SECTION 1.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(1) The voters of the State of California passed Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, decriminalizing and regulating nonmedical cannabis use by adults over 21 years of age.
(2) Proposition 64 expressly prohibits the advertising of cannabis and cannabis products to persons under 21 years of age.
(3)The RAND Corporation Drug Policy Research Center and the American Academy of Pediatricians recommend a ban on advertising through branded merchandise by commercial cannabis and cannabis product licensees in order to reduce youth initiation and use of cannabis.
(3) In reviewing the restrictions on alcohol and tobacco marketing, the RAND Drug Policy Research Center found that a comprehensive ban on advertising through branded merchandise by persons and companies licensed to sell cannabis can be a justified public health approach.
(4) Research by The the RAND Corporation indicates that adolescents who are exposed to advertising of medical cannabis were more likely to report using cannabis or say they planned to use the substance in the future. The American College of Pediatricians’research
Research by the American Academy of Pediatrics has found that cannabis has adverse effects on the adolescent brain and is associated with psychiatric illness and negative social outcomes.
(5) A great deal of research has shown that branded merchandise, including, but not limited to, t-shirts, sunglasses, or hats can be directly linked to higher use of tobacco and alcohol by teens, and in 1999, in order to reduce tobacco use by youth, the Attorney General and numerous tobacco companies entered into a Master Settlement Agreement that barred tobacco companies from advertising through the use of branded merchandise. In 2009, the United States Congress codified this agreement barring branded merchandise by tobacco companies and declared that obtaining branded merchandise reliably predicted smoking initiation,
even when controlling for other factors that were shown to increase smoking rates among youths.
(6) The federal district court case of Commonwealth Brands, Inc. v. U.S. 678 F.Supp.2d 512 determined that the prohibition on branded merchandise was constitutional and narrowly tailored to meet the goal of reducing youth use. It cited evidence that youth obtained branded merchandise that had been distributed at adult-only venues and consequently, “there is no way to limit the distribution of these items to adults only.”
(7) In reviewing policies to reduce youth initiation and use of cannabis, The RAND Drug Policy Research Center and the American Academy of Pediatricians recommend
Pediatrics recommends a comprehensive ban on advertising through branded merchandise by persons and companies licensed to sell cannabis.
(b) The Legislature finds and declares that this act implements the substantive provisions Sections 6 to 6.36, inclusive, of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act and is consistent with and furthers the intent and purposes of the act as stated.