Prescription Drug Repository Program - Redirecting Safe Prescription Drugs Pilot Program
HB1377, titled the Equity in Cannabis Advertising Act, revises Maryland’s rules for cannabis advertising. The bill keeps existing prohibitions on ads that target people under 21, use child-appealing imagery or themes, display cannabis consumption, promote cannabis as an intoxicant, or make false, misleading, health-related, or obscene claims. It also preserves the rule that most electronic, print, and sponsorship advertising must be directed to audiences that are at least 85% age 21 or older, and it continues age-screening requirements for cannabis-related websites and social media or mobile app advertising.
The main substantive change is to replace the current ban on certain outdoor advertising with a location-based restriction. Under the bill, cannabis advertising may not be placed within 500 feet of a substance use treatment facility, primary or secondary school, licensed child care center, registered family child care home, playground, recreational center, library, or public park. The bill also authorizes cannabis licensees to submit advertisements to the Maryland Cannabis Administration for an advisory opinion on compliance, and requires the Administration to respond within 30 days. The Administration must also adopt regulations to enforce the section, and the bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
HB1377 amends Section 36-903 of the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article, changing how cannabis advertising is regulated in Maryland. It shifts the law from a broad prohibition on outdoor advertising to a more specific buffer-zone approach around schools, child care facilities, treatment centers, and other youth- or community-oriented locations. It also creates a formal advisory-opinion process for cannabis licensees and imposes a regulatory duty on the Maryland Cannabis Administration to implement enforcement procedures.
The available context suggests the bill moved without recorded opposition in the materials provided, and the Senate ultimately passed it 34-0. That vote pattern indicates broad bipartisan support or at least little visible controversy at the final stage. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the discussion record here does not show detailed debate, but the bill’s structure suggests an effort to balance cannabis business advertising with youth protection and public-health concerns.
The likely points of contention are the scope of advertising restrictions and the new 500-foot buffer around a wide range of locations, including libraries, parks, and recreational centers. Cannabis businesses may view the bill as more workable than a blanket outdoor-advertising ban because it provides clearer geographic rules and an advisory-opinion mechanism, while public-health advocates may focus on whether the buffer is sufficient to protect minors and people in treatment settings. Another possible issue is administrative burden, since the Maryland Cannabis Administration must issue advisory opinions within 30 days and adopt enforcement regulations.