California Wants to Stop Pot Dispensaries from Branding Merchandise

The nanny state comes after swag.


Independence Day 42nd Annual

The terrible scourge of marijuana advertising restrictions continues to sweep down the West Coast. First it was Washington cracking down on dispensaries' beloved inflatable tube man mascots. Next came Oregon, where a town said no to pot-promoting roadside mannequins.

Now California has joined the fray, with state legislators proposing a bill to ban dispensary-branded swag, including hats, t-shirts, and hoodies bearing a dispensary's name or logo, all in the name of keeping minors away from weed.

The state authorities apparently think "that if kids see branded merchandise they'll start using cannabis," writes Alison Malsbury, an attorney at the cannabis-focused law firm Harris Bricken.

Prop. 64—California's 2016 legalization initiative, approved by 57 percent of voters—already bans marijuana advertisements targeting those 21 and under. The proposed SB 162 would expand the definition of targeting under-21's to include "all advertising of cannabis or cannabis products through the use of branded merchandise."

As Malsbury points out at CannaLaw Blog, this broad restriction will fall most heavily on small businesses trying to differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace with a relatively homogenous product.

"It will definitely kill the swag game at all cannabis-related events in The Golden State, undermining cannabis business' ability to grow, compete, and spread their brands," she writes.

In addition to the costs levied on businesses, the measure makes no sense as a deterrent to underage smoking.

Even if dispensary-branded items are prohibited, any Californian—minors included—can shop around online and at brick-and-motor head shops for t-shits with children's icons Bill Nye the Science Guy and Yoda getting blazed, Simpsons-themed "dab mats," and even marijuana-emblazoned baby onesies, all of which seem far more likely to draw children's attention.

On top of that, much of cannabusinesses' branded merchandise and apparel relies very little on visual depictions of cannabis or cannabis consumption, preferring sleek and professional-looking logos and imagery.

That's because dispensaries want their brands to appeal to potential customers who already smoke weed, not kids who can't even legally buy the stuff. Plastering your business merchandise with a bunch of pot leaves seems like a surefire way to get your advertising lost in the crowd.

Few of these objections seem to matter to proponents of SB 162, who have sold the bill with a mixture of corporate scaremongering and for-the-children hysteria.

"We need to do this now, before Big Weed gets a lot of power," the bill's sponsor, Sen. Ben Allen (D –Santa Monica), told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Dr. Jacques Corriveau of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the Chronicle that a blanket swag ban was necessary because "it's hard to distinguish what's aimed at kids and what isn't." One wonders if the kids themselves might end up missing the advertising that's targeted at them.

California's senate passed SB 162 unanimously in May, and the Assembly will pick up the bill when its members return from their summer recess in August.

When they do, they should remember that Californians voted commandingly for legalized marijuana last year, in large part because they were tired of onerous restrictions on a relatively innocuous plant. Politicians should respect that vote, and resist their natural instinct to regulate this budding industry into the ground.

NEXT: Trump Transgender Ban Tweets, Senate Rejects Obamacare Replacements/Repeals, Philly Cat Rescues Couple From Collapsed Home: P.M. Links

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “We need to do this now, before Big Weed gets a lot of power,” the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ben Allen (D ?Santa Monica), told the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Surely you mean (R ?Santa Monica).

    Or more like (D ?Straightedge Monica). No, wait, (D ?Squaresville). i don’t know, you figure it out.

    1. Done.

    2. Well, if the California legislature wouldn’t try to regulate every weed killer out of existence, maybe Big Weeds wouldn’t be so much of a problem. Just another example of government creating more problems out of its supposed solutions.

  2. California’s senate passed SB 162 unanimously in May, and the Assembly will pick up the bill when its members return from their summer recess in August.

    One party rule is the 55-gallon drum of lube the state brings to the gangbang.

  3. “Get the greed out of weed”. A slogan only a pothead could get behind. Because swag should be free, man!

    1. “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”

  4. If you thought they were not going to treat pot similarly to tobacco, you have not been paying attention.

  5. Um, “t-shits”?

    1. >>> “t-shits”

      Presidential Tweets.

  6. Throw the legislators a bone. Let them tax it an regulate it.

  7. did we not mock Ben Allen (D) enough yesterday afternoon? guess not…

    >>>”We need to do this now, before Big Weed gets a lot of power”

    fuck you, Ben Allen (D), it’s a plant. tyrant.

  8. It’s almost as if the Dems didn’t actually support legalization on any sort of principle they have in common with us

    1. No, of course they didn’t! Talking to a lot of local San Franciscan progressives in favor of pot decrim/legalization, it was clear to me they didnt’ care about the civil liberties issue. It just happened to an issue on the radar that they could get behind to show how progressive they were.

      They really don’t care if it’s legal or not. They’re white. They won’t go to jail if they get caught with pot. Fuck, they probably get high with the mayor. But they were really big on hemp grocery bags, hemp cancer cures, taxing the shit out of pot (“we can finance all of our dreamz!!!”), and not having to deal with the scummy colored folk they usually get their pot from.

      A “tax it just like tobacco” measure would NEVER have passed in California. It passed because the measure promised a bullet train in every pot [sic].

      1. It was telling that they kept using the fact that alcohol is worse than weed as justification for legalization

        Somehow that’s less convincing than the argument that we shouldn’t lock people in cages for a victimless crime, or create a violent black market through prohibition

        1. The black market for weed wasn’t all that violent. At least outside of the cartels smuggling their shit in.

        2. That argument is a pretty transparent rebranding of two wrongs making a right.

  9. The progtards love the taxing and the regulating of weed and all its paraphernalia right down to the minutia.

    Ah, comrade, is a match weed paraphernalia?
    Ah comrade, you have a point, and how about bic lighters, shouldn’t there be a weed paraphernalia tax on top of the other taxes for it?
    I don’t know, what if the bic and/or match is used to light a stove?
    Hmmm, maybe there should be a form to fill out for dispensation?
    Ah, yes, I love forms!!

  10. Free speech is, like, an idea of the last millennium?

  11. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it. tinder for pc tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.