Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
^^^
Cold medications are profitable, and people don't constantly purchase cold meds.
Cold medications are profitable, and people don't constantly purchase cold meds.
-
DPMC Moderators: tryptakid
ACLU sues to end ban on anti-drug law ads (MERGED) updated 9/06/04
- Thread starter fruitfly
- Start date
Judge: Ad Restrictions Unconstitutional
A judge said Wednesday that a federal law aimed at restricting the display of paid, pro-marijuana ads in buses and subway stations is unconstitutional, improperly infringing on free speech rights.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman came in a lawsuit challenging the 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.
Fearing a loss of at least $85 million in federal aid, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority earlier this year declined to run ads submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union and three drug advocacy groups. The groups then filed suit, calling it an unconstitutional restriction.
The Transportation Department, which was named in the lawsuit along with Washington Metro, argued in part that it had a right to enforce the statute because it served to deter illegal activity or a ``significant threat to the public welfare.''
But Friedman said the law, which took effect in February, represented an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' spending power because it unfairly punished a particular viewpoint.
``Just as Congress could not permit advertisements calling for the recall of a sitting mayor or governor while prohibiting advertisements supporting retention, it cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences,'' Friedman stated.
A spokesperson for the Transportation Department did not immediately return a message Wednesday evening.
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 which are seen as promoting marijuana or other drug use.
------------------------------------------------------
June 2/2004
Judge: Ad Restrictions Unconstitutional
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
Link (requires subscription)
A judge said Wednesday that a federal law aimed at restricting the display of paid, pro-marijuana ads in buses and subway stations is unconstitutional, improperly infringing on free speech rights.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman came in a lawsuit challenging the 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.
Fearing a loss of at least $85 million in federal aid, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority earlier this year declined to run ads submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union and three drug advocacy groups. The groups then filed suit, calling it an unconstitutional restriction.
The Transportation Department, which was named in the lawsuit along with Washington Metro, argued in part that it had a right to enforce the statute because it served to deter illegal activity or a ``significant threat to the public welfare.''
But Friedman said the law, which took effect in February, represented an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' spending power because it unfairly punished a particular viewpoint.
``Just as Congress could not permit advertisements calling for the recall of a sitting mayor or governor while prohibiting advertisements supporting retention, it cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences,'' Friedman stated.
A spokesperson for the Transportation Department did not immediately return a message Wednesday evening.
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 which are seen as promoting marijuana or other drug use.
------------------------------------------------------
June 2/2004
Judge: Ad Restrictions Unconstitutional
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
Link (requires subscription)
SilverFeniks
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,541
The Judiciary saves the day, once again.
Makes me wonder if it will ever be corrupted, or if its Constitutional separation from the other two dirty branches will keep it as a true defender of Democracy.
Of course, this will be challenged, but there's numerous legal/logical arguments to kill any defense of the law.
Makes me wonder if it will ever be corrupted, or if its Constitutional separation from the other two dirty branches will keep it as a true defender of Democracy.
Of course, this will be challenged, but there's numerous legal/logical arguments to kill any defense of the law.
Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
Yeah, but watch this go up before the US Supreme Count (you know the Feds are going to try to do that).
They interfered with the last presidental election. You don't think a pesty little thing like the US Constitution is going to get in their way?
They interfered with the last presidental election. You don't think a pesty little thing like the US Constitution is going to get in their way?
Brian Oblivion
Ex-Bluelighter
Another thing that bothers me, and I'll probably get flamed for this, why is it that this Republican Congress is creating laws which are blatently violating the Constitution in the first place?
They have all of the legal resources available to determine a proposed law's viability. And what about a Republican President who is perfectly willing to sign in to law statutes which are blatent violations of the US Constitution?
This all sounds like Congress is full of nothing but a bunch of fast eddies! 8(
They have all of the legal resources available to determine a proposed law's viability. And what about a Republican President who is perfectly willing to sign in to law statutes which are blatent violations of the US Constitution?
This all sounds like Congress is full of nothing but a bunch of fast eddies! 8(
souperphly
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 19
Pro-Marijuana Groups Hail Free Speech Ruling
Judge Voids Law Against Drug Ads On Metro
Pro-Marijuana Groups Hail Free Speech Ruling
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 3, 2004; Page B01
A federal law aimed at keeping advertisements critical of national drug policy out of Metro stations and bus shelters illegally chills free speech and cannot stand, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman barred the U.S. government from enforcing a law passed by Congress this year that calls for denying federal transportation money to any transit system that accepts ads promoting the legalization of drugs.
Drug advocacy groups that sponsored the ads applauded the decision, which came in a lawsuit they filed against Congress and Metro. They predicted that Metro officials will soon accept their ads in stations and shelters.
