As we look at the question of whether State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles' attempt to ban medical pot advertising is constitutional or not, it's probably also worth looking at her original intent in adding the ban as an amendment to this bill:


Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Democrat of Seattle, on March 2:

We certainly do not need to have advertisements, whether they be in any form, that would be considered to promote the use of cannabis to anybody.

Sen. Michael Baumgartner, Republican of Spokane and the co-sponsor of Welles' amendment:

When all of us open these newspapers that have the current forms of medical marijuana advertisements, I think it's quite clear that they're promoting, or have a risk of promoting to children... Let's not lure kids into this sort of a behavior or lifestyle.

Last night Welles e-mailed me to explain why she thought her amendment was legal:

Prior to agreeing to sponsor the amendment, I consulted with Senate staff attorneys who assured me that they believed the language would not violate free speech protections. I received the same assurance from the ACLU. The language, in fact, arguably is required as marijuana is a controlled substance.

Regardless, we’ll be working with the House Health Care & Wellness Committee to address this language. In addition, I am confident that if it stays, there will be creative efforts to advertise that will not be in violation of the law.

Like I said, all eyes on the house now.