It's surprising to see that in choosing your quotes from Prof. Jay for this print piece - quotes that give the impression he was unequivocal in his position - you deliberately left out this one from your 3/7 Slog post ("More on That Proposed Ban ..."):

"The First Amendment’s protections for commercial speech only apply to ads for lawful products. Cannabis sales may be lawful under limited circumstances in the state, but they still are forbidden to most of the population as a dangerous product under state and federal law. The court might decide, in other words, that cannabis ads don’t qualify as protected commercial speech."

I hope you're not letting concerns about potential ad revenue losses compromise your journalistic integrity.

If they can ban tobacco advertising I don't see what would make this new advertising ban unenforceable.

I am all for legal pot - for everybody. But I can definitely understand the reason for not advertising it's use to the whole wide world.

I was one of those strongly against changing the rules to allow hard liquor and prescription drugs. It seems very clear that the increase in advertising for these products has not served mankind very well.