I agree the rules are ridiculous but, on the other hand, at least we (as in we, the people, via an initiative) have legalized pot, unlike the vast majority of states, some of which (Hello Alabama! Hi Mississippi! How ya doin', South Carolina?) may never legalize it.

My old pot-smoking & hiking buddy, from my first job in Seattle 35 years ago, was in town over Christmas and he picked up a joint at one of our new stores. We enjoyed it on a great* New Year's Day hike in the Cascades. Very potent stuff...didn't even need a full hit.

* we had cold weather and blue skies instead of one of our typical dreary gray rainy winter days.

It won't matter. The people that want pot will find it, advertising or no.

P.S. one of the reasons for the "we must protect the children" provisions in the initiative was to appeal to mainstream voters.

From this 2012 Seattle Weekly article Alison Holcomb: Pot Mama:

The thing you have to recognize, though, is that I-502 was deliberately crafted for a mainstream audience. From the minute Holcomb signed on to the pot-reform movement, she came to the conclusion that "to move this issue, you have to engage people who aren't marijuana smokers—who care about this issue for some other reason." Civil liberties, for instance, or the drug war's disproportionate effect on minorities, or just the antidrug crusade's waste of taxpayer money on a useless cause.

This isn't a "pro-pot" initiative, she and campaign workers always take pains to state, it's an "anti-prohibition" initiative. That's why it contains a number of restrictions, like a minimum age of 21 for consumption, a one-ounce limit on possession, a ban on pot sales outlets within 1,000 feet of schools, and—most controversial of all—a DUI provision that would result in an automatic conviction for those found to have a certain amount of THC in their bloodstream.

Would the initiative have passed if it hadn't included these restrictions? Perhaps. I like to think it would have. But perhaps not. Perhaps they were necessary to get enough people on board.

Meanwhile, kids in a school probably, collectively, have more pot than any pot store.

"Unlike the assholishly run bar near my house (from which I could hear music through the open front of the bar booming in my pillow a block away), they were great neighbors: quiet, neighborly, causing no problems for the neighborhood, and not bringing in the sort of loud, thuggish, pee-on-neighbors-cars-and-fences customers the bar does."

Good thing there's no law restricting the amount of noise that bar abets, huh?

Meanwhile...
"...kids in a school probably, collectively, have more pot than any pot store." is a fallacious citation. See "appeal to prior practice" and "two wrongs".

Another P.S. in addition to having the restrictions like a ban on pot sales outlets within 1,000 feet of schools in order to appeal to mainstream voters, my understanding that another motivation behind these restrictions was to help keep the Feds at bay if the initiative passed, the fear being that if the restrictions -- especially those regarding children (see excerpt below) -- weren't present, the Feds would butt in.

This 2013 CNN piece notes

The Justice Department said it won't challenge state laws that legalize marijuana and will focus federal enforcement on serious trafficking cases and keeping the drug away from children.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a conference call Thursday morning, notified the governors of Colorado and Washington that the department, for now, will not seek to pre-empt those states' laws, which followed voters' approval of ballot measures that legalized recreational marijuana use.

If we elect another Democrat, or a socially-liberal Republican (other than Rand Paul, I'm not sure who that might be) as president in 2016, I think the Justice Dept. will continue to refrain from challenging any state laws that legalize marijuana. However, I think it's quite likely that the Dept., under another Republican president, would do this.

...keeping the drug away from children
How's that working out for them, you think?
Easier to bust people with their 'legal' marijuana.

Comments here have described passing the bill as a political compromise with the "anti-prohibition" idea. I think that's correct.
I lived in Washington when hard liquor was only sold through state operated stores. These WA bureaucrats on the Liquor Control Board are kind of like liberals on gun control. They are so afraid of it they won't learn any of the details and they end up sounding like dummies.

If we elect another Democrat, or a socially-liberal Republican (other than Rand Paul, I'm not sure who that might be) as president in 2016, I think the Justice Dept. will continue to refrain from challenging any state laws that legalize marijuana

Sorry, but the Obama admin said something similar in 2009 w/ the Ogden Memo. The media reported that Obama was giving state's med marijuana laws more leeway.

Yet a closer look at the memo revealed a statement not much different than previous administrations, and consequently, even though the number of dispensaries doubled, Obama and the DEA made more raids on dispensaries in one term than both of Bush's combined. Tripled the money spent on enforcement, too.

Meanwhile, CNN recently ran a brainless story telling us how Obama dialed back the DEA during his presidency.

As you might expect, some people who follow it closely are skeptical about this new statement.

And good for Washington state for keeping pot advertisements away from schools and youth centers.

Oakland, CA and Richmond, CA ban alcohol ads within 1000 feet of schools. Why not do the same for marijuana?

Besides, within 20 years we'll realize alcohol and drug legalization is a failure?

"Hello Alabama!"

You might be surprised. We had a thread here last year in which we uncovered the fact that Alabama currently has more liberal craft-beer and wine laws than California does.