Marijuana isn't legal in Indiana. So should advertising be legal here? Lawmakers say no
Indiana lawmakers took action on marijuana policy during the 2025 legislative session, just not in the direction Hoosiers who favor legalizing weed in the state may hope.
State lawmakers voted 81-9 on April 23 in the House and 31-19 in the Senate on April 24 to ban the advertising of marijuana products "by any medium" within Indiana. The ban language is tucked into House Bill 1390, which is generally a bill with directions for the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
The ban applies to signs on the interstate and flyers sent to mailboxes, both types of advertising that had already been popping up in Indiana as companies in neighboring states try to entice Hoosiers to cross state lines.
The approval of the advertising ban follows a renewed push from Republicans for marijuana legalization, especially as Indiana is surrounded on its borders by states that have legalized it in some form. There were some signs of movement in that direction. A new Republican-led lobbying group, Safe and Regulated Indiana, formed earlier this year. Gov. Mike Braun on the 2024 campaign trail also signaled support for medical marijuana.
But, as they typically do at the Statehouse, the bipartisan bills filed about legalization died without movement in either chamber. The advertising ban language stuck.
Similar proposals banning advertising appeared in three different bills at the start of the legislative session: Senate Bill 166, from Republican Sen. Spencer Deery, House Bill 1327, from Republican Rep. Timothy Wesco and House Bill 1026, from Rep. Joanna King. All three bills died earlier this year after not receiving hearings in legislative committees.
Language banning marijuana advertising hopped from bill to bill at the end of the legislative session. The language was added to HB 1390 and then removed and placed in Senate Bill 73. It was later eliminated from SB 73 and then added back to HB 1390 before lawmakers signed off on the final version of that bill.
HB 1390 now heads to Braun's desk, where he can either sign or veto the bill.
Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Brittany Carloni at brittany.carloni@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter/X @CarloniBrittany.
Sign up for our free weekly politics newsletter, Checks & Balances, curated by IndyStar political and government reporters.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana lawmakers approve marijuana advertising ban
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is under water on some of his top issues — including immigration, poll shows
President Donald Trump is under water on some of his most favorable issues — immigration and the economy — according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. The poll shows Trump's approval rating at 38 percent among registered voters, a three point drop from April. He's also losing support on subjects that were crucial to his November victory. On immigration — an issue that the president hammered on the campaign trail — Trump's approval rating dropped five points from April, to 43 percent. His already low approval rating on the economy did not budge, remaining at 40 percent. The results show a majority of voters, 54 percent, disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue. The poll surveyed 1,265 self-identified registered voters from June 5-9, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent. The results come as Trump's approval has been steadily picking up since it dropped significantly in April, according to RealClearPolitics' polling average. The negative polling did not stop at the president himself. A majority of the voters polled also had objections to his premier piece of legislation, the 'big, beautiful bill' making its way through Congress. Fifty-three percent of the voters polled did not support the legislation. Divided among party lines, 67 percent of Republicans supported, while 89 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents opposed it. On Medicaid funding, an issue that has become Democratic messaging priority, 47 percent of those surveyed thought funding should increase, while 40 percent think it should stay about the same, and just 10 percent think federal funding should decrease. The bill as passed by the House is estimated to end Medicaid coverage for millions of people. Quinnipiac also asked voters what they think of billionaire Elon Musk, and his approval rating is crashing among Republicans following his very public breakup with Trump. Among Republicans, 62 percent had a favorable view of Musk, a 16 point drop from April. But while Trump's approval languishes, it's not clear Democrats will be able to take advantage of it. A vast majority of voters — 70 percent — disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are doing their jobs, while 20 percent approved. That's 12 points lower than how voters viewed Republicans in the survey.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counteroffer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. The Chiefs, in a statement to The Associated Press, described the legislative vote as a 'significant step forward' that enables the team to continue exploring options to remain in Missouri. The Royals described the legislation as 'a very important piece of our decision-making process" but made no site-specific commitment. 'Our focus remains the same: to prioritize the best interests of our team, fans, partners and regional community as we pursue the next generational home for the Kansas City Royals,' the team said in a statement to the AP. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely. 'This bill is unconstitutional, it's fiscally reckless, it's morally wrong," said Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin. ___ Associated Press writer Dave Skretta contributed from Kansas City, Missouri.
