The second draft of my HCP was much better, especially in the use of multimodal evidence. After discussing with Brenden during office hours, I replaced the cartoon advocating for government healthcare with a graph showing other drugs that are much deadlier than marijuana. My introduction has barely changed since draft one because it is one of the best section of my paper and I received a lot of good feedbacks on the introduction. The flow of the essay is still somewhat awkward. One of my classmates, Alan, suggested that I break up some of the paragraphs to create a more cohesive essay. I also considered examples of good transitioning sentences uploaded on Canvas to help me in the next draft. Despite its bad transitions, draft two had more experts arguing the issue of cannabis ads. 

Siyu Ren

Brendan Shapiro

Writing 39C

October 24, 2015

HCP Draft Two

Some states such as Oregon and Colorado have recently legalized marijuana in public market. Legalizing marijuana brought decent economic growth in these states because of high taxes implied on marijuana, as well as medical benefits for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and even cancer. However, there has been controversy over restricting cannabis advertisements because the drug has caused several social problems and health issues. According to Nicole Walden and Mitch Earleywine, two researchers on cannabis-related problems, both frequency and quantity of cannabis used is positively correlated to social problems including “getting into trouble at work, getting into fights, or losing friends.” Although most Americans consider marijuana a modest drug, the US federal government categorizes marijuana with heroin, LSD, and other fierce drugs that can lead to death (Weiss and Dilks).  Consequently, the public fears abusive use of cannabis ads would increase the use of marijuana for nonmedical users and draw young people to drug addiction. Many teens and young adults believe marijuana does little harm because it is used for medical purposes, but studies show that “marijuana users at college are more likely than non-users to engage in heavy drinking, to use additional drugs, and to consume these substances in a ‘party’ environment that encourages high-risk consumption and often risk-taking behaviors” (Weiss and Wilks). Recent cultural changes have made this problem distinct from the past. As our society develops, citizens are more concerned with health issues.

 

The public’s concern of marijuana has urged state governments to regulate cannabis advertising in many marijuana-legalized states by restricting publications, yet some publications refuse to comply under the protection of First Amendment. A year after Colorado legalized a statewide drug policy for marijuana in 2012, the state passed a law that “require stores to place marijuana-themed magazines behind the counter if they allow patrons under 21” ("Magazine Fights"). The law prevented magazines that contain cannabis ads on store racks because parents complained that unrestricted press of cannabis ads is too visible to children ("Magazine Fights"). However, under the protection of the First Amendment embodied in the US constitution, High Times, Westword, and two other publications refused to keep their magazines behind the counter. In 2014, High Times filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Colorado’s restriction violates the right to free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment. The argument brings back the case of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission in 1980, which challenged restriction on commercial speech.

One of the most prominent cases that protected advertising and commercial speech was Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. The utility company sued Public Service Commission for banning advertisements that promote use of electricity. The Supreme Court finalized the case ruling “a state must justify restrictions on truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech by demonstrating that its actions ‘directly advance’ a substantial state interest and are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest” ("Central Hudson"). Therefore, Colorado’s restriction of cannabis ads would be struck down as unconstitutional because the ads are “truthful and nonmisleading.” Jacob Sullum, the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, adds to the argument in his anti-drug blog on Forbes that although the First Amendment protects commercial speech if it “addresses lawful activity…and is not deceptive, false, or misleading,” marijuana is not legalized in all U.S. states, thus, cannabis advertising fails to count as a “lawful activity” on federal basis (Sullum). In this case, the claim by High Times magazine would be struck down as unconstitutional instead.

Another case that would overturn Colorado’s advertising regulations was Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly held in 2001. Attorney General of Massachusetts, Thomas F. Reilly, was challenged for enforcing regulations governing the advertisement and sale of tobacco. Yet, his gracious intention for the public’s health was surprisingly accused for violating the First Amendment under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission for outdoor advertising regulations and sales. After justifications and analysis, the Supreme Court decided the restrictions on tobacco are unnecessary ("LORILLARD TOBACCO”). Now that marijuana legalization is slowly expanding over United States, the another controversy on restricting advertisements emerges very similar to the tobacco advertising market.

 

The restriction of marijuana advertisements will most likely have the pot market end up like the Big Tobacco industry in which the industry has been viciously hit by advertising regulations; or it could survive like the Big Alchohol industry. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in 1997 “banned outdoor, billboard, and public transportation advertising of cigarettes in 46 states. It also prohibited tobacco advertising that targets young people and the usage of cartoons…in association with their products” (Madrak). The regulation brought enormous damage to the market of tobacco. Similarly, Colorado’s new regulation on marijuana “bans certain types of advertising and prohibits the use of cartoon characters or other images that could be seen as appealing to kids” (“Magazine Fights”). The open market of marijuana sparked some local advertising agencies in marijuana-legalized states such as Colorado and Oregon. Consequently, the marijuana industry is continuously growing into the new Big Tobacco where marijuana advertising may suffer the same restrictive fate. Despite publishers like High Times and Westword earn little money from cannabis advertising, the advertising agencies are intrigued by the growing market of marijuana because it stacks to a growing revenue stream (Deutsch). With such economic incentive, cannabis advertisers relentlessly argue their right to commercial speech and therefore they should not be suppressed under libel.

