Sponsors seek clarity for cannabis advertising rules; public‑health groups urge keeping strict youth protections
Loading...
Summary
SB 594 would ease some advertising limits for licensed cannabis dispensaries — directional signage, limited exterior signage, clearer therapeutic‑claim rules and an 85% adult audience floor — to help social‑equity and small operators; industry supporters called for specificity, regulators and public‑health groups warned changes could weaken protections against youth exposure and implicit medical claims.
Chair Bridal presented SB 594 to clarify Maryland’s cannabis advertising restrictions and allow limited, narrowly defined exterior signage, directional wayfinding, and precise rules about therapeutic or medical claims. Proponents said the current rules are vague and enforcement has led to fines for minor signage and discouraged social‑equity licensees from public engagement.
Industry witnesses, social‑equity licensees and the Maryland Dispensary Association asked for statutory clarity and gave examples — window QR codes, small signs identifying veteran‑ or women‑owned businesses, and presence at 21+ events — that they said should be allowed. They urged the committee to remove 'uncertain' phrasing that has led to holiday‑decoration enforcement and to adopt clear audience‑composition standards for digital ads.
Public‑health and legal advocates (University of Maryland Public Health Law Clinic, Legal Resource Center for Public Health Policy) urged an unfavorable report, arguing the bill would remove existing protections against advertising that is "appealing to minors" or that makes implicit therapeutic claims without evidence. The Maryland Cannabis Administration offered amendments: keep the 'attractive to' phrase to preserve youth protections, avoid codifying a narrow therapeutic definition (leave to MCA regs), and clarify the editorial exception to close loopholes for paid advertising disguised as news.
Ending: The committee heard detailed pro and con testimony and MCA requested technical amendments; no vote was taken.
