Sponsor seeks tighter marijuana-advertising rules; industry and media warn of economic and legal harms

Representative Carrie Seakins Crowe opened the hearing on House Bill 3 31, a sponsor-described “marijuana advertising cleanup bill” intended to close perceived loopholes in state advertising rules and prevent marketing that appeals to minors.

What the sponsor said: Seakins Crowe told the committee Montana’s existing advertising rules are “some of the tightest in the country” but said dispensaries are finding ways to present THC products in youth-appealing ways — through mascots, cartoon characters and digital tactics — and that the bill would “clean up the language” to eliminate ambiguity and strengthen enforcement.

Proponents: Testimony supporting the bill came from public-health and community groups. Steve Zabawa of Safe Montana said the goal should be “no ads” that persuade people to use a federally illegal intoxicant, comparing marketing to how tobacco advertising was restricted. Patrick Webb of the Montana Family Foundation said marketing that “normalizes drug use” increases youth experimentation and urged passage to block tactics that “mirror those used by Big Tobacco.”

Opponents and concerns: A large bloc of opponents — including licensed cannabis businesses, trade associations, the Montana Cannabis Industry Association, the Montana Cannabis Guild, testing labs, the Montana Newspaper Association, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and local publishers and media consultants — urged rejection. Their arguments included: - The bill would make legal dispensaries effectively invisible to adult consumers and thereby boost the unregulated black market; several witnesses said youth use falls in regulated markets and rises where commerce is pushed underground. - The measure would impose a de facto ban on ordinary business promotion, including websites, social media, limited sponsorships, and legitimate community engagement, and it would create constitutional risks for commercial speech and restraint of trade. - Enforcement and technical elements would be difficult or infeasible, including the proposal’s requirement that websites verify Montana residency to view content; opponents noted easy circumvention through common tools such as VPNs. - Media and newspapers said the bill would remove advertising revenue and jobs from local outlets; the Montana Newspaper Association emphasized the existing regulatory framework and fiscal contributions of the legal market.

Regulatory context and agency testimony: Kristen Barber, administrator of the Cannabis Control Division (CCD), and agency counsel Erin McCarthy and Courtney Cosgrove told the committee the current law and rules already impose strict limits, that the CCD approves packaging and labeling and monitors licensees during inspections, and that the department enforces advertising rules within its authority. Barber noted the department’s enforcement tools are largely complaint-driven and implemented by CCD inspectors and that proving residency for website access would be challenging.

Specific items raised in committee discussion: - Initiative I-190 and current statute: Witnesses and committee members repeatedly referenced Initiative I-190, which added a prohibition on advertising and directed the department to adopt rules to define what constitutes advertising. Counsel and staff noted that the initiative allows a website but forbids price listing and active solicitation of out-of-state consumers. - “Green cross” and signage: Committee members asked whether common storefront indicators (for example, a green cross) would remain permissible; CCD staff said the proposed new text would likely treat some signage as advertising and that particular images could need alteration under the bill as drafted. - Black-market and hemp-THC products: Industry witnesses emphasized that unregulated hemp-derived intoxicants and out-of-state sellers advertise widely on social media and are outside CCD authority; proponents said the bill targets licensed businesses’ conduct and that additional statutory clarity is needed to address the gray market.

Why it matters: The hearing revealed a deep split between public-health advocates seeking stricter limits to protect youth and an industry that says Montana already has strict rules and that further restraints will harm legal businesses, local media and state tax revenue. Witnesses repeatedly warned of unintended consequences if consumers cannot find legal, tested products.

Ending: Representative Seakins Crowe closed by asking the committee to “pass.” The committee did not take a recorded vote at the hearing.