Another Benefit of Legalizing Hemp: It Makes the War on Weed Harder to Wage
Without expensive tests that measure THC content, Texas prosecutors can't prove that green stuff is marijuana.

Last month Texas legalized hemp, defined as cannabis that contains 0.3 percent or less THC by weight. That change has created challenges for prosecutors in marijuana cases, since the equipment needed to precisely measure THC content is in short supply. The upshot is frustrating to drug warriors but a nice surprise for opponents of pot prohibition.
On July 2, Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, whose jurisdiction includes Houston, the state's biggest city, announced that her office would no longer accept possession cases involving misdemeanor quantities of marijuana (four ounces or less) "without a lab test result proving that the evidence seized has a THC concentration of over .3%." She added that "felony marijuana charges will be evaluated on a case by case basis by our Office" and "in the proper instances, such charges may be taken while lab test results are pending."
The next day, Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore, whose jurisdiction includes Austin, the state capital, said her office was dismissing 32 felony marijuana cases because of the wrinkle created by hemp legalization. "If we can't prove our case, we need to dismiss," explained Moore, who estimated that the necessary laboratory equipment would cost $185,000 and would not be up and running for eight to 12 months.
Peter Stout, president of the Houston Forensic Science Center, which does testing for law enforcement agencies, told The New York Times he was able to locate just two American laboratories, both privately run, that currently have the capability to distinguish between hemp and marijuana. "Prosecutors would need to pay the labs to run the tests—sometimes hundreds of dollars for each sample—and to testify about the results at trial," the Times reports. "Sending all of the state's suspected marijuana to a small number of labs would likely overwhelm them, prosecutors have said, and would result in severe backlogs."
While critics of the war on weed should welcome this side effect of hemp legalization, Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, and Attorney General Ken Paxton are not pleased. "Some of you have recently dismissed marijuana possession cases or announced you will not prosecute misdemeanor marijuana possession cases without a lab test," they wrote in a letter to Texas prosecutors last Thursday. "Marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas, and these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how H.B. 1325 [the hemp bill] works. First, a person claiming to transport hemp must have a certificate. Failure to have the required certificate while transporting hemp is a separate crime. Second, lab tests are not required in every case and are more affordable than initial reporting indicated. Failing to enforce marijuana laws cannot be blamed on legislation that did not decriminalize marijuana in Texas."
Among the top prosecutors for the state's 10 most populous counties, The Texas Tribune reports, only El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza "has stated definitively that the new hemp law won't affect marijuana prosecution in his office." Esparza said "we weren't even using lab reports" before hemp legalization, suggesting his office relied on circumstantial evidence and the physical resemblance between seized plant matter and marijuana. But it's hard to see how a marijuana case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt now that two samples of cannabis can look and smell the same even though one is contraband while the other, because of its low THC content, is not.
"Even before the passage of H.B. 1325, companies and labs were already developing THC concentration tests," Abbott et al. wrote. "As more companies enter the testing marketplace, the costs of the tests will certainly decline, and you may weigh which prosecution method is appropriate. In short, lab tests are not always needed, and they are not as costly as some initial reporting indicated."
There would be even less need for such lab tests if Texas legislators came to their senses and decriminalized marijuana use, a change that Moore, the Austin County D.A., favors. But in the race between marijuana reform in Texas and technological innovation in the forensic testing industry, I suspect the latter will win.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you're gonna scream, scream with me/ moments like this never last.
>>>I suspect the latter will win.
nah, soon enough Tejas will vote verde.
[…] Source link […]
I guess that's good for the weak minded peasantry that needs it
thanks
http://abooabdollah.com
"two samples of cannabis can look and smell the same even though one is contraband while the other, because of its low THC content, is not."
seriously? what are y 'all smoking in texas?
what are y ‘all smoking in texas?
Hemp.
In the aftermath of Prohibition some States stayed nominally Dry while others went to went to local option (usually by County). As time passed almost all Dry areas developed strong Black Markets, stand the Dry laws were supported by a coalition of the Self-Rightious and the Bootleggers. It became very difficult to repeal local or State Dry Laws, even when they were largely dead letters.
Believing that having laws on the books that a) are largely, ineffective b) are spottily enforced on people who have not bribed the authorities , and c) enrich a criminal class was a bad idea, reformers came up with a very effective ideas.
They began to actually enforce the Dry Laws.
And where this happened the Dry Laws were quickly repealed.
Which brings the question; will the situation in the above article lead to repeal of marijuana prohibition...or a situation comparable to the Dry counties I described?