Clarence Cocroft, owner of TruSource Medical Cannabis in Olive Branch, Mississippi, has initiated a legal battle against the state’s prohibition on advertising for medical marijuana dispensaries. He is suing the Mississippi Department of Health, the Mississippi Alcoholic Beverage Control Bureau, and the Mississippi Department of Revenue, alleging that the advertising ban infringes on his First Amendment rights. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Northern Mississippi, seeks both a temporary injunction and challenges the ban’s validity.
Under current regulations, dispensaries like Cocroft’s are limited to displaying exterior signs and providing minimal information on certain websites. Cocroft, who previously authored textbooks for Pearson, argues that the advertising ban is detrimental to his and other dispensaries’ businesses.
In Mississippi, approximately 25,000 residents have medical marijuana cards, and Cocroft’s dispensary sees a steadily increasing number of customers. However, he believes all dispensaries are struggling due to the inability to advertise. Cocroft questions why his legal business can’t advertise like others, especially when it pays taxes.
TruSource has relied mostly on word-of-mouth and sponsoring non-profits for publicity, yet even Cocroft’s billboards in North Mississippi can’t direct people to his shop. Additionally, the lawsuit highlights that even healthcare providers are prohibited from recommending specific dispensaries to patients.
The state’s rationale behind the advertising ban is unclear, as the law doesn’t explicitly state its purpose. It only mentions restricting inducements that could influence the use of medical marijuana. The complaint argues that the ban restricts more speech than necessary to achieve any potential policy goals. Furthermore, the law includes a clause against advertising that appeals to minors, which Cocroft’s attorney, Katrin Marquez of the Institute for Justice, acknowledges as reasonable. However, she points out that Mississippi already has laws preventing advertising regulated products to minors.
Marquez emphasizes that this case centers around the principle that legal businesses should be able to talk about their operations. Unlike medical marijuana, other businesses in Mississippi, such as alcohol, tobacco, adult entertainment, and casinos, face no such advertising restrictions. She asserts that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct lawful transactions, and as Cocroft’s business is legal in Mississippi, it should be allowed to advertise.
The Mississippi Health Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit.