"I'm just absolutely delighted that free speech is alive and well in this country and that we can finally have a debate about reforming marijuana laws instead of being force-fed the government's one-sided views on marijuana," said Joseph White, executive director of Change the Climate, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel declined to comment, saying the decision was under review. U.S. Justice Department officials said that they were analyzing the ruling and that it was too early to say whether it would be appealed.
The law at the center of the dispute found its origins in the ire of Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), who said he was furious last fall at seeing marijuana legalization ads in Metro shelters and stations. One ad pictured a scantily clad couple in an embrace, with the caption: "Enjoy better sex! Legalize and Tax Marijuana."
Istook introduced legislation to stop the ads by attaching his penalty measure to the 2004 appropriations bill, which President Bush signed into law in January. The measure threatens 53 transit authorities with the possible loss of $3.1 billion a year if they accept such ads.
Change the Climate joined with the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project and the American Civil Liberties Union to file the lawsuit, claiming that the legislation amounted to unconstitutional censorship. The case was filed after Metro rejected ads in February.
In an April hearing before Friedman, the Justice Department argued that federally funded mass transit systems are not required to provide a canvas for political groups to express their views. Department lawyers also maintained that some of the ads encouraged illegal behavior.
In his ruling, Friedman declared that the case was not about drugs or crime, but about free speech. He called the law a clear case of "viewpoint discrimination" and noted that Metro displayed the Office of National Drug Control Policy's anti-drug ads when it refused the other ads.
"Congress . . . cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences," the judge said. He called the law "an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' broad spending power."
Art Spitzer, the litigation chief for the ACLU in Washington, said it will be difficult for Congress or Metro to challenge the ruling. "While reasonable people may disagree about drug policy, clearly the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to try to censor that debate," he said.
But Istook indicated that the case was far from over.
"I'm confident that ultimately the courts will agree with the long-standing principle that Congress is free to decide what we will or will not fund," Istook said. "We provide major funding to combat drug use, and tax dollars should not be used to subsidize contrary messages."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10941-2004Jun2.html
Judge Voids Law Against Drug Ads On Metro
Pro-Marijuana Groups Hail Free Speech Ruling
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 3, 2004; Page B01
A federal law aimed at keeping advertisements critical of national drug policy out of Metro stations and bus shelters illegally chills free speech and cannot stand, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman barred the U.S. government from enforcing a law passed by Congress this year that calls for denying federal transportation money to any transit system that accepts ads promoting the legalization of drugs.
Drug advocacy groups that sponsored the ads applauded the decision, which came in a lawsuit they filed against Congress and Metro. They predicted that Metro officials will soon accept their ads in stations and shelters.
"I'm just absolutely delighted that free speech is alive and well in this country and that we can finally have a debate about reforming marijuana laws instead of being force-fed the government's one-sided views on marijuana," said Joseph White, executive director of Change the Climate, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel declined to comment, saying the decision was under review. U.S. Justice Department officials said that they were analyzing the ruling and that it was too early to say whether it would be appealed.
The law at the center of the dispute found its origins in the ire of Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), who said he was furious last fall at seeing marijuana legalization ads in Metro shelters and stations. One ad pictured a scantily clad couple in an embrace, with the caption: "Enjoy better sex! Legalize and Tax Marijuana."
Istook introduced legislation to stop the ads by attaching his penalty measure to the 2004 appropriations bill, which President Bush signed into law in January. The measure threatens 53 transit authorities with the possible loss of $3.1 billion a year if they accept such ads.
Change the Climate joined with the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project and the American Civil Liberties Union to file the lawsuit, claiming that the legislation amounted to unconstitutional censorship. The case was filed after Metro rejected ads in February.
In an April hearing before Friedman, the Justice Department argued that federally funded mass transit systems are not required to provide a canvas for political groups to express their views. Department lawyers also maintained that some of the ads encouraged illegal behavior.
In his ruling, Friedman declared that the case was not about drugs or crime, but about free speech. He called the law a clear case of "viewpoint discrimination" and noted that Metro displayed the Office of National Drug Control Policy's anti-drug ads when it refused the other ads.
"Congress . . . cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences," the judge said. He called the law "an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' broad spending power."
Art Spitzer, the litigation chief for the ACLU in Washington, said it will be difficult for Congress or Metro to challenge the ruling. "While reasonable people may disagree about drug policy, clearly the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to try to censor that debate," he said.
But Istook indicated that the case was far from over.
"I'm confident that ultimately the courts will agree with the long-standing principle that Congress is free to decide what we will or will not fund," Istook said. "We provide major funding to combat drug use, and tax dollars should not be used to subsidize contrary messages."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10941-2004Jun2.html
bachus
Bluelighter
Our legislators are sworn to support the constitution yet they pass laws that flagrantly disregard it. Any legislator that sponsors an unconstitutional law should be ineligible for re-election!!!
