Free Speech

A Christmas Miracle: Washington Court Overturns Marijuana Sign Rules That Banned String Lights Spelling 'Pot'

A judge concluded that the restrictions violate the state constitution's free speech guarantee.

|

The continued illegality of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act complicates any attempt to claim that the First Amendment protects a state-licensed pot store's right to advertise its wares. But state constitutional protections for freedom of expression can still be used to overturn inadequately justified regulations of cannabis-related commercial speech, as demonstrated by a recent King County, Washington, ruling in favor of a marijuana shop that dared to hang Christmas lights spelling out the word POT in its window.

After Hashtag Cannabis in Redmond displayed that festive decoration during the 2017–18 holiday season, the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) cited the store for violating state restrictions on the size, number, and nature of retail signs. The regulations limit marijuana merchants to no more than two signs "identifying the retail outlet by the licensee's business name or trade name," each of which must be "affixed to a building or permanent structure" and no larger than 1,600 square inches. Hashtag already had two regular signs, pot was not part of its trade name, the string of lights was not "affixed," and it exceeded the allowed size by about 2,300 square inches.

Hashtag challenged the citation on free speech grounds. While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions of commercial speech "related to illegal activity," King County Superior Court Judge David Keenan noted in his ruling last month, state law allows cannabis sales to adults 21 or older by licensed retailers such as Hashtag. While conceding that "the issue is novel," Keenan concluded that the cannabis industry's legal status in Washington means state regulations of marijuana advertising must comply with Article I, Section 5 of Washington's constitution, which says "every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."

In applying that provision to restrictions on commercial speech, Washington courts use the test laid out in the 1980 Supreme Court case Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission. To be constitutional under the Central Hudson test, a regulation of nonmisleading commercial speech must "directly and materially advance" a "substantial governmental interest," and it must be "narrowly drawn" to advance that interest.

The LCB defended its rules as a precaution against encouraging minors to consume cannabis. Keenan acknowledged that the state's asserted interest was "substantial," as Hashtag conceded. But he concluded that "the advertising restrictions do not directly and materially advance the State's substantial interest in preventing underage consumption" and "are not sufficiently tailored to advance the State's interest."

Keenan reached that conclusion based on seemingly inconsistent aspects of Washington's advertising rules. "Given other provisions in the advertising restrictions which continue to expose potential underage consumers to marijuana advertising," he said, "the restrictions are a poor fit with the State's substantial interest in preventing underage consumption."

Notwithstanding its picayune restrictions on store signs, Keenan noted, Washington's rules allow marijuana billboards that are much bigger. In fact, such billboards must be at least 55 square feet, or 7,920 square inches, five times the maximum size for store signs. A marijuana merchant might even rent a billboard right near his store, which would be a far more conspicuous advertisement than Hashtag's string of lights.

"Hashtag could have a sign using the word Pot if it just registers that business or trade name, and it could conceivably have an entire billboard next door to its store with the word Pot," Keenan observed. "If the State wishes to minimize the risk of capturing the attention of children, restricting retailers to two permanently affixed signs displaying the business or trade name of no more than 1,600 inches on premises, but allowing billboards off premises, and allowing businesses to register business or trade names such as Pot, does not directly advance that goal."

Keenan drew an analogy to the old federal rule prohibiting information about alcohol content on beer labels, which the Supreme Court overturned in the 1995 case Rubin v. Coors Brewing. "As the court put it in Rubin, where the government's asserted interest was to 'suppress strength wars,' it made 'no rational sense' to prohibit alcohol content advertising on labels, but allow it in advertising, where advertising 'would seem to constitute a more influential weapon in any strength war than labels,'" Keenan wrote. "As in Rubin, where the state's asserted interest is to prevent underage consumption of marijuana, it makes no rational sense to restrict advertising in marijuana retailers where underage consumers are not allowed to enter or make purchases, but not restrict billboards, where billboards would seem more effective at capturing the attention of potential underage consumers."

Although Keenan does not mention it, the Supreme Court overturned state restrictions on outdoor advertising of cigars and smokeless tobacco in the 2001 case Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, finding that the goal of preventing underage consumption did not justify rules that severely impeded communications between manufacturers and adult consumers. Hence it seems unlikely that a ban on marijuana billboards aimed at making Washington's rules more consistent would survive the Central Hudson test.

Hashtag co-owner Logan Bowers told The Stranger's Lester Black it cost $30,000 in legal fees to challenge the rules prohibiting his shop's string of lights. "I was just really pissed," he said. "We were frustrated with being dicked around. Sometimes doing the right thing costs a ton, and it's a little bit of a bummer. Even when you win, you still kind of lose, because you have to spend a lot of money, and it means if you don't have money, you don't get justice."

NEXT: Apocalyptic Thinking Is Wrong

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.

