ACLU sues to end ban on anti-drug law ads (MERGED) updated 9/06/04

ACLU sues to end ban on anti-drug law ads

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the transit authority in the nation's capital yesterday, saying its refusal to display paid advertisements that criticize anti-marijuana laws violates free-speech rights.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, claims the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority acted unconstitutionally when it declined last week to run the ads at subway and bus stops.

The ads were sponsored by the ACLU and three groups joining the lawsuit: Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project, which support the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

"The government does not want the public to know how badly our drug policy has failed, so it is trying to silence Americans who oppose the war on drugs," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project. "Fortunately, the First Amendment clearly prohibits this kind of blatant viewpoint-based censorship."

The suit challenges a new law that cuts off up to $3.1 billion in federal funds to local transit authorities if they display ads promoting the legalization or medical use of marijuana or other drugs.

A spokeswoman for Washington Metro, Lisa Farbstein, said city officials were forced to reject the ads to avoid a loss of at least $85 million in federal aid.

"Given our critical dependency on continued federal funding, we have no choice but to follow the law that Congress passed," she said. "To do otherwise would be a disservice to our customers and the region's taxpayers."

Washington Metro is the only city transit authority named in the lawsuit, but the groups that filed it said San Francisco and New York could stand to lose at least $100 million and $75 million respectively if they accept paid ads that are seen as promoting marijuana or other drug use.

The law prohibiting funding for agencies that allow such messages was submitted by U.S. Rep Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla., in response to ads his staff saw on Metro. He wrote to then-Metro Board Chairman Jim Graham in November, expressing displeasure at public service messages urging the legalization of marijuana under the headlines "Enjoy Better Sex!" and "Save our Taxes!" Istook threatened to review Metro's current federal funding and to seek to recover past funding.

That same month, the board voted to eliminate free public service announcements, except for those sponsored by area governments. Officials said at the time they needed the ad space for self promotion to boost ridership.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critics of drug policy sue after D.C. Metro refuses ads
By The Associated Press
02.19.04

Link

Click here for ACLU press release

From the link:

The rejected advertisement sponsored by the ACLU, Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Marijuana Policy Project shows a group of ordinary people standing behind prison bars under the headline, “Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans.”

Click to expand...

The ad in question.

Thank you aclu.

Fuck you U.S. Rep Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla. I hope your children grow up to be potheads

I wish people that give the ACLU shit would pay attention to this kind of thing. Maybe I'll link to it next time it comes up in CE&P

--- G.

i felt physically sick after reading this shit.... the US is still reguarding drugs in a very primitive and very foolish way and I fear they may never change...

i dont see how the ACLU could possibly lose, there is no other explanation other than censorship. It's basicly like the republican congress passing laws saying the dems cand run political ads. just because the people with those views arnt in power doesnt mean that their voices should not be heard. If someone can pay to produce the ad, and they can find someone to run it or produce it for them, then no matter how many people disagree with it, they should be allowed to run it.

Lol, chemical they will! The ONLY thing to do in Oklahoma is to get faded.

That is blatant censorship. This ban must be struck down ASAP.

That reminds me I have to call the ACLU cause of a asualt charge on me.

Yah and Fuck you U.S. Rep Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla.

UPDATE: Federal court to hear arguments re: ad censorship

WASHINGTON - April 20 - At 9:30 a.m. next Wednesday, April 28 the nation’s major drug policy reform groups will present oral arguments before Judge Paul L. Friedman in two consolidated lawsuits filed against the United States government and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for censoring the speech of those critical of the government’s “War on Drugs.”

With more than $85 million at stake, WMATA rejected in February an advertisement submitted by the ACLU, Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Marijuana Policy Project that promotes the reform of our nation’s marijuana laws. The groups are challenging Section 177 of the 2004 federal spending bill, which directs Congress to deny federal funds to local transit authorities that display advertisements promoting “the legalization or medical use of any substance listed in Schedule I…of the Controlled Substances Act.”

The lawsuits, filed on February 18, ask the court to declare the law unconstitutional because it coerces local transit authorities into censoring pure political speech protected by the First Amendment. The lawsuits name Norman Y. Mineta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, and Richard White, the CEO of WMATA, respectively, as defendants.

The rejected advertisement, previous press releases, the plaintiff’s complaint, the United States government’s opposition brief, and the plaintiff’s reply brief can be found online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy, www.changetheclimate.org, www.drugpolicy.org, and www.mpp.org.

WHEN: Wednesday, April 28 at 9:30 a.m. EST

WHERE: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. / Washington, D.C. 20001 Courtroom 17 – Open to the Public

WHO: Hadrian Katz, Arnold & Porter LLP, Counsel for Plaintiffs

Arthur B. Spitzer, ACLU of the National Capital Area

Steve Fox, Director of Government Relations of the Marijuana Policy Project

Bill Piper, Director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance

WHAT: Oral arguments in challenge to government censorship of marijuana law reform advertisements. Spokespersons for the groups bringing the challenge will be available after the hearing.

Link

Wow I gained some respect for the ACLU

I have to admit that I will miss those anti-drug adds.
I always thought that anti-drug adds PROMOTED drug use anyway.
Hey if they get banned then maybe the ACLU will allow a band of hippys to put together some of the funniest anti-drug adds and poke fun at them.
The government should revive reefer maddness only for xtc this time.
If you try X even one time YOU WILL GO INSANE AND GET AN STD WITH AN AXE MURDERER!

Galahan, this has nothing to do with banning anti-drug ads, it is challenging the current ban on adverts which do not echo the government's anti-drugs crusade!

