Judge Rules in Favor of No on Prop 64 in Ballot Argument Lawsuit

Marijuana legalization measure opens door for marijuana ads on broadcast television and children exposed to ads promoting gummy candy

SACRAMENTO, CA – Judge Chang ruled today in Sacramento Superior Court on a lawsuit brought by the backers of Prop 64 challenging several points made in the ballot arguments and rebuttal to Prop 64 – the marijuana legalization measure.
 
Her ruling was a resounding win for the No on Prop 64 campaign and a vindication of Senator Feinstein and supporters who charged that Prop 64 would, among other things, allow for marijuana smoking ads on broadcast television.
 
"The facts are clear – the big marijuana players who drafted this initiative changed or added over 100 laws, but made a calculated decision to include television advertising. The ruling today was clear – marijuana ads could be on broadcast television if Prop 64 passes – ads that could be seen by children,” said campaign consultant Wayne Johnson.
 
Senator Feinstein, Fight Crime Invest in Kids, the California Hospital Association and the California Police Chiefs are leading the fight against this flawed measure.
 
Judge Chang also reaffirmed the contention by opponents of Prop 64 that children could be exposed to ads promoting marijuana gummy candy and brownies and that consumer protection laws would be weakened. 
 
In addition, she ruled on the following key points in our challenge of the Yes on Prop 64 ballot arguments:

• Lowering estimates on cost savings for law enforcement.
• Although the proponents waved around various studies, the data is unclear that marijuana use among youth is going down in states that have legalized marijuana.
• It was also raised that studies on rates of impaired driving are inconclusive in states with legalized marijuana.  

If a picture is worth 1000 words, what is a TV commercial worth?  What kind of message will it send kids that see marijuana smoking, brownies and gummie ads on TV?

If Prop 64 passes, marijuana smoking ads would be allowed on broadcast television during programs viewed by millions of California children and teenagers.  Here's what Prop 64 actually says:

Any advertising or marketing placed in broadcast, cable, radio, print and digital communications shall only be displayed where at least 71.6 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by reliable, up-to-date audience composition data. 

In other words, almost 28% of any broadcast, cable, radio, print and digital audience can be under 21 years old. This means that almost any prime-time TV or radio show could run recreational marijuana related ads. 

The authors of Prop 64 made a calculated decision to include television advertising - this was intentional. 

Are we going to allow the big money funders behind Prop 64 to take us back to the "Joe Camel" days?  We can't afford to gamble with our children's health and future.  We need your help to get out the truth about Prop 64's advertising strategy, which could influence hundreds of thousands of kids throughout the state - BEFORE their campaign starts its misinformation effort after Labor Day.