Bill Overview
Title: SAFE Advertising Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from taking certain adverse actions against a radio or television station that advertises cannabis or hemp businesses or service providers if the station is licensed in a state where cannabis or hemp products are legal and other conditions are met. It also specifies that proceeds from transactions with legitimate businesses related to cannabis or hemp shall not be considered proceeds from an unlawful activity or require the denial of federal benefits.
Sponsors: Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: People in regions with legalized cannabis or hemp
Estimated Size: 210000000
- The bill focuses on advertising for cannabis and hemp businesses.
- Cannabis and hemp businesses operate in countries where they are legalized, which varies widely.
- The legislation impacts media companies operating in regions where cannabis or hemp are legal.
- The global cannabis industry market size was valued at around $20.47 billion in 2020 and is expected to grow significantly. Assuming a significant portion of this operates locally in legalized regions, the population impacted includes media consumers and business operators in these regions.
- The bill will impact media outlets (TV and radio) in the U.S., specifically those in states where cannabis or hemp is legal.
- As of 2022, 19 U.S. states have legalized recreational cannabis use, affecting advertising life and business within the U.S.
Reasoning
- This simulated response includes 10 interviews covering a heterogeneous sample of the U.S. population. These individuals include media operators, business owners, and general citizens in states where cannabis and hemp are legal to understand the policy's impact on various sectors.
- The policy is highly relevant in media-rich and business-oriented states with legalized cannabis use, such as California, Colorado, and Washington, allowing advertisements that might increase audience engagement and economic activity.
- Not every individual in these states will be directly impacted by the policy; hence, a range of impact levels from 'none' to 'high' are considered.
- Budget constraints suggest that the immediate impact in the first year might be limited to media and cannabis business insiders and their local consumer bases.
- Considering the American target estimate from the definition, a typical social model is applied where media operators and businesses see a medium-to-high impact, while regular citizens and those unaffected by media might feel a low-to-no impact.
Simulated Interviews
Radio Station Manager (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about this policy. It opens up new revenue streams from cannabis advertisements which we were previously hesitant to accept.
- The ability to advertise for cannabis companies could significantly boost our station's income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cannabis Dispensary Owner (Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited to finally advertise my business openly on our local radio and TV channels.
- This should help attract more customers who might not know about our more discreet presence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Washington)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't use cannabis, so this doesn't really concern me.
- I suppose it might make television commercials more diverse?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Marketing Specialist (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential for new clients from the cannabis sector, which is an exciting development for marketing professionals like me.
- It's an opportunity to expand into a growing market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Television Producer (Illionois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Allowing cannabis advertisements can bring economic benefits to our network and diversify content.
- This policy would likely give us more commercial clients, enhancing job stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm indifferent to this change as my business does not involve cannabis.
- Hope it doesn't drive away traditional health product buyers from ads.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Student (Oregon)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It could be interesting to see what new cannabis products are out there through TV ads.
- I'm neutral, as it doesn't change how I access cannabis currently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Digital Marketing Consultant (Nevada)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is perfect timing since I'm aiming to expand my consultancy's portfolio by including cannabis firms.
- It opens up a potential new revenue channel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Civil Engineer (Massachusetts)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this bill affects me personally.
- Perhaps I'll notice more cannabis ads while driving, but that's it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Cannabis Industry Advocate (Michigan)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy supports legitimate businesses and might reduce stigma around cannabis.
- It's a step in the right direction for the industry!
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on local economies where cannabis is legal due to potential growth in advertising revenue.
- Uncertainty around the degree to which this could stimulate additional economic activity and related tax revenues.
- Potential indirect impacts on public perception and regulatory landscape concerning cannabis usage.
- No direct federal program costs, but minor administrative and enforcement implications for FCC.