Unless the ruling judge in this case is getting paid off, I simply can't imagine such an illegal law remaining in place. The Feds haven't pulled the "National Security" card on this one, so I think they're out of luck.

Give it time they're working on putting into prospective with National Security. Why else eliminate the Taliban, and create a Heroin abundance. The majority of the public views all drugs as being the same. Even while they are taking Viagra, and those deadly anti-allergy meds that don't really work.8)

Good op-ed

Government's new tool in the drug war: a muzzle
By Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune
Originally published May 4, 2004

CHICAGO - For decades, supporters of the war on drugs have been losing the debate about the policy, even as they continue to lock up hordes of harmless offenders. But prohibitionists have a new tactic to help them get the best of the argument: Don't let the other side speak.

One day last year, Ernest Istook noticed an ad on the Washington Metro transit system with an unusual message: "Enjoy better sex! Legalize and tax marijuana." Most people who ride the bus or the subway manage to absorb all sorts of little surprises on their daily commute, but not Mr. Istook. He wrote a letter to the local transit agency to say it had "exercised the poorest possible judgment" in running the ad at "a time when the nation and the Washington, D.C., area in particular suffer from chronic substance abuse."

Normally a complaint like that would have no effect. Mr. Istook, however, is not only a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Oklahoma but also chairman of the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee.

He placed a provision in a funding bill reducing federal funds for Metro by $92,500, as punishment for the ad, and denying money to any transit system that accepts ads advocating "the legalization or medical use" of marijuana or other illicit drugs. And it passed. Transit agencies across the country now have to choose between tolerating open debate and getting a total of $3.1 billion in federal funds.

So your local bus or subway system is free to run all sorts of ads and public service announcements. It is free to post lurid signs warning of the evils of smoking pot or snorting cocaine. But if it gets a nickel from the federal government, it may not allow any message raising doubts about the wisdom of the drug war. This is the Bill O'Reilly approach to policy disputes: Shut up!

Already the policy is having an effect. The group that ran the original ad, Change the Climate, recently tried to buy space on Washington buses for an ad with the caption: "Marijuana laws waste billions of taxpayer dollars to lock up nonviolent Americans." But even simple statements of fact run afoul of the censor's decree. Metro refused, saying it couldn't afford to risk the loss of $170 million in federal money.

The transit system does, however, display messages by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America urging parents to "set the rules and expect your kid to live drug-free," as well as ads dealing with issues such as abortion, the Iraq war and the alleged failures of the U.S. Department of Education.

Upon being rebuffed, Change the Climate filed a lawsuit, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing that the ban violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington hearing the case got to consider a variety of preposterous rationalizations for the law.

One is that the government is not obligated to subsidize unwholesome messages. Congress, the Justice Department argued, "has an undeniable interest in ensuring that no federal funds are used, directly or indirectly, to facilitate activity that Congress does not wish to promote." But in this case, the ad would not have cost the government money - Metro would have made $91,875 from renting the space.

The government lawyer also insisted that Congress had good reason to ban such ads because they "might encourage the use of drugs, which is illegal at this time." But the ad didn't say people should do something illegal. In fact, by showing a picture of people behind bars, the ad might even deter violators.

The point of the ad was to change the law. To Ernest Istook and John Ashcroft, though, any suggestion that a law be changed amounts to incitement to violate it. In their addled version of democracy, you can advocate the enactment of a ban but not its repeal.

In the case of our drug laws, that sort of rule might be prudent, because their total failure makes them vulnerable to criticism. Such as the point made by Change the Climate, which says it's unfair to imprison people for using a largely benign drug that one of every three Americans has tried.

To silence critics is an implicit concession by the government that the drug war is impossible to defend. Alas, you can't win a debate by silencing the other side, but you can lose one.

Link

One is that the government is not obligated to subsidize unwholesome messages

Click to expand...

What ??? Ok, this is pretty retarted to say the least, but I guess we better get some corporate sponsors to pay for these ads. This Pro-Legalization message brought to you by [inster hip corp name here]

8)

Crazeee said:

What ??? Ok, this is pretty retarted to say the least, but I guess we better get some corporate sponsors to pay for these ads. This Pro-Legalization message brought to you by [inster hip corp name here]

Click to expand...

Hey, that won't be hard at all - just hit up the Alcohol + Tobacco conglomerates!

That is particularly funny (and i hope this was your intent) because it is those conglomerates that are particularly anti-drugs. Guess what happens if pot is legalized? Alcohol sales go down, and probably tobacco too. Funny how the government allows beer ads on the side of buses, but not political messages....

oh wait, they DO allow political messages, but only the self-serving ones.... that's right....

Kitty, if marijuana was somehow legalized, I think the tobacco companies would jump on it like Gold ... think how many varieties of packageable Cannabis products RJ Reynolds + co would come out with

The alcohol companies would then have to team up with the smoking companies, so they could market "Beer + Buds" at convienience stores across America

You are right though, both industries always sponsor anti-drug initiatives (the alcohol companies now being a prime sponsor behind the anti-Rave/ecstasy legislation); but if both industries formulated plans to profit off the legalization, and if they funded such initiatives, the political climate would look far different.

Unfortunately, do to the nature of the whole Raver/Ecstasy scene, that'll never happen. Those scene's are reliant on eternally revolving around newer crowds. Alcohol is an addiction based scene. Same with Tobacco. The money spent to advertise ecstacy wouldn't amount to much profit because it's rare to have a constantly using consumer base. IE No addicts that will take it everyday, and even if they did, they wouldn't last long. Therefore they'd never turn a profit like tobacco, or alcohol. So they stick to banning the Raver/Ecstasy movement.8)