Publications like High Times may be taking too much advantage in states that legalized marijuana and with the backing of the First Amendment. Conservative states call an absolute crime to manufacture, retail, or consume marijuana, much like the Prohibition the 1920s. The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified in the U.S. constitution during Prohibition, which “took away license to do business from the brewers, distillers, vintners, and the wholesale and retail sellers of alcoholic beverages” (“Why Prohibition?”). Alison Holcomb, a drug policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union, argue against states that prohibits marijuana because “prohibition fails our society's normative standards of what should be labeled a crime.” Holcomb defines “crime” as “acts that are so bad—that inflict such grievous harm on others—that the offender deserves to be arrested, dragged through court, jailed, and saddled with a criminal record.” Thus, it is unethical to convict people who sell or smoke marijuana and permanently print their names on criminal record, which affects their future career. In Holcomb’s argument, she makes another point that “If we can agree that the decision to treat marijuana use as a crime deserves revisiting, then we must grapple with the question of how the demand for marijuana will be met.” When drinking beer was considered a crime, Americans roared with disapproval and many refused to comply punishments. Instead of realizing the evil effect of alcohol, which the Prohibition intended, crime rates increased because of smuggling and violent black market for liquor. This resembles the states that prohibit Marijuana. Ever since the Twenty-first Amendment that overthrew Prohibition in 1933, we learned our lesson from harsh prohibition of necessities. Therefore, Holcomb recommends a new approach on controlling marijuana, such as regulations on advertising (Holcomb).

Most opponents of cannabis ads are also those who oppose marijuana legalization because they worry about the health and social damage that marijuana causes, especially on young people. David G. Evans, a special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation, warns that marijuana use not only impair brain development, but also affect teens to “engage in delinquent and dangerous behavior, and experience increased risk of schizophrenia and depression, including being three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts” (Evans). Increasing cannabis advertisements ultimately increases damaged young people.

Evans utilizes the consequences of marijuana use to argue that the cost of legalizing marijuana outweighs its benefits. His argument dissent advertising agencies who look up to enhancement their revenue and the U.S. economy with the marijuana market. In his point of view, the “costs from health and mental wellness problems, accidents, and damage to our economic productivity will far out strip any tax obtained” (Evans). Therefore, marijuana legalization will only bring burden to the economy since the federal government has to deal with the “costs” that come with marijuana use.

Among these extreme advocates and opponents on legalizing marijuana, Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), offers a more neutral opinion. Armentano considered Americans failing experiment with Prohibition in the 1920s and he realizes that another prohibition would end up with same result. He also understands that inhaling marijuana may cause potential risks to health. He states in his debate that teen’s “use of cannabis is rising and has now surpassed the number of teens consuming tobacco” thus it would be difficult to prohibit marijuana (Armentano). Although drugs like marijuana are legally retailed at some states, it is hard to avoid the incentives of cannabis ads would prompt buyers of different ages, including minor who are not allowed to buy. Considering the dispute of opponents while siding with advocates of marijuana legalization, Armentano believes “a pragmatic regulatory framework that allows for limited, licensed production and sale of cannabis to adults—but restricts use among young people—would best reduce risks associated with its use or abuse… it's legalization, regulation and public education—coupled with the enforcement of age restrictions—that most effectively keeps mind-altering substances out of the hands of children.” Consequently, this “restriction” applies to cannabis advertisements.

In 2013, Colorado imposed a strict regulation on cannabis ads, “which allow recreational marijuana retailers to advertise only if they have ‘reliable evidence that no more than 30 percent of the audience…is reasonably expected to be under the age of 21’” (qtd. in Sullum). Consequently, this rule bans several media and publishers such as radio, TV, and teenage magazines with more than 70 percent of young audiences. Colorado’s restriction calms some advocates who are afraid of the bad influences from cannabis ads to minors who are illegal to make marijuana purchase.

The new century of drug revolution has escalated multiple opinions and debates on the definition of the First Amendment in regards to commercial speech. Even though Colorado temporarily settled the public who fear negative influence of cannabis ads with advertisement restrictions, publishers will not compromise as long as the unwarranted protection of free speech exist. The regulation on cannabis ads that blocked publishers from their free speech rights and publishers’ resentment remains unanswered by the courts. The federal government must therefore apply new strategies in laws and regulations. The dispute over Colorado's regulations on marijuana advertisement may follow in the footsteps of those on the tobacco and alcohol industries, or it might be the beginning of a new type of regulatory system for commercial speech. Although unpredictable, the future resolution with the cannabis ads issue may follow the path of tobacco and liquor regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Armentano, Paul. "Marijuana Regulation Works and Prohibition Fails." US News.

U.S.News & World Report, 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

"Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. Full Text." Law Publish. JLCom Publishing Co., LLC.

Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Deutsch, Marilyn. "Expect to See Ads for Pot as Recreational Sales Becomes Legal." Fox

12 Oregon. KPTV-KPDX Broadcasting Corporation, 30 Sept. 2105. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

Evans, David G. "Marijuana Legalization's Costs Outweigh Its Benefits." US News. US

News & World Report LP., 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Holcomb, Alison. "Marijuana Use Should Not Be a Crime." US News. US News &

World Report LP., 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

"LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY." FindLaw. FindLaw, 2001. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Madrak, Jeff. "Building Big Marijuana: Marketing and Advertising for the Brave." Drug Law

and Policy. Wordpress, 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

 

"Magazine Fights Colorado Limit on Pot Publication." First Amendment Center. First

Amendment Center, 30 May 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Sullum, Jacob. "Does The First Amendment Protect Marijuana Ads?" Forbes. Forbes

Magazine, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

"Vincent Sliwoski | Harris Moure." Harris Moure. Harris Moure. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Walden, Nicole, and Mitch Earleywine. "How High: Quantity as a Predictor of Cannabis-related

Problems." Harm Reduction Journal Harm Reduct J (2008): 20. Print.

Weiss, Karen G., and Lisa M. Dilks. "Marijuana, Gender, and Health-Related Harms:

Disentangling Marijuana's Contribution to Risk in a College “Party” Context."

Sociological Spectrum (2015): 254-70. Print.

"Why Prohibition?" Temperance & Prohibition. The Ohio State University. Web. 18 Oct.