The first rough draft of my HCP is very messy and disorganized. The paragraphs do not flow because of lack in transitioning sentences and it lacks considerable ideas and research. I did not include experts on the issue of cannabis ads, so this draft is somewhat incomplete. The HCP draft one is rather brief and unprofessional since I did not do enough research and was unsure on where my essay was heading to. It also has an irrelevant multimodal evidence that has nothing to do with my topic. I encountered difficulties incorporating historical events and experts on the issue of cannabis ads. Thus, I sought for help during office hours as well as from my peers. In the end, I was able to find two useful court cases: the Central Hudson case and the Lorillard Tobacco case, which reflects the history of advertisement rulings in the United States. I did not write a conclusion in the first draft because I felt that I needed to make sure my essay is going to the right direction before I finalize the essay. Overall, the first draft requires a lot of research and revisions. 

Siyu Ren

Brendan Shapiro

Writing 39C

October 19, 2015

HCP Draft One

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, reported that 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 as 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 distinction from the past. As our society develops, citizens are more concerned with health issues.

Publications may be taking too much advantage in states that legalized marijuana. 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 that “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 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 (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, lists several harms of marijuana.

“Marijuana use can permanently impair brain development. Problem solving, concentration, motivation, and memory are negatively affected. Teens who use marijuana are more likely 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. Increased marijuana use will mean millions more damaged young people. Marijuana-using teens are more likely to have multiple sexual partners and engage in unsafe sex” (Evans). Evans utilizes these facts to argue the cost of legalizing marijuana outweighs its benefits to dissent advocates who believe high taxes on marijuana would aid the suffering U.S. economy. 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 government has to deal with the “costs” that comes 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.

A year after Colorado legalized a statewide drug policy for marijuana in 2012; the state enacted a law that banned magazines that contains cannabis ads on store racks. The law was applied after parents complained that unrestricted press of cannabis ads is too visible to children ("Magazine Fights"). With the pressure of the first amendment embodied in the US constitution, lawmakers cannot ban cannabis ads due to “freedom of press.” Thus, the Supreme Court justice passed a law that “requires stores to place marijuana-themed magazines behind the counter if they allow patrons under 21” ("Magazine Fights"). Nevertheless, some publications refused to comply. High Times and Westword and two other publications refused to keep their magazines behind the counter along with other adult magazines. They argued that their magazines “do not sell or promote obscenity” (qtd. in "Magazine Fights"). One solution that the Oregonian newspapers came up with is to ban posting of cannabis ads on sections that are more read by young people such as high school sports and these ads must not show real marijuana photos (Deutsch). Under the protection of the First Amendment, the open market of marijuana sparked some local advertising agencies in Oregon.

Attorney Vincent Sliwoski, an expert in cannabis lawsuit writes the Canna Law Blog for the Canna Law Group that he “expects the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to restrict pot advertising similar to the way Washington and Colorado have done, likely following current tobacco and liquor ad rules” (qtd. in Deutsch). Colorado implied a more 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 with higher percentage of young people such as radio, TV, and teenage magazines. 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.

One of the most prominent cases on the restriction of 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 case challenged restrictions on commercial speech and the supreme court finalized the case ruling that “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"). This case in 1980 gave “commercial speech” more protection in the first amendment.

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,” selling marijuana is not legal for all U.S. states, thus, does not count as a “lawful activity” on federal basis (Sullum). Despite the publishers earn little money from cannabis advertising, some advocates, especially the advertising agencies, are blindly intrigued by the growing market of marijuana because it still stacks to a growing revenue stream (Deutsch). In addition, cannabis advertisers argue that they are licensed and federally approved and therefore they should not be suppressed under libel. Indeed, the first amendment constitutes protection of “commercial speech because it addresses lawful activity…and is not deceptive, false, or misleading” therefore these ads are protected by the First Amendment (qtd. in Sullum).

A more supportive dispute on advertisement regulations upraised in 2001 on the case Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, in which the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Thomas F. Reilly, was challenged for enforcing regulations governing the advertising and sale of tobacco ("LORILLARD TOBACCO”). Yet, his complimentary 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. However, different from the Central Hudson case, the Supreme Court decided the restrictions on tobacco are necessary. Now that marijuana is legalized in some states, the controversy on restricting advertisements emerges again. It is hard to believe that after all the rulings and justifications on regulations on advertising, there are still people who seeks for absolute freedom on advertising products even if it harms impressionable minors.

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.

"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.