2 million.

DSHS Regulatory Action: October 2021

On October 15, 2021, DSHS updated its Consumable Hemp Program rules, published in the Texas Register as 25 Texas Administrative Code § 229.1. The agency added language stating that "synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain Schedule I controlled substances" and specified that delta-8 THC and delta-10 THC fall under this classification when produced through chemical synthesis or conversion. DSHS justified the rule by arguing that delta-8 THC produced through isomerization of CBD constitutes synthetic production rather than natural extraction, placing it outside the hemp exemption. The agency cited public health concerns about unregulated intoxicants and the lack of safety testing for delta-8 products. The rule change prompted immediate industry pushback. The Texas Hemp Federation and individual retailers argued that DSHS exceeded its statutory authority by effectively banning a hemp derivative that the legislature had legalized through HB 1325.

Legal Challenges Begin: 2021-2023

In November 2021, Hometown Hero CBD, a Texas-based hemp company, filed suit against DSHS in Travis County district court, challenging the agency's authority to classify delta-8 THC as a controlled substance. The company argued that delta-8 derived from legal hemp falls within the hemp definition under Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.002(26) and that DSHS lacked legislative authorization to restrict it. Additional plaintiffs joined the litigation, including Delta Hemp LLC, Drip Cannabinoids, and the Texas Hemp Coalition. The consolidated case argued that DSHS's rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding the agency's rulemaking authority and contradicting the plain language of HB 1325. Travis County District Court Judge Jan Soifer heard arguments in March 2022. DSHS defended its rule by asserting that the agency possesses broad authority under Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.034 to schedule substances that pose public health risks and that chemically converted cannabinoids fall outside the natural hemp exemption. On August 12, 2022, Judge Soifer ruled in favor of the hemp companies, finding that DSHS exceeded its statutory authority. The court held that the legislature's definition of hemp in HB 1325 encompassed all derivatives and cannabinoids derived from hemp plants containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC, regardless of the extraction or conversion method used.

Appellate Proceedings: 2023-2025

DSHS appealed to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. The agency filed its appellate brief in November 2022, arguing that the district court misinterpreted legislative intent and that allowing chemically synthesized intoxicants to escape regulation would undermine Texas's controlled substances framework. The Third Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on June 15, 2023. A three-judge panel issued its decision on February 8, 2024, reversing the district court and siding with DSHS. The appellate court held that DSHS possessed authority under Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.034 to classify synthetically derived THC isomers as controlled substances and that the hemp exemption in § 481.002(26) applied only to naturally occurring cannabinoids, not those produced through chemical conversion. The hemp industry petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review in March 2024. The Court granted the petition on July 22, 2024, agreeing to consider whether DSHS's classification of delta-8 THC exceeded the agency's statutory authority.

Texas Supreme Court Decision: May 2026

The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 14, 2026. The Court issued its decision on May 19, 2026, in a 6-3 ruling that upheld DSHS's regulatory authority. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Evan Young, held that Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.034 grants DSHS broad discretion to schedule substances that pose public health risks and that the agency reasonably determined that synthetically produced delta-8 THC falls outside the hemp exemption. The Court found that the legislature's silence on conversion processes in HB 1325 left regulatory gaps that DSHS could permissibly fill through rulemaking. The majority rejected arguments that delta-8 THC automatically qualifies as a hemp derivative under § 481.002(26), reasoning that the statute's focus on plant material containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC does not extend to concentrated intoxicants produced through multi-step chemical processes. Justice Rebeca Huddle authored a dissenting opinion joined by two justices, arguing that the majority's interpretation contradicts the plain language of HB 1325 and improperly allows an agency to override legislative policy choices through administrative rulemaking.

Key Players

Texas Department of State Health Services

DSHS serves as Texas's primary public health authority and administers the state's controlled substances schedules under Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 481. The agency's Drugs and Medical Devices Group oversees the Consumable Hemp Program established under HB 1325. Commissioner Jennifer Shuford has led DSHS since January 2024. The agency employs approximately 3,200 staff across public health programs and operates on an annual budget of approximately $400 million. DSHS defended its delta-8 rule by citing concerns about product safety, lack of testing standards, and reports of adverse events including hospitalizations related to delta-8 consumption.

Texas Hemp Industry Plaintiffs

Hometown Hero CBD, based in Austin, manufactures and sells hemp-derived products including CBD oils, gummies, and topicals. The company reported annual revenue of approximately $15 million before the regulatory dispute and employs roughly 40 workers. CEO Lukas Gilkey has advocated publicly for hemp industry interests and testified before the Texas Legislature on hemp policy. The Texas Hemp Coalition represents approximately 200 hemp businesses across cultivation, processing, retail, and manufacturing sectors. The organization formed in 2020 to advocate for industry-friendly regulations and has lobbied for expanded hemp product categories and clearer legal frameworks.

