Pubdate: Wed, 05 May 2004
Source: Orange County Register, The (CA)
Copyright: 2004 The Orange County Register
Contact:  http://www2.ocregister.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321
Cited: American Civil Liberties Union ( www.aclu.org )
Cited: Change the Climate ( www.changetheclimate.org )
Cited: Drug Policy Alliance ( www.drugpolicy.org )
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project ( www.mpp.org )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

CHALLENGING CENSORSHIP

A court challenge to overturn a law that withholds federal funds from local 
transit districts that accept ads critical of current marijuana policy 
deserves to succeed.

Last week an important case regarding free-speech rights was argued in 
federal court in the nation's capital. Although it attracted little 
attention, it has the potential to widen the debate about federal drug 
policy - and has already highlighted the intellectual weakness of the most 
fervid drug warriors.

At issue is the Istook amendment, tacked onto a transportation bill by 
Oklahoma Republican Ernest Istook. It cuts off federal funding from local 
transit authorities that accept advertisements critical of current 
marijuana laws.

Subsequent to the amendment's passage, the ACLU, Change the Climate, the 
Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project submitted a proposed 
ad to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. A group of 
ordinary people behind bars appeared under the headline, "Marijuana Laws 
Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans."

The transit authority rejected the ad and the groups filed suit seeking to 
have the Istook amendment declared unconstitutional.

Based on the state of First Amendment law it should be a slam-dunk. The 
First Amendment's free-speech guarantees are interpreted in court as 
requiring the government to have a compelling - not just justifiable but 
compelling - policy reason to restrict freedom of speech.

In court government lawyers argued that federal money always comes with 
strings attached. The plaintiffs argued that a string that restricts free 
speech is not permissible. The groups don't seek federal funding for their 
message, but want to pay for it themselves.

The case should be decided in a few weeks.

Perhaps more significant than a misplaced desire to use taxpayers' dollars 
to stifle dissent is what the Istook amendment reveals about the 
intellectual bankruptcy of passionate drug warriors. An advocate who 
believes he has the stronger argument, one that is likely to prevail in 
open and honest debate, seldom tries to prevent his opponents from even 
making a case. In most cases a confident advocate is eager to debate, to 
expose the weakness of the opposition case.

Obviously, Mr. Istook doesn't believe the case for marijuana prohibition is 
intellectually overpowering. And, of course, he's right.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart