According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1870 is expected to have no significant fiscal implication to the State of Texas. While the bill authorizes the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to investigate complaints and seek civil penalties from local entities that refuse to enforce state drug or consumable hemp product laws, the costs associated with implementing these duties are assumed to be absorbable within the agency's existing resources.

The legislation also allows for the collection of civil penalties from municipalities and counties found in violation, with those penalties to be deposited into the Compensation to Victims of Crime Fund. However, the revenue impact from these penalties is anticipated to be minimal and not significant at the state level. This suggests that while the bill enables a new enforcement mechanism and potential income source, it is not expected to materially affect the state's budget or require new appropriations.

For local governments, the fiscal note similarly reports no significant fiscal impact. While local entities may be subject to civil penalties and potential litigation costs if they violate the law, the analysis assumes that local governments will generally act in compliance with the new requirements, thereby avoiding penalties and related expenditures. Thus, from a fiscal perspective, the bill is expected to be cost-neutral or minimally impactful for both state and local entities.

SB 1870 supports the principle of state preemption by prohibiting local governments from adopting or enforcing policies that limit the enforcement of state laws concerning controlled substances and consumable hemp products. It centralizes authority by allowing the Attorney General to investigate noncompliance, seek civil penalties, and block local initiatives—such as city charter amendments—that would effectively decriminalize certain drug-related offenses.

For supporters of preemption, this bill provides a consistent statewide legal framework, ensuring that cities do not adopt conflicting standards that undermine state law. This is particularly relevant in areas like drug policy, where uneven enforcement across jurisdictions can cause confusion and erode the uniform application of justice.

However, the bill may go too far in limiting local discretion. Many law enforcement agencies, especially in urban areas, are faced with limited resources and prioritize serious and violent crime over low-level drug possession. By mandating full enforcement without room for local prioritization, the bill risks diverting police and prosecutorial resources away from higher-impact public safety work. Additionally, it eliminates voter input by prohibiting ballot initiatives that reflect local will.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1870 unless amended to preserve the bill's preemption intent while allowing for local discretion in enforcement priorities—such as a carve-out for low-level marijuana offenses or a provision that protects local budgeting authority. This would uphold state legal standards while respecting the judgment and operational capacity of local officials.

• Individual Liberty: This bill restricts the ability of communities to adopt policies that reflect evolving attitudes toward drug enforcement, particularly for low-level offenses like marijuana possession. Prohibiting local governments from decriminalizing or deprioritizing certain drug laws—even via voter-approved charter amendments—reduces the space for individuals and communities to shape their justice policies through democratic means. This is a direct constraint on localized expressions of liberty and self-governance.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill reinforces legal accountability by mandating uniform enforcement of drug laws, it does not directly incentivize or promote individual decision-making or responsibility in a meaningful way. It focuses on institutional enforcement, not citizen behavior, and thus has little practical bearing on this principle one way or the other.
• Free Enterprise: By targeting policies related to consumable hemp products—an industry that has grown rapidly in Texas since the state legalized hemp in 2019—the bill could create a chilling effect on local entrepreneurship. Local jurisdictions that might otherwise support or foster a hemp-based economy may now be compelled to take enforcement actions that complicate the regulatory landscape for legitimate businesses, creating uncertainty and potentially deterring investment.
• Private Property Rights: The bill doesn’t directly infringe upon property rights but may lead to increased scrutiny or enforcement actions on business owners involved in the hemp or cannabis-adjacent industries. These indirect effects could impact property owners’ ability to freely use or lease their property, but such outcomes would vary based on local interpretation and are not mandated by the bill itself.
• Limited Government: This is perhaps the clearest area of concern. The bill significantly expands state oversight over local government decisions by prohibiting local discretion in law enforcement priorities, banning voter-driven charter amendments on drug policy, empowering the Attorney General to unilaterally sue municipalities or counties for perceived noncompliance, and waiving sovereign immunity to make local entities liable for substantial civil penalties. These provisions signal a shift away from decentralized, locally responsive governance in favor of more centralized state control—at odds with the core tenet of limited government.

• HB 5082 (Same As)