Mississippi has a history of being conflicted when it comes to vices, or what’s perceived as a vice.
During Prohibition, it allowed alcohol to be sold and consumed liberally, turning what was technically an illegal product into a revenue generator for the state by collecting a black market tax on it.
The state criminalized all games of chance — except perhaps church bingo — until it saw, first, how much tax revenue could be reaped from the public’s attraction to a casino’s slot machines and blackjack tables, and later from lotteries.
Now, Mississippi is trying to navigate how to regulate marijuana in order to limit its availability to medicinal use, which voters overwhelming said they support.
The state has limited where marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries can be located, and it bars almost all advertising.
The latter restriction, though, may be unconstitutional. At least that’s what Clarence Cocroft II intends to prove.
Cocroft opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Olive Branch after the Mississippi Legislature in 2022 legalized the sale and consumption of marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions. The Legislature took that step less than two years after more than two-thirds of voters, in a referendum that was thrown out on a technicality, voted in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.
Cocroft’s marketing plan included what most smart business people do when they have a product to sell. He planned to advertise, even purchasing a few billboards in preparation for his promotion strategy.
He hasn’t been able, though, to use those billboards or most any other form of advertising under regulations set up by the state Department of Health.
Cocroft contends those regulations are an infringement on his First Amendment rights, and he has filed a federal lawsuit to challenge them.
His argument seems fairly compelling. As one of his attorneys said, “If it is legal to sell a product, it is legal to talk about that product.”
In practice, that is already true for most products, including those that are associated with vices, such as alcohol. The main exception is tobacco products, whose advertising was once ubiquitous but now has become so heavily regulated that it has all but disappeared.
There is a distinction, though, between tobacco products and medical marijuana. Tobacco products are a highly addictive and proven carcinogen, whose consumption is also associated with all kinds of heart and lung problems. Cigarettes and other tobacco products have few if any redeeming qualities. Marijuana, by contrast, has proven medicinal properties, and its legalization has been approved precisely to deal with certain medical conditions for which other pharmaceuticals don’t seem to work as well.
Banning the advertising of medical marijuana is akin to banning the advertising of medicine. That, of course, does not happen in this country, where advertising for prescription and over-the-counter medicine has become prevalent.
Some may have legitimate concerns about whether medical marijuana on balance is a good thing. Once the door was opened to it, though, it seems unfair to restrict the profit potential of those who have invested in what is a legal business.
