CA to restrict cannabis billboards by highway status

[Kniwt]

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-regulation-allowing-cannabis-6464576/

On January 21, 2021, the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) released a notice explaining that, due to a recent state court ruling, billboard and similar types of advertising of cannabis products was now prohibited on any interstate or state highway that crosses the California border. This is a change from BCC's earlier guidance, which permitted billboard advertising on interstate or state highways crossing the California border, except for within a 15-mile radius of the border.

... However, it is important to note that the court's ruling (and BCC's notice) does not apply to highways that are fully located inside the state of California. Accordingly, billboard advertising may still be a viable option for advertising cannabis products in California, as long the billboards are placed along a highway that does not cross the state border.

This could raise some interesting and thorny questions about defining where one highway ends and another begins. What about CA 182, which continues as NV 338? Or, even, how about CA 88 and NV 88?

[Max Rockatansky]

I doubt if someone put up a sign on CA 88 on the outskirts of Stockton that it is going to draw much/if any legal recourse. 

[triplemultiplex]

Trying to elbow out competition from OR and NV?
What a weird and dumb rule.

Someone should put up a weed billboard up along CA 15 in San Diego just to be pedantic. :

[CNGL-Leudimin]

This means Weed will need to be renamed, since it is at the junction of two highways that go out of state (I-5 and US 97) .

[hotdogPi]

Why are US highways exempt?

[kphoger]

Why are US highways exempt?

They aren't.  They're state highways.   

[hotdogPi]

Why are US highways exempt?

They aren't.  They're state highways.   

I can imagine the big legal debate about whether US 6 is discontinuous in Colorado, because if it's continuous, Cape Cod has to take down their signs.

[kphoger]

Why are US highways exempt?

They aren't.  They're state highways.   

I can imagine the big legal debate about whether US 6 is discontinuous in Colorado, because if it's continuous, Cape Cod has to take down their signs.

Huh?  How does the California state court have jurisdiction over Cape Cod?

My point is that US-6 is a state highway, whether it's continuous in Colorado or not.  It's just as much a state highway as CA-99.  So is I-15, for that matter.

[hotdogPi]

Why are US highways exempt?

They aren't.  They're state highways.   

I can imagine the big legal debate about whether US 6 is discontinuous in Colorado, because if it's continuous, Cape Cod has to take down their signs.

Huh?  How does the California state court have jurisdiction over Cape Cod?

My point is that US-6 is a state highway, whether it's continuous in Colorado or not.  It's just as much a state highway as CA-99.  So is I-15, for that matter.

It has to do with whether US 6 in Massachusetts is the same highway as it is in California, or if they're two different highways. If there's a gap, the eastern US 6 doesn't enter California.

[kphoger]

If US-6 is not a continuous highway, then it's still a state highway in California regardless, so the state court ruling stands and is effective in California but not Cape Cod.

If US-6 is a continuous highway, then it's still a state highway in California regardless, so the state court ruling stands and is effective in California but not Cape Cod.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

If US-6 is not a continuous highway, then it's still a state highway in California regardless, so the state court ruling stands and is effective in California but not Cape Cod.

If US-6 is a continuous highway, then it's still a state highway in California regardless, so the state court ruling stands and is effective in California but not Cape Cod.

I'm guessing he's trying to make one of his sarcastic one-line zingers but it's not getting through to me this time.

[hotdogPi]

If US-6 is not a continuous highway, then it's still a state highway in California regardless, so the state court ruling stands and is effective in California but not Cape Cod.

If US-6 is a continuous highway, then it's still a state highway in California regardless, so the state court ruling stands and is effective in California but not Cape Cod.

I'm guessing he's trying to make one of his sarcastic one-line zingers but it's not getting through to me this time.

Yes. I was pointing out that the law makes no distinction about whether the stretch of highway is inside California or not, only that it crosses the California border. (The previous question about US highways being excluded was serious, though.)

[kphoger]

But my point still stands:  that US Routes are in fact state highways, therefore they are not excluded.

[Max Rockatansky]

But my point still stands:  that US Routes are in fact state highways, therefore they are not excluded.

Even the Interstates are considered State Highways by the California Legislature.