A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Mississippi medical marijuana dispensary owner challenging the state’s ban on cannabis advertising. In the legal action, Clarence Cocroft II, the owner of Tru Source Medical Cannabis, argued that Mississippi’s regulations prohibiting cannabis advertising in any media amounted to unconstitutional censorship of the industry.

But U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills disagreed with Cocroft and dismissed the lawsuit on Monday. In his ruling, Mills wrote that because the possession of marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, it is not a “lawful activity” that is protected by the U.S. Constitution like some other forms of commercial speech.

Cocroft opened his dispensary in Olive Branch, Mississippi after the state legislature legalized medical marijuana in 2022. In his lawsuit, he argues that he has faced difficulty reaching potential customers because of the state’s ban on advertising by cannabis businesses. 

The judge, however, said that overturning Mississippi’s ban on cannabis advertising would be a “drastic intrusion upon state sovereignty.”

“This is particularly true considering the fact that, by legalizing marijuana to any degree, the Mississippi Legislature has gone further than Congress itself has been willing to go,” Mills wrote in his ruling, according to a report from the Associated Press. “In light of this fact, on what basis would a federal court tell the Mississippi Legislature that it was not entitled to dip its toe into the legalization of marijuana, but, instead, had to dive headfirst into it?”

State Sued Over Advertising Ban

Cocroft is represented by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian law firm. The lawsuit names the Mississippi Department of Health, Department of Revenue and Alcoholic Beverage Control Bureau as defendants in the legal action.

In the suit, Corcroft maintains that Mississippi’s ban on cannabis advertising prevents him from reaching out to customers via television, radio or print ads. He is even forbidden from placing ads on billboards that he owns. 

The judge ruled that the state cannot prohibit cannabis businesses from displaying products on their websites or from using “appropriate signs” on their businesses. The authority to enact other restrictions, however, lies with the state Health Department, which bans dispensaries from advertising or marketing “in any media.” Corcroft’s legal team says the ban amounts to unconstitutional censorship.

“When Mississippi legalized medical marijuana, it relinquished its power to censor speech by medical marijuana businesses,” said Ari Bargil, an Institute for Justice attorney. “If a product is legal to sell, then it is legal to talk about selling it.”

Corcroft’s suit argues that a current review of cannabis policy by the Biden administration and presidential pardons for low-level federal marijuana offenses constitute a de facto legalization of cannabis. But while the president has pardoned thousands of people who have been federally convicted of marijuana possession, cannabis remains illegal under federal law. As long as marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, the judge ruled, the states are free to pass laws that restrict advertising by cannabis businesses.

“Plaintiffs thus argue that Congress and President Biden have ‘all but’ made the possession of marijuana lawful, which strikes this court as a tacit admission that it still remains illegal under federal law,” Mills wrote.

In a statement released after the judge’s ruling and dismissal of the case, Corcroft said that Mississippi’s ban on cannabis advertising is a violation of the First Amendment rights of legal businesses. He added that he plans to appeal the judge’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I’m prepared to fight this fight for as long as it takes,” Cocroft said. “This case is bigger than me and my dispensary – it is about defending the right of everyone to truthfully advertise their legal business in the cannabis industry.”

Although Mississippi’s regulated medical marijuana businesses still face the state’s ban on advertising, Brian Vicente, founding partner of the cannabis and psychedelics law firm Vicente LLP, noted that some states with similar policies have later modified the restrictions.

“Mississippi’s marijuana laws are still new. In most states, we see advertising restrictions lessen over time as states realize that marijuana, including medical marijuana, is a legitimate product that is not only highly regulated but also legal and safe for sale in the state,” Vicente wrote in an email to High Times. “Mississippi needs to consider that, by severely restricting medical marijuana advertising, they are hurting their medical marijuana patients who need access to this important medication. These restrictions significantly impact patients’ accessibility to information about the program and their medication.”

