State law bans marijuana billboards on Highway 101, media fact check

A recent Tribune editorial claims that state legislators are currently considering a ban on marijuana billboards on state highways; and if passed, the pot billboards on Highway 101 would need to come down. Contrary to the Tribune’s reporting, state law already bans advertising marijuana on Highway 101.

Following the 2016 passage of Prop 64, which bans marijuana ads by licensed marijuana businesses on billboards located on California interstate highways or state highways that cross the border of any other state, billboard owner Cliff Branch informed Diamond Cannabis Direct that the billboards will violate the law as of Jan. 2018. The cannabis billboards are slated to be removed before 2018 when Diamond Cannabis Direct becomes licensed, Branch said.

The Tribune editorial references a 2016 Sacramento Bee article that is not only outdated, but does not pertain to billboards on interstate highways. The article relates to the impact of Assembly Bill 64 on marijuana billboard advertising on non-interstate highways.

Assembly Bill 64, not to be confused with Prop 64, is currently winding through the system. In an earlier version, the bill included a plan to increase the ban on cannabis billboards to include all state highways. However, that language was stricken from the bill which is designed to strengthen and clarify state marijuana regulations.

Please, be respectful of others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other uncivil comments will be removed. The comments posted represent the opinion of the writer and do not represent the views or policies of the website.

2 Comments about “State law bans marijuana billboards on Highway 101, media fact check”

  1. slosum says:

    Once again…. the “damn the facts” Tribune goes with its own political narrative and doesn’t even bother to perform the basic tenants of journalism… that’s why no one reads it anymore.

  2. Boldguy says:

    I read a LA Times article some time ago about aggressive Billboard Company’s. What the article pointed out was that some Billboard Company’s were putting up illegal or non permitted signs and sometimes even on property that they didn’t even have permission to be on. Then the municipality or property owner would take legal action, the Billboard company would tie up the action in court, sometimes for years, claiming their right of free speech was being abridged by the local jurisdiction. Simply put, if they’re getting $5,000.00 per month for a Billboard, then spending $3,000.00 per month in legal fee’s to keep it there, it’s profitable for them to ignore the municipality or property owner!
    One part of the article that i found funny was that during one of the billboard company’s Christmas Party’s, one of the employee’s, as a prank, re did the answering machine message. Recorded, hello this is so and so sign company, if your suing us press one, if were suing you press two, if it’s neither, you have the wrong number:)

Comments are closed.