In 1979, Milton Friedman made a powerful argument on the Phil Donahue show for ending the war on drugs. He is among the many brilliant people that have recognized the failure of the war on drugs, but it does not take a genius to recognize this.
In Texas we have a war on hemp. This may also be called a war on THC, marijuana, or cannabis. I recognize these terms have different meanings but are often used interchangeably. Politicians get to pick the words they use for their wars. It is reasonable to ask why the war is waged.
Perhaps it shows the power of lobbyists for the alcohol industry? They may see declining interest for their product in the post COVID era, and the growing interest in THC products. The political influence of the alcohol industry deserves scrutiny. As Texans increasingly choose alternatives to alcohol, we should ask whether established industries have an interest in restricting competing products.
Dan Patrick tried to outlaw the hemp business in the recent legislative session. Senate Bill 3 would have effectively eliminated Texas’s existing market for intoxicating hemp-derived THC products.
I applaud Greg Abbot for vetoing it. He correctly recognized that government should respect the liberty of adults and the property rights of businesses that relied on Texas law. But I believe Texas should go further: adults should be free to make their own choices, provided they don’t harm others.
However, recently Texas’s Department of State Health Services reinstated its interpretation that delta-8 THC is a Schedule I controlled substance, except for trace amounts naturally produced by the hemp plant. The change followed a May 2026 Texas Supreme Court decision and took effect July 31, 2026. As a result, products containing those cannabinoids can no longer legally be sold, and possession can result in criminal penalties.
It is interesting that Texas originally legalized hemp in 2019, allowed a large hemp-derived cannabinoid market to develop, and then effectively shut down much of that market through regulatory action and litigation rather than through the legislation Dan Patrick was pushing. Government first creating a market through regulation, allowing businesses to invest in that market, and then changing the rules in a way that destroys those investments. That is not a free market. A free market requires predictable rules, respect for property rights, and the freedom to succeed or fail without government picking the winners.
The timing of this change as interest for alcohol has declined is also curious. I personally consume a drug every weekend at breweries that I like to visit—a drug that has caused enormous damage to individuals, families and society. We should have learned that the war on that drug failed, and we have a better policy today that is effective for alcohol.
Oregon is often cited as the toughest argument against ending the war on drugs. In 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 110, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs while directing money toward treatment, recovery, housing, and harm reduction. The state recriminalized possession in 2024 after serious problems emerged. But Oregon’s experience does not establish that decriminalization itself caused those problems. Treatment infrastructure and funding lagged behind the policy, implementation by the state was deeply flawed, and fentanyl was rapidly transforming Oregon’s illicit drug supply at the same time. Research that accounts for fentanyl has found no association between Measure 110 and the rise in fatal overdoses. The better lesson may be that decriminalization cannot succeed by itself: if criminal penalties are removed, a functioning system of treatment, recovery, housing, harm reduction, and public-order enforcement must be ready to take their place. The CATO Institute has covered this in more detail (https://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-shows-decriminalization-did-not-cause-spike-oregons-overdose-deaths-fentanyl-wave).
The governor of Texas alone cannot end the war on drugs. If I am governor I will defend the principle of self-ownership. Self-ownership means accepting responsibility; it does not mean immunity from the consequences of your actions. Government has a legitimate role in defending you, protecting children, and punishing impaired driving and other conduct that puts innocent people at risk. No politician should have the power to tell you what to do with your body.