2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB46

HB46 expands Texas's prescription low-THC cannabis program, adds qualifying conditions and calls for more licensed suppliers and local pickup/storage sites.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis under and the administration of the Texas Compassionate-Use Program; requiring registration.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): King, Moody, Oliverson, Plesa, Lalani. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB46 expands Texas’s prescription low-THC cannabis program, adds qualifying conditions and calls for more licensed suppliers and local pickup/storage sites. It does not establish recreational marijuana sales or allow smoking cannabis. Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025. Final law; official history.

Who can qualify: the law adds a condition causing chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, Crohn’s disease or other inflammatory bowel disease, and terminal illness or a condition for which a patient receives hospice or palliative care. Existing categories—including epilepsy, seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, spasticity, ALS, autism, cancer, incurable neurodegenerative disease, PTSD and approved research-program treatment—remain. Patients must be permanent Texas residents, and a qualified, registered physician must determine that the potential benefit reasonably justifies the risk. Eligibility is not a promise that cannabis is appropriate for every patient. Final law, Sections 14–15; physician qualifications and registry requirements.

“Chronic pain” is specifically defined: pain not relieved by the listed acute, surgical, procedural or persistent non-chronic pain treatments, associated with an ongoing disease process causing continuous or intermittent severe pain for more than 90 days, and for which THC is a viable treatment. The final definition does not require a prior opioid prescription. General physician-specialty requirements still apply; HB46 did not enact the Senate’s separate pain-medicine certification requirement. Final law, Section 14; Occupations Code Section 169.002.

Dose, supply and methods of use: the law replaces the former 1%-by-weight definition with no more than 10 milligrams of THC per dosage unit. A package/container or pulmonary-inhalation device may contain no more than one gram of THC in total. These are different limits—not a one-gram dose or a one-package limit per patient. A prescription provides a 90-day supply based on the prescribed dosage, may authorize up to four 90-day refills, and may include more than one package in a 90-day period. These statutory ceilings are not dosing advice. Final law, Sections 10 and 14–15.

The law expressly includes absorption and insertion as medical-use routes and permits a physician to prescribe inhaled aerosol or vapor when medically necessary, specifying THC per dose. Burning and inhaling smoke remains excluded. The Health and Human Services Commission must establish rules for inhalation devices and a reasonable approval timeline; the statute alone does not prove that a particular device is approved or available. Products may contain only cannabinoids meeting the law’s definition of plant-derived “phytocannabinoids,” which includes the specified extraction and non-catalytic decarboxylation processes. Final law, Sections 11, 14 and 16–17.

More suppliers and storage sites: DPS must issue 15 dispensing-organization licenses if enough qualified applicants apply, using competitive evaluation and ensuring access in each public-health region. This is 15 total licenses, not 15 additional licenses; DPS described it as 12 new licenses alongside the three then active. The law required at least nine new licenses by December 1, 2025 from applications submitted before July 1, 2025, then at least three more by April 1, 2026, subject to applicant eligibility. Those are statutory deadlines, not a claim that every license or facility was operational by those dates. Final law, Sections 7 and 18; DPS explanation.

Licensed organizations may use approved satellite sites for secure storage and distribution without obtaining another dispensing-organization license. DPS must act on satellite applications within 180 days. An organization cannot operate a second satellite in one public-health region until it operates one in every region; pickup sites approved before September 1, 2025 are treated as approved satellites and may continue pickups and store products. Organizations must start dispensing within 24 months of receiving a license and continue dispensing, with revocation rules for nonuse. Local governments may not prohibit storage authorized by the program, adding storage to the existing protection for other authorized activities. Final law, Sections 3, 5–8 and 13.

The law adds owners and members to registration and related licensing provisions. Its criminal-background-check section exempts people without direct control of daily operations; that should not be read as deleting every other registration requirement. Applicants that have never held a dispensing license lose the statutory hearing entitlement when an initial application is denied. Other licensing and safety requirements remain. Final law, Sections 1, 4–5, 7, 9 and 12; Health and Safety Code Chapter 487.

Patient-identifying registry information, including the fact of enrollment, is made confidential and exempt from public-information disclosure, with specified program access and patient-requested release. The existing statute also retains a law-enforcement provision for verifying prescriptions and whether they were filled; this is not a promise that all official verification access disappears. Physicians can submit evidence asking the health department to report potential benefits for another condition to the Legislature. HB46 does not give the department the broader power to add ordinary qualifying conditions that earlier House language proposed; approved research programs remain a separate route. Final law, Sections 2 and 15; registry and research provisions.

What changed along the way?

The filed bill proposed 11 licenses, a 20-milligram dosage-unit definition and a 1.2-gram package limit. House and Senate substitutes changed those figures, eligibility, privacy, licensing and administration. The final law combines provisions from both chambers; the House refused the Senate version and a conference committee resolved the differences. Version index; filed text; House substitute; Senate substitute; official conference report.

All nine indexed floor amendments were adopted in their respective chambers, but adoption did not mean every provision became law:

  • King’s House amendment: added grandfathered pickup sites, 15 licenses, competitive selection, the daily-control background-check exception and licensing deadlines. These largely survived. Its removal of a package cap and its percentage-based inhalation exception did not survive in the same form.
  • Oliverson’s House amendment: added prescription reporting to the Board of Pharmacy. It was dropped before enactment; HB46 did not enact that new reporting system.
  • Perry’s Senate amendments F1–F3: narrowed the proposed owner definition, increased the Senate’s nine licenses to 12, and added a preference for Texas-based or Texas-owned applicants. The final law instead uses the House registration structure, 15 licenses and competitive evaluation without that statutory preference.
  • Perry F4: added chronic-pain eligibility but tied it to an initial opioid prescription, required pain-medicine certification and added special physician monitoring. The final law retains chronic-pain eligibility with a different definition, without those added opioid, certification or monitoring provisions.
  • Perry F5–F7: proposed three refills, an early licensing step restricted to 2023 applicants, and a deadline to propose rules. The final law instead allows four refills, uses the House’s two-stage licensing schedule, and requires adoption of the specified rules by October 1, 2025.

Amendment index; King amendment; Oliverson amendment; all seven Senate amendments in the adopted packet.

The conference compromise retained the 10-milligram dose and one-gram package/device limits, restored patient privacy and several House licensing provisions, and did not enact the Senate’s proposed 1,000-foot school buffer or minimum-volume dispensing requirement. The broader House proposals for glaucoma, spinal neuropathy, degenerative-disc disease and a general veteran eligibility route did not become standalone categories; a person with one of those conditions might still qualify under another enacted category. Conference permission resolutions authorized the more-than-one-package clarification. Finally, SCR56 added Crohn’s disease/other inflammatory bowel disease to the enrolled list, and HCR171 removed the outdated percentage-based inhalation exception. Those were enrollment corrections, not additional indexed floor amendments. Conference report; HR1523; SR718; SCR56; HCR171.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Newly eligible patients may gain a treatment option, and additional licensed suppliers and satellites may reduce travel burdens. Treatment still depends on an appropriate physician assessment, lawful products and available providers; the law promises neither a cure nor a particular price or insurance payment. Businesses gain potential market access but face competitive licensing, fees, security, registration and ongoing-operation obligations. New applicants also face the loss of the initial-denial hearing entitlement. Local governments have less power to prohibit authorized storage.

The final Legislative Budget Board note projects $7,843,590 in additional general-revenue-related funds over fiscal 2026–27, from application, business-license and individual-registration fees. Its table projects another $5,183,115 in each of fiscal 2028 and 2030, and zero in 2027 and 2029. It assumes agency costs can be absorbed and no significant local fiscal impact. These are licensing-revenue forecasts, not verified collections, patient savings or a new appropriation. The note’s narrative still says the health department could designate conditions; the enacted text instead provides for reports to the Legislature. The final text controls that legal question. Final fiscal note; final law, Section 15.

Review boundary: all final provisions, material version differences, nine floor amendments, the conference packet, correction/permission resolutions, fiscal notes and relevant prior/current statutes were checked. This is a review of what HB46 enacted, not a complete audit of later rules, actual license awards, device approvals, clinical effectiveness or individual treatment suitability.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.