  1. Santa was going to deliver presents
    But then he got high
    Helping everyone from king to peasants
    But then he got high
    Now his reindeer are idling at the North Pole, and I know why
    Santa got high, Santa got high, Santa got high

    1. I’m sure you’ve heard the theory that Santa Claus and his flying reindeer, along with Santa’s red and white outfit, are based in part on the Amanita muscaria or fly agaric mushroom, which reindeer are said to eat. According to this theory, people then drank the reindeer’s urine and got high. It’s almost certainly nonsense, but there’s nothing new in the idea of Santa getting high, and not just in terms of the physical height of his sleigh above the ground.

      1. Samta and his reindeer are Kryptonians. Hence the ability to fly, and the speed and durability required to construct and deliver all those presents. It also explains why Santa is at the a North Pole. This is where he constructed his Fortress of Solitude.

      2. That entire class of shrooms causes permanent liver damage and often death–like the methanol that the T. Roosevelt Administration ordered added to untaxed “industrial” alcohol since 1907. Anti-life mystical conservatives want you to eat amanitas, jimpson weed and mountain laurel just as christian prohibitionists wanted people blinded or killed by methanol if gunfire failed to do the trick. It’s God’s plan for faith-based asset forfeiture eugenics–artificial selection for innate credulity and altruism, as in Völkischer Germany.

    2. Same shit, different day. We need as a country to cut down the size and power the power DRASTICALLY of government at ALL LEVELS, but especially at the federal level. We are NOT a free country for as long as the Feds live and are in power, without regard to whether the feds are republicans or democrats.

  2. Article I, Section 5 of Washington’s constitution, which says “every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

    Well, damn!
    If only the socialists would admit that applies to conservatives – – – – –

    1. It does, that why it refers to abuse of the right.

    2. Sadly, Longtobefree, our Constitution is little if EVER considered by courts at ANY level, but it is ESPECIALLY ignored by the Supreme Court.

  3. “the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) cited the store for violating state restrictions on the size, number, and nature of retail signs. The regulations limit marijuana merchants to no more than two signs “identifying the retail outlet by the licensee’s business name or trade name,” each of which must be “affixed to a building or permanent structure” and no larger than 1,600 square inches. Hashtag already had two regular signs, pot was not part of its trade name, the string of lights was not “affixed,” and it exceeded the allowed size by about 2,300 square inches”

    What a total, stupid, f’ing, niggling, ridiculous waste of time and resources.

    1. “What a total, stupid, f’ing, niggling, ridiculous waste of time and resources.”

      Not if those resources pay your salary and retirement benefits if you happen to be one of those valiant public servants whose job it is to write or enforce those stupid, f’ing, niggling rules.

    2. A local store was cited for a city limit on the size of signs INSIDE the store. My guess is some competitor saw an easy way to make trouble.

      Why anyone would think that kind of law even makes sense is beyond me; at least outside sign size has some kind of loose rationale.

  4. Since when is a string of holiday lights a sign?

    1. Indeed. And any pattern discerned by an onlooker is merely a coincidence, not subject to advertising laws.

  5. This Is Really Great Work. Thank You For Sharing Such A Useful Information Here In The Blog.

  6. Drugs are bad, m’kay?

    A multi-jurisdictional task force storms a house looking for a dangerous drug paraphernalia possessor and, not realizing that they had already arrested him and currently had habeas of his corpus, shot instead the napping young lady they found within who, being startled awake by an armed gang bursting into her home, had naturally sought to defend herself. It’s quite an amusing tale of a silly mix-up really and “if she would not have pointed a gun at the agents they would have determined all that on the scene and would have bid her a ‘good day and thank you very much,’” according to the good Sheriff Cochran.

    1. And Merry Christmas to all you terrible, terrible people out there, all you idealists and dreamers and sad pathetic losers, God bless us everyone.

    2. Who is going to pay her medical bills?

    3. It’s not National Socialism when OUR jackbooted minions do it.

  7. Hashtag co-owner Logan Bowers told The Stranger’s Lester Black it cost $30,000 in legal fees to challenge the rules prohibiting his shop’s string of lights.
    I could show a family of three how to live on $30,000 for a year. It is ridiculous that it costs that much to fight a legal challenge to a fucking local regulation.

    “Even when you win, you still kind of lose, because you have to spend a lot of money, and it means if you don’t have money, you don’t get justice.”
    This guy gets it.

    1. The recent LP platform plank would allow you to hire vigilantes to administer the death penalty to meddlers. It probably won’t attract any voters, but could be a wake-up call to officious wannabee regulators and a job opportunity for unemployable Antifa anarchists.

  8. Meh. They’ll just update the licensing requirements.

  9. This is very good content, i have been waiting for so many days for this type of content.thank u so much sir,you can visit my website for this type of content click here

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.