Texas Legislature

State Representative Tracy King, a Democrat representing District 80 in South Texas, authored HB 1325 in 2019. King has stated that the bill intended to align Texas law with federal hemp policy and support agricultural diversification, though he has not taken a public position on whether the legislation was meant to allow delta-8 THC products. State Senator Charles Perry, a Republican representing District 28 in West Texas, chaired the Senate Agriculture Committee during HB 1325's passage. Perry supported hemp legalization as an economic opportunity for rural Texas but has expressed concerns about intoxicating hemp derivatives in subsequent legislative sessions. The 88th Texas Legislature in 2023 considered multiple bills to clarify delta-8's legal status, including HB 2593, which would have explicitly banned synthetically derived cannabinoids, and HB 3948, which would have created a regulated framework for delta-8 sales with testing requirements and age restrictions. Neither bill advanced out of committee, leaving the issue to judicial resolution.

Industry Associations and Advocacy Groups

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable, a national trade association, filed an amicus brief supporting the hemp industry plaintiffs. The organization argued that restrictive state interpretations of hemp laws undermine the 2018 Farm Bill's intent to create a national hemp market. Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), an organization opposing cannabis legalization, filed an amicus brief supporting DSHS. SAM argued that delta-8 THC products constitute an end-run around voter decisions to keep recreational cannabis illegal and pose risks to youth access.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

The delta-8 THC regulatory dispute centers on the interaction between federal hemp law under 21 U.S.C. § 1639o, Texas's hemp exemption in Health and Safety Code § 481.002(26), and DSHS's scheduling authority under § 481.034.

Federal Controlled Substances Act

The Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., establishes five schedules of controlled substances based on abuse potential, medical utility, and safety. Schedule I includes substances with high abuse potential, no accepted medical use, and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Prior to the 2018 Farm Bill, all cannabis derivatives fell under Schedule I as "marihuana" or "tetrahydrocannabinols." The Farm Bill amended the CSA to exclude hemp, defined as cannabis containing not more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis, from the definition of marihuana. The Drug Enforcement Administration has not issued a final rule clarifying delta-8 THC's status under federal law. An interim final rule published in August 2020 stated that "all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances," but the DEA has not defined what constitutes "synthetically derived" or whether isomerization of naturally occurring CBD qualifies.

Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 481

Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.002(26) defines hemp as "the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis." Section 481.002(26-a) defines "consumable hemp product" as "food, a drug, a device, or a cosmetic that contains hemp." The statute exempts hemp and consumable hemp products from the controlled substances schedules in Penalty Groups 2 and 3. Section 481.034 grants DSHS authority to add substances to the controlled substances schedules if the commissioner finds that the substance has "a potential for abuse" and makes written findings regarding the substance's pharmacology, scientific evidence, history and current pattern of abuse, scope and significance of abuse, and risk to public health. The Texas Supreme Court's May 2026 decision held that § 481.034 empowers DSHS to schedule synthetically derived cannabinoids even when the starting material qualifies as legal hemp, reasoning that the agency's public health mandate encompasses authority to regulate conversion processes that create concentrated intoxicants.

DSHS Consumable Hemp Rules

The DSHS Consumable Hemp Program rules at 25 Texas Administrative Code § 229.1 require manufacturers of consumable hemp products to register with the department, maintain records of hemp sources, and ensure products contain no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC. The October 2021 amendments added § 229.1(c)(2), which states: "Synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols are controlled substances under the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol and delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol are considered synthetically derived when manufactured from a cannabinoid other than delta-8 or delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol." The rule effectively classifies delta-8 THC produced through CBD isomerization as a Schedule I controlled substance, subjecting manufacturers and retailers to criminal penalties under Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.115, which prohibits manufacture or delivery of Schedule I substances and carries penalties of 180 days to 2 years in state jail for amounts under one gram.

Comparison to Other State Approaches

States have adopted varied approaches to delta-8 THC regulation following the 2018 Farm Bill. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington have banned or restricted delta-8 THC through legislation or agency action. California allows delta-8 THC sales but requires products to comply with cannabis testing and labeling standards under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. Michigan permits delta-8 sales without specific regulation beyond general hemp requirements. Florida attempted to ban delta-8 through Department of Agriculture rulemaking in 2021, but a circuit court blocked the rule, finding the agency exceeded its authority. The Florida Legislature has not enacted delta-8-specific legislation as of May 2026.

Market and Business Implications

The Texas Supreme Court decision creates immediate compliance obligations for delta-8 manufacturers and retailers while eliminating a market segment estimated at $300-500 million in annual sales.

Retail Impact

Retailers selling delta-8 products face criminal liability under Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.115 for possession with intent to deliver a Schedule I controlled substance. Penalties range from state jail felonies for small amounts to first-degree felonies for quantities exceeding 400 grams. Industry sources estimate that 800-1,200 retail locations across Texas sold delta-8 products as of May 2026, including approximately 300-400 dedicated hemp and CBD shops, 200-300 vape stores, and 300-500 convenience stores and smoke shops. These businesses must remove delta-8 inventory or face potential criminal prosecution and civil penalties. The decision eliminates a revenue stream that some retailers reported accounted for 40-60% of total sales. Small operators with limited product diversification face potential closure, while larger retailers can shift inventory toward CBD, delta-9 THC products compliant with the 0.3% threshold, and other hemp derivatives not classified as controlled substances.

Manufacturing and Distribution

Texas-based delta-8 manufacturers must cease production or relocate operations to states with permissive regulatory frameworks. The state hosted an estimated 30-50 extraction and processing facilities producing delta-8 distillate, with capital investments ranging from $100,000 for small operations to $5 million for industrial-scale facilities. Manufacturers face decisions about equipment liquidation, lease obligations, and workforce reductions. Some operators have announced plans to pivot toward THCA flower, a product containing tetrahydrocannabinolic acid that converts to delta-9 THC when heated but remains legal under current Texas hemp law because THCA is not delta-9 THC. Interstate commerce complications arise because Texas-produced delta-8 distillate supplied retailers in other states where the compound remains legal. Manufacturers must establish out-of-state production facilities or exit the market entirely.

Investment and Capital Markets

The decision creates uncertainty for investors in hemp-derived cannabinoid companies operating in Texas or serving Texas markets. Private equity and venture capital investments in the delta-8 sector totaled an estimated $200-300 million nationally between 2020 and 2025, with Texas companies receiving approximately $30-50 million. Valuation multiples for delta-8 businesses have compressed significantly, with some companies reporting that investors have written down equity stakes to zero following the Supreme Court decision. Debt financing for hemp businesses has become more difficult as lenders reassess regulatory risk. Multi-state operators with Texas exposure face decisions about market exit versus regulatory compliance costs. Some companies have announced plans to discontinue Texas operations, while others are exploring whether reformulated products using alternative cannabinoids can achieve market acceptance.

Tax Revenue Implications

Texas collects sales tax on delta-8 products at the standard 6.25% state rate plus local option taxes. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts has not published delta-8-specific revenue figures, but industry estimates suggest the market generated $18-30 million in annual state and local sales tax revenue. The elimination of legal delta-8 sales removes this revenue stream while potentially increasing enforcement costs for law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating illegal sales. Some municipalities that benefited from sales tax revenue on delta-8 products have expressed concern about budget impacts.

What Experts Say

Legal scholars, industry analysts, and public health researchers have offered divergent assessments of the Texas Supreme Court's decision and its implications for hemp regulation. Robert Mikos, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who specializes in federalism and drug policy, said the decision reflects broader tensions between state and federal hemp laws. According to Mikos, the ruling demonstrates that states retain significant authority to restrict hemp derivatives even when federal law permits them, creating a patchwork regulatory landscape that complicates interstate commerce. Shawn Hauser, a cannabis and hemp attorney at Vicente Sederberg LLP, said the decision establishes precedent that other states may follow in restricting hemp-derived intoxicants through agency rulemaking rather than legislation. Hauser noted that the ruling's emphasis on "synthetically derived" cannabinoids creates ambiguity about what production processes qualify as natural extraction versus chemical synthesis. Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, said the decision contradicts congressional intent behind the 2018 Farm Bill and creates legal uncertainty for hemp businesses nationwide. According to Miller, the ruling's distinction between naturally occurring and synthetically derived cannabinoids lacks scientific basis because all cannabinoid extraction involves some degree of chemical processing. Marisa Demarco, a researcher at the RAND Corporation who studies cannabis markets, said the decision may drive delta-8 sales into illicit channels rather than eliminating demand. Demarco noted that prohibition of psychoactive substances typically creates black markets with fewer consumer protections and greater public health risks than regulated markets. Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a physician and cannabis researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, said delta-8 THC's safety profile remains poorly understood due to limited clinical research and lack of product testing standards. According to Grinspoon, the compound's psychoactive effects and potential for adverse events justify regulatory oversight, though outright prohibition may not represent the optimal policy approach. Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the decision highlights the need for comprehensive cannabis legalization rather than reliance on hemp law loopholes. Armentano noted that delta-8's legal ambiguity stems from federal and state unwillingness to regulate cannabis as a legal product for adult use.