The post Federal Judge Upholds Mississippi’s Ban on Weed Advertising appeared first on High Times.

The post Federal Judge Upholds Mississippi’s Ban on Weed Advertising appeared first on Paradise Found.

The owner of a cannabis dispensary in Mississippi has filed a lawsuit alleging that state laws which prevent him from advertising his business violate his First Amendment rights.

Clarence Cocroft II of Olive Branch, Mississippi is the owner of Tru Source Medical Cannabis. According to the Associated Press, Cocroft filed a lawsuit Tuesday because he says regulations put in place by the Mississippi Department of Health have made it inordinately difficult for him to run his business. 

Mississippi legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes in 2022 but the laws only allow for people with certain “debilitating conditions” to obtain a recommendation. The Mississippi Department of Health opted to ban cannabis providers from advertising in any way shape or form. Cocroft said this is a violation of his constitutional rights as a business owner. 

“All I want to do, like any other business owner, is have the opportunity to advertise. If I pay taxes in this business, which I do, I should be able to advertise,” Cocroft said at a news conference. “All I’m asking from this state is to provide us with the same liberty that they’ve provided other businesses.”

According to the Mississippi Department of Health website, Mississippi cannabis businesses are allowed to have a sign on their store and have a website with a list of products available but they cannot otherwise participate in any form of communication that could be perceived as advertising. An attorney for Cocroft, Katrin Marquez told the Associated Press that this constitutes unlawful censorship.

“Under the ban, Clarence can’t advertise in any media. He cannot place ads in newspapers or magazines, on television or radio, or even on billboards that he already owns,” Marquez said. “The First Amendment does not allow a state to completely censor a legal business. If it is legal to sell a product, it is legal to talk about that product.”

The list goes on. Legally operating cannabis dispensaries in Mississippi are not allowed to display products in their window, not allowed to send out mass text messages or emails. They can’t offer discounts, promotions or deals of any kind nor can they give away free product or any kind of samples. They also can’t put their business name on an Adopt-a-Highway sign or an electronic interstate sign.

Cocroft told the Associated Press that when he started his business, he actually set aside some money for advertising and even bought high-profile billboards in high-volume areas of the state which he has since been forced to lease out to other businesses. 

“It’s simply unfair that every other legal business in Mississippi is allowed to advertise, while I have to rely on word of mouth,” Cocroft said.

Many states with legal adult-use or medical cannabis markets have enacted regulations restricting cannabis advertising. Most states opt to apply certain restrictions on cannabis advertising on public broadcasts to ensure that the majority of the audience who will see the ad will be of legal consumption age but the particularities vary state to state.

Most of these restrictions are likely not First Amendment Violations based on comparable Supreme Court cases related to tobacco and pornography advertising which have determined that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are not First Amendment violations, but few states have outright banned cannabis advertising to the degree that Mississippi has. Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama have similar laws banning cannabis advertising through public mediums, but Marquez argued to the Associated Press that Mississippi’s laws are harsher still. 

“The state government cannot simultaneously authorize the legal sale of a product or service, while forbidding the truthful advertising of said product,” Marquez said. “No law, state or federal, justifies the censorship in this case.”

According to the Associated Press, Cocroft is represented in this lawsuit by the Institute for Justice and his lawsuit is specifically targeted at leadership in the Mississippi Department of Health, Department of Revenue and Alcoholic Beverage Control Bureau. The language of the lawsuit alleges that state regulations unfairly target legally operating cannabis  businesses trying to utilize their First Amendment rights to spread truthful, commercial speech. 

Mississippi state law allows cannabis patients to obtain 3.5 grams of cannabis once per day, six days per week. The list of qualifying conditions is short and limited to illnesses like cancer, HIV and Parkinson’s disease. A full list can be found here. 

The post Mississippi Cannabis Provider Sues For Right To Advertise appeared first on High Times.

The post Mississippi Cannabis Provider Sues For Right To Advertise appeared first on Paradise Found.