Dr. J
Bluelight Crew
^^^
An impossible standard. The Constitution is open to interpretation. I say it should allow for gay marriage; the majority of people don't think so. Some argue the constiution protects the right to choose; again, others say it doesn't.
An impossible standard. The Constitution is open to interpretation. I say it should allow for gay marriage; the majority of people don't think so. Some argue the constiution protects the right to choose; again, others say it doesn't.
TheDEA.org
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,497
It might be interesting to look up who voted for this law. It may very well have been quite bi-partisan. Politicians of every stripe propose and pass stupid, unconstitutional laws; the most recent version of the RAVE Act to be offered would have made it a federal felony if you threw a party and people used drugs at the party. It was written and introduced by Democrats.
sexualhealing
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 261
its disgusting that it even had to go to court.
the us govt is horrible. we need another country to come liberate us plz. we have an insane ruler who has weapons of mass destruction and who knows what he'll do.
we need your help....
the us govt is horrible. we need another country to come liberate us plz. we have an insane ruler who has weapons of mass destruction and who knows what he'll do.
we need your help....
David
Ex-Bluelighter
I guess reading skills aren't required to pass the BAR exam in Oklahoma.8)
Also is the law in question considered a canvas for political groups to to express their views? It's a very oppresive law, and shouldn't have been signed into exsistence.
Newsbrief: Marijuana Policy Ads Return to DC Following Court Victory
Drug War Chronicle
9/3/04
The marijuana reform group whose controversial ads on Washington Metro buses and subway stops spawned a congressional effort to effectively censor them it back at it, and this time it has partners.
Change the Climate (http://www.changetheclimate.org), the Boston-based group behind the ads, was vindicated in federal court in June, where it was joined by the Marijuana Policy Project (http:www.mpp.org) and the American Civil Liberties Union Drug Policy Reform Project (formerly the Drug Policy Litigation Project -- http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy) in filing suit.
US District Court Judge Paul Friedman ruled that an attempt to block the ads by pulling federal funding from any transit system that ran them was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights. That failed effort to suppress political opinions with which he did not agree was the brainchild of Oklahoma Republican Rep. Ernest Istook (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/340/istook.shtml).
"Istook's ban provides powerful evidence of how scared the federal government is of genuine debate," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org) in a press release announcing the new ads. "I guess that's no surprise since they're trying to defend a policy that is indefensible."
The federal government has appealed Judge Friedman's ruling to the DC District Court of Appeals, but in the meantime, free speech reigns once again. And beginning Thursday, marijuana reform ads are once again appearing, this time at the Union Station and Capitol South stops of the Metro. But this time, Change the Climate has been joined by MPP, the ACLU, and DPA as sponsors whose logos appear on the ads.
"We are pleased that the court's ruling will allow the public to see this message, despite the efforts of the government to stifle our point of view," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project.
The ad will run throughout September and features a group of ordinary looking people standing behind prison bars under the headline, "Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans." It can be viewed at http://www.aclu.org/images/client/decrim_ad.jpg online.
Link
Drug War Chronicle
9/3/04
The marijuana reform group whose controversial ads on Washington Metro buses and subway stops spawned a congressional effort to effectively censor them it back at it, and this time it has partners.
Change the Climate (http://www.changetheclimate.org), the Boston-based group behind the ads, was vindicated in federal court in June, where it was joined by the Marijuana Policy Project (http:www.mpp.org) and the American Civil Liberties Union Drug Policy Reform Project (formerly the Drug Policy Litigation Project -- http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy) in filing suit.
US District Court Judge Paul Friedman ruled that an attempt to block the ads by pulling federal funding from any transit system that ran them was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights. That failed effort to suppress political opinions with which he did not agree was the brainchild of Oklahoma Republican Rep. Ernest Istook (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/340/istook.shtml).
"Istook's ban provides powerful evidence of how scared the federal government is of genuine debate," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org) in a press release announcing the new ads. "I guess that's no surprise since they're trying to defend a policy that is indefensible."
The federal government has appealed Judge Friedman's ruling to the DC District Court of Appeals, but in the meantime, free speech reigns once again. And beginning Thursday, marijuana reform ads are once again appearing, this time at the Union Station and Capitol South stops of the Metro. But this time, Change the Climate has been joined by MPP, the ACLU, and DPA as sponsors whose logos appear on the ads.
"We are pleased that the court's ruling will allow the public to see this message, despite the efforts of the government to stifle our point of view," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project.
The ad will run throughout September and features a group of ordinary looking people standing behind prison bars under the headline, "Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans." It can be viewed at http://www.aclu.org/images/client/decrim_ad.jpg online.
Link