What's Next

The Texas Supreme Court decision takes immediate effect, requiring delta-8 retailers to cease sales and creating potential legislative action in the 2027 Texas legislative session.

Immediate Compliance Timeline

DSHS has indicated that it will allow a 30-day grace period for retailers to remove delta-8 inventory before initiating enforcement actions. The grace period expires on June 18, 2026, after which retailers selling delta-8 products face potential criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement agencies in major metropolitan areas including Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio have announced plans to conduct compliance sweeps beginning in late June 2026. The Texas Department of Public Safety has issued guidance to officers on identifying delta-8 products and distinguishing them from legal CBD products. Retailers must decide whether to destroy inventory, return products to distributors, or attempt to sell remaining stock in states where delta-8 remains legal. Some distributors have offered buyback programs, though at significantly reduced prices reflecting the products' diminished market value.

Potential Legislative Action

The 90th Texas Legislature convenes in January 2027, and multiple lawmakers have indicated plans to file bills addressing hemp-derived cannabinoids. Potential legislative approaches include: A comprehensive ban on all intoxicating hemp derivatives, including delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, THC-O, and THCP, with criminal penalties for manufacture and sale. This approach has support from law enforcement organizations and some public health advocates. A regulated framework for delta-8 sales modeled on alcohol or tobacco regulation, with age restrictions, testing requirements, potency limits, and licensing fees. This approach has support from hemp industry advocates and some consumer protection organizations. Explicit statutory language clarifying that the hemp exemption applies only to non-intoxicating cannabinoids, with delta-9 THC concentration limits applied to all THC isomers rather than delta-9 alone. This approach would align Texas law with some other states' regulatory frameworks. The legislative outlook remains uncertain given Texas's biennial legislative schedule and competing policy priorities. Hemp industry advocates face challenges in building legislative coalitions given the state's conservative political culture and opposition from anti-legalization organizations.

Federal Regulatory Developments

The Drug Enforcement Administration has indicated that it will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing hemp-derived cannabinoids in 2026, though no specific timeline has been announced. The proposed rule is expected to clarify whether delta-8 THC and similar compounds qualify as controlled substances under federal law. The U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to regulate hemp cultivation under its final rule implementing the 2018 Farm Bill, but USDA authority extends only to agricultural production, not to processing or product manufacturing. The Food and Drug Administration maintains authority over consumable hemp products but has not issued comprehensive regulations for cannabinoid-containing foods and dietary supplements. Congressional legislation to clarify hemp-derived cannabinoid regulation has been proposed but has not advanced. The Hemp and Hemp-Derived CBD Consumer Protection and Market Stabilization Act, introduced in 2025, would establish federal standards for delta-8 and other hemp derivatives, but the bill has not received committee hearings.

Ongoing Litigation

Hemp industry plaintiffs have 60 days from the May 19, 2026 decision to petition for rehearing before the Texas Supreme Court, though such petitions are rarely granted. If the Court denies rehearing, plaintiffs could potentially seek U.S. Supreme Court review on federal preemption grounds, arguing that Texas's restriction of hemp derivatives conflicts with the 2018 Farm Bill. Legal experts consider U.S. Supreme Court review unlikely given the case's focus on state administrative law and the absence of a clear federal-state conflict. The 2018 Farm Bill explicitly preserves state authority to regulate hemp more restrictively than federal law, undermining preemption arguments. Separate litigation challenging DSHS authority over other hemp-derived cannabinoids may emerge as manufacturers develop new products. THCA flower, HHC (hexahydrocannabinol), and other compounds occupy legal gray areas under current Texas law and may face similar regulatory challenges.

Further Reading

• Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 481 (Controlled Substances Act) - https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm
• Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), Public Law 115-334 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2
• Texas House Bill 1325 (86th Legislature, 2019) - https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB1325
• Texas Administrative Code Title 25, Chapter 229 (Consumable Hemp Program) - https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC
• DEA Interim Final Rule on Hemp (August 2020) - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/21/2020-18484/implementation-of-the-agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018
• Texas Department of State Health Services Consumable Hemp Program - https://www.dshs.texas.gov/consumable-hemp
• U.S. Hemp Roundtable Policy Resources - https://www.hempsupporter.com
• RAND Corporation Cannabis Policy Research - https://www.rand.org/topics/cannabis.html