Lawmakers Hear Calls to Ban Cannabis Billboards to Reduce Youth Exposure

Supporters urged the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy Wednesday to advance H.157 and S.94 to ban billboard advertising of recreational cannabis across Massachusetts. Public-health researchers, parents and clinicians told the committee that billboards are an unavoidable form of marketing that reaches young people and is associated with higher odds of problematic cannabis use. Amy Turncliff, a neuroscientist and public-health advocate, told lawmakers that “Anything higher than 10% would be considered high THC,” and said prohibiting billboard advertising is “a simple, effective step.” The request is rooted in research and clinicians’ accounts. Boston University public-health professor David Jernigan, who led alcohol- and cannabis-marketing surveillance, cited survey findings linking billboard exposure to greater odds of cannabis use disorder and weekly use. Multiple parents described traumatic, long-term harms to their adult children after early cannabis use. One mother testified that her son experienced repeated psychotic episodes and later legal consequences after early cannabis use. Why it matters: Supporters said billboards normalize cannabis for children who cannot opt out of seeing roadside ads and urged the committee to act as a public-health measure rather than a commercial one. Opponents and several legislators raised legal and practical questions about where billboards sit — on privately leased land or on federally funded highway/right-of-way property — noting federal funding and First Amendment issues could shape what the state can lawfully regulate. What witnesses asked for: Testimony recommended (1) banning billboard ads for nonprescription cannabis; (2) adopting clearer warning labels referencing cannabis-induced psychosis and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome; and (3) pursuing statutory language crafted to withstand constitutional challenges. Witnesses cited other states’ precedents including notable bans in Mississippi and Virginia and said courts have upheld similar state rules when federal illegality of marijuana was a factor. Committee context and constraints: Legislators asked witnesses to document where specific billboards are located and whether signs sit on state/right-of-way (potentially federally funded) property or truly private property, which could affect legal risk and federal funding for highways. Several speakers suggested the committee should evaluate whether proposed prohibitions would apply differently depending on land ownership. Ending: Supporters asked the committee to advance H.157/S.94 as a targeted public-health step that would keep one of the most visible advertising formats out of sightlines frequented by schoolchildren and families.