Colorado Bill Would Force Merchants to Hide Marijuana Magazines—for the Children

On Monday I noted that H.B. 1317, a marijuana regulation bill moving through the Colorado legislature, had been amended so that advertising restrictions suggested in the original version are now required. In addition to a general ban on "mass-market campaigns that have a high likelihood of reaching minors," those restrictions include a requirement that "magazines whose primary focus is marijuana or marijuana businesses" be kept behind the counter in stores open to people younger than 21  (the minimum age for consuming marijuana under Amendment 64). The Associated Press says this provision would "treat pot magazines like pornography," but it is actually stricter in the sense that the cutoff age is 21, whereas pornography can be legally sold to anyone 18 or older. Then again, the bill apparently would not prohibit the sale of High Times to minors; it would just require them (and everyone else) to ask for it rather than pulling it off a rack.

The provision's author, state Rep. Bob Gardner (R-Colorado Springs), says he thinks it qualifies as a constitutional restriction on commercial speech, since the magazines he has in mind consist largely of ads for marijuana and related products. Yet in 2001 the Supreme Court overturned a Massachusetts law banning tobacco billboards within 1,000 feet of a school or playground, saying it unconstitutionally interfered with speech aimed at adults. The same logic should also condemn Gardner's ban on public display of marijuana magazines, especially since those publications include not just commercial speech but editorial content that under the Court's precedents qualifies for the strongest form of First Amendment protection. While the Court has upheld age limits for the purchase of sexually explicit material, it has never said the government may require merchants to keep magazines under wraps based on their political content, which is essentially what Gardner is proposing.

As Mike Riggs pointed out last year, a Louisiana law enacted in 1977 bars the sale of drug-oriented magazines to anyone younger than 18. I don't know whether that law has ever been challenged on First Amendment grounds. (If anyone has seen any relevant cases, please let me know.) But note that Gardner's rule is broader in two ways: It applies to adults between the ages of 18 and 21, and by banning display of the magazines (which the Louisiana law does not do) it limits the ability of publishers to reach even readers who are 21 or older. Another point to consider in rating the rule's prospects of surviving judicial review: Although a federal lawsuit might be problematic given that many of the covered magazines would include ads for a product that is still banned by the Controlled Substances Act, the Colorado Supreme Court has said the state constitution's free speech clause offers even broader protection than the First Amendment does.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Sounds like the NYC nanny rule proposed re: keep those demonic cigarettes out of the sight of the childrunz!!11!

    I guess we should be glad CO has some (State) Constitutional protections left.

  • SIV||

    Retailers should hide the mags unless they are a store which caters to an adult clientèle. SLD: There shouldn't be a law requiring them to do so.

  • Warrren||

    If only I had never seen a copy of Reason. I would still be morally upright and not building roadz in Salmonella.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    All those covers with stamens dangling out there and sepals spread wide open... I say yes, keep that smut off the shelves and away from delicate eyes.

  • Warrren||

    I like my she-elves covered in smut, thank you very much!

  • Mongo||

    The only ish of HT that I own has Jenna Jameson on the cover.

  • ||

    I would really really like it if someone could explain to me why it is that adults' freedoms must be truncated for fear that a child might see or hear something of an adult nature. Kids are not the pussies their parents want them to be.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah. No kid is going to care about High Times unless they already like smoking weed.

  • Loki||

    The provision's author, state Rep. Bob Gardner (R-Colorado Springs), says he thinks it qualifies as a constitutional restriction on freedom of speech

    I'm assuming there'sa "doesn't" missing in there. Otherwise why would he propose a provision that he thinks is a constitional restriction on freedom of speech? Or is this a case of a little accidental honesty on Gardner's part? A Freudian slip, IOW?

  • Loki||

    Or perhaps it's not accidental honesty and he's coming right out and saying it: "Fuck you, that's why."

  • Cliché Bandit||

    He is saying he thinks the restriction IS constitutional.

  • Loki||

    I misinterpreted that then. Probably because, silly me, I believe that the words "Congress shall make no law" actually means what it says, and therefore there's no such thing as a restriction of speech that is constitutional.

    You know how sometimes it seems like facsist little shit weasels are speaking a completely different language? This would be one of those times.

  • Jordan||

    This only applies to high capacity magazines, right?

  • Warrren||

    Politicians and bureaucrats will never stop passing laws and legislation.

    Even starting from a minarchy this will happen. So suck it minarchists.

  • SKR||

    Wine Spectator, they are coming for you next.

  • jabster||

    18-20YOs are legally ADULTS and I really wish folks would quit referring to them as "minors". And I also hate the legacy of the Progressive-Approved 21 National Minimum Drinking Age which has created this de facto (but still not de jure) age of adulthood.

  • Acosmist||

    No, with respect to alcohol, at least here, 18-20-year-olds are minors. And that's de jure.

  • toasted||

    Well, the left did want it legalized, taxed and regulated. Happy mofos.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement