SmokeDog420
New Member
Washington -- An alliance of civil liberties and activist groups filed suit last week in federal court, challenging a federal law that threatens to deny funding to local transit systems that display ads challenging marijuana laws.
"That's just ridiculous," said Britta Stunkard, president of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "You have to hear both sides of any story. Because an ad is critical is not grounds for full-out censorship."
Though the lawsuit involves the Washington Area Metro Transit Authority, the law applies to any local transit system in the United States that relies on federal funding.
The American Civil Liberties Union and three drug policy reform organizations - Marijuana Policy Project, Change the Climate, and the Drug Policy Alliance - sought an injunction Thursday against the Washington Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation after the authority rejected an ad that claims marijuana laws are a waste of tax dollars.
The ad depicts a crowd of men and women behind bars. It reads: "Marijuana laws waste billions of taxpayer dollars to lock up nonviolent Americans." The ad calls for "more realistic marijuana laws."
It may be viewed online at: Drug Policy Alliance
The law that prohibits such ads is called the "Istook Amendment" after Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., who added it to the massive omnibus spending bill passed last month. Istook dismissed the suit as off-the-wall.
"These are fanatics who seek attention by making threats and filing lawsuits," Istook said. "Congress has the clear right and also the responsibility to place strict conditions on how we use taxpayer dollars."
The provision states that after Feb. 1, federal funds are to be withheld from local transits "involved, directly or indirectly, in any activity that promotes the legalization or medical use of any substance listed in the schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act."
Istook noted that the federal government would spend more than $12 billion this year to discourage illegal drug use.
"It makes no sense to use federal dollars or federal property to undercut this effort," Istook said.
The Madison Metro Transit System has never been confronted with the choice of whether or not to run an ad advocating marijuana law reform, according to Metro spokeswoman Julie Maryott-Walsh. But Metro would have to proceed carefully, Maryott-Walsh said, "We do receive a good deal of funding from the federal government."
Federal funding provided slightly more than 10 percent of Metro's total funding in 2002. Figures for 2003 have not yet been calculated.
"Boy, this is disgusting," said Cheryl Rosen Weston, a former Wisconsin ACLU vice president who lectures at UW-Madison.
Weston pointed to the 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case, Arkansas Educational Television Commission vs. Ralph P. Forbes, which defined the parameters of public debate.
"You can limit speech in a lot of ways, but the criteria cannot be based on the content of the speech," Rosen Weston explained. This ad is not suggesting viewers break the law or commit a crime, Weston explained, rather it is suggesting viewers reconsider the law itself.
Stimulating examination and discussion "over matters of public policy inherent to democratic debate," said Rosen Weston.
"It's no different than saying you can put "re-elect Bush" ads and not "elect Kerry" ads in the subway. I don't think they'd like it if Congress passed that," Rosen Weston said.
Source: Capital Times, The (WI)
Author: Anna Christine Gorski, The Capital Times
Published: February 23, 2004
Copyright: 2004 The Capital Times
Contact: tctvoice@madison.com
Website: Cap Times
"That's just ridiculous," said Britta Stunkard, president of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "You have to hear both sides of any story. Because an ad is critical is not grounds for full-out censorship."
Though the lawsuit involves the Washington Area Metro Transit Authority, the law applies to any local transit system in the United States that relies on federal funding.
The American Civil Liberties Union and three drug policy reform organizations - Marijuana Policy Project, Change the Climate, and the Drug Policy Alliance - sought an injunction Thursday against the Washington Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation after the authority rejected an ad that claims marijuana laws are a waste of tax dollars.
The ad depicts a crowd of men and women behind bars. It reads: "Marijuana laws waste billions of taxpayer dollars to lock up nonviolent Americans." The ad calls for "more realistic marijuana laws."
It may be viewed online at: Drug Policy Alliance
The law that prohibits such ads is called the "Istook Amendment" after Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., who added it to the massive omnibus spending bill passed last month. Istook dismissed the suit as off-the-wall.
"These are fanatics who seek attention by making threats and filing lawsuits," Istook said. "Congress has the clear right and also the responsibility to place strict conditions on how we use taxpayer dollars."
The provision states that after Feb. 1, federal funds are to be withheld from local transits "involved, directly or indirectly, in any activity that promotes the legalization or medical use of any substance listed in the schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act."
Istook noted that the federal government would spend more than $12 billion this year to discourage illegal drug use.
"It makes no sense to use federal dollars or federal property to undercut this effort," Istook said.
The Madison Metro Transit System has never been confronted with the choice of whether or not to run an ad advocating marijuana law reform, according to Metro spokeswoman Julie Maryott-Walsh. But Metro would have to proceed carefully, Maryott-Walsh said, "We do receive a good deal of funding from the federal government."
Federal funding provided slightly more than 10 percent of Metro's total funding in 2002. Figures for 2003 have not yet been calculated.
"Boy, this is disgusting," said Cheryl Rosen Weston, a former Wisconsin ACLU vice president who lectures at UW-Madison.
Weston pointed to the 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case, Arkansas Educational Television Commission vs. Ralph P. Forbes, which defined the parameters of public debate.
"You can limit speech in a lot of ways, but the criteria cannot be based on the content of the speech," Rosen Weston explained. This ad is not suggesting viewers break the law or commit a crime, Weston explained, rather it is suggesting viewers reconsider the law itself.
Stimulating examination and discussion "over matters of public policy inherent to democratic debate," said Rosen Weston.
"It's no different than saying you can put "re-elect Bush" ads and not "elect Kerry" ads in the subway. I don't think they'd like it if Congress passed that," Rosen Weston said.
Source: Capital Times, The (WI)
Author: Anna Christine Gorski, The Capital Times
Published: February 23, 2004
Copyright: 2004 The Capital Times
Contact: tctvoice@madison.com
Website: Cap Times
