Dear DIA: That horse has already left the barn. People are not going to not think of marijuana in association with Colorado just because you ban souvenirs with that as a theme from the airport.
As a Colorado resident, I (and my immediate family) pretty continuously encounter a string of marijuana jokes (and occasional serious question) when we travel out of state, and it's pretty much still a staple for comedians and TV shows.
Sure, life in Colorado is about a lot more than (sigh) "Rocky Mountain High," but I can guarantee you it crosses the mind of nearly every visitor arriving at DIA. Pretending it's declasse of airport tchotchke vendors to sell pot-themed items is both snooty and a good waste of tourist dollars.
Denver International Airport bans sale of marijuana-themed souvenirs
Tourists who fly to Colorado to try legal pot can forget about buying souvenir boxer shorts, socks or sandals with a marijuana leaf on them when passing through the Denver airport.
Huh? I'd even argue, particularly since it is "printed" material, it could be construed as infringing on Free Speech.
That's just insane… i suppose that's 50% of their stock they have to dump, me like that plant, the herb of the gods 🙂
+The Bruce, Mile High I imagine airports are "private property" though, so they can make whatever restrictions they want. After all, they just searched you without cause because you have the option of walking.
+Al Hunt , the article does mention that airports have been granted leeway in Free Speech matters in prior legal precedent regarding pamphleteering (think Moonies or Scientologists). I would argue this is different in that they already license booth space, which is fixed, and part of existing commerce. It is not the same "class" of Free Speech as pamphlet distributors, since the distributors were "mobile" and, walking among passenger, often disrupted foot traffic patterns vital to the primary function of the facility. Since they already have sectioned off commercial areas and planned foot traffic around them, they'd be hard pressed to validate equivalency, though they would no doubt try.
They are just making life unnecessarily complicated on purpose. Next they might take a dislike to the colour blue and make it illegal because it's really looking that crazy and by the look on that woman's face, she thinks so too.
You know, the airport in Sioux Falls has the FAA designation SUX. After unsuccessfully lobbying to change it, they embraced it and now sell ironic merchandise.
Run with it, I say. If there's a market for it, might as well supply the demand.
+The Bruce, Mile High I suspect that their space leasing agreements given them some latitude in controlling what content is sold.
I also suspect that they could stop you from handing out pamphlets in the airport from a fixed location (e.g., a bench) that was not disrupting foot traffic.
Um, right. Leasing agreement fig leaves have worked out oh so very well for racial bigots.
Not sure where you're going with my trying to explain some of the reasoning behind the previous case that established that airports have been granted some leeway. I didn't say that blocking foot traffic was the only reason the court ruled as it did. There it was determined that the Krishnas only put on religious "ceremonies" (which tended to block the flow of foot traffic) as a ruse to cover their true intention of soliciting donations. It hinged on the fact that the concourse was not traditionally used as a public forum but rather, as I pointed out, to facilitate transportation. The difference here is that the airport is already leasing the space for the express purpose of commerce, not in support of its traditional transportation purpose, so the linchpin of the precedent is removed.
+The Bruce, Mile High Ah, I now understand the difference you are making on the Hare Krishna / Scientology item. I still am unconvinced that this will hinge on being a First Amendment case; the most I think could work would be that if DIA changed the terms of what sort of merchandise was acceptable, someone leasing space there could pursue some sort of breach of contract or other damages (losses on unsellable product). But I'm pretty sure the landlord can decide that certain product lines can or can't be sold at the commercial spaces they lease.
It will be interesting to watch, at least, to see if anything comes from it.
+Dave Hill But it's all bullshit. So what, what merchandise they sell. It's insanity! Thank God, God keeps it simple 🙂 only 10 Laws. Thou shalt not covet the merchandise of airport sellers. lol
Well, the not very interesting part, +Dave Hill , is that this only being a handful of merchants potentially damaged, and not a full "class" of citizens, liberties groups like the ACLU are unlikely to care. And without outside legal muscle, the merchants would need to do a cost/benefit analysis on the legal costs they'd likely incur privately vs what they'd hope to gain from the potential additional sales. My gut says it probably isn't worth it, though I still think with the right creative legal team they could potentially make a compelling case.