cannabisnews.com: Feds Face Lawsuit in Censorship Fight





Feds Face Lawsuit in Censorship Fight
Posted by CN Staff on February 18, 2004 at 16:15:07 PT
By Jennifer Lash
Source: Times Record News 
Four drug policy reform groups sued the U.S. government and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Wednesday for refusing an advertisement critical of the nation's marijuana laws."Our ad was rejected because it provides the stark facts and plain truths that the White House fears will shed light on its failed drug policy," said Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union policy litigation project. "Our ad does not promote or advocate drug use - it is an attempt to restore fairness and reason to drug policy in America."
The lawsuit is in response to an amendment to the 2004 omnibus spending bill sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla. It instructs Congress to deny local transit authorities federal funding if they display advertisements promoting legalization or use of any substances listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.Schedule I drugs are those with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use in the United States.In a Nov. 10 letter from Istook to Washington, D.C., Councilman Jim Graham, who also chairs the transit authority, Istook says he wrote "out of grave concern and displeasure at the recent wide-spread run of advertisements" in the bus and rail system advocating change in the marijuana laws.Istook said members of Congress, staff and senior administration officials complained to him about ads. The most common ad showed a young couple embracing and the words "Enjoy Better Sex!" and "Legalize and Tax Marijuana."The rejected advertisement shows a group of people standing behind bars beneath the headline, "Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans." Small print below says one in three adults in the United States has tried marijuana.Istook said Metro provided $46,250 in free ad space for the advertisements.The ads were produced for the ACLU, Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project, Boyd said.The transit authority provided free ad space to Change the Climate because the group qualified for a public service advertising program, said Lisa Farbstein, Metro public affairs officer. At that time, Metro was "completely content neutral," she said.Metro no longer accepts public service advertising because it needs to raise revenue, Farbstein said."Given our critical dependency on continued federal funding, we have no choice but to follow the law that Congress passed and the president signed into law," Farbstein said. Across the nation, the government could withhold more than $3.1 billion in grants to transit systems if they accept or display such advertisements.For example, the BART San Francisco Airport extension project relies on $100 million in federal funds and the Sound Transit Central Link Initial Segment in Seattle gets $75 million, according to 2004 federal budget figures provided by the ACLU.On the Net: http://www.dea.gov/Source: Times Record News (Wichita Falls, TX)Author: Jennifer LashPublished: February 18, 2004Copyright: 2004 The E.W. Scripps Co.Contact: wilsonc timesrecordnews.comWebsite: http://www.timesrecordnews.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:MPP: http://www.mpp.org/ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/DPA: http://www.drugpolicy.org/CTC: http://www.changetheclimate.org/ACLU, Marijuana Rights Groups Sue U.S. Over Ads http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18358.shtmlACLU Sues Metrorail, City Over Marijuana Ads http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18356.shtmlACLU and Drug Policy Groups Sue Over Censorship http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18352.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by FoM on February 18, 2004 at 20:36:00 PT
Important News from The Drug Policy Alliance
The Alliance and Drug Policy Groups Sue Government Over CensorshipWednesday February 18, 2004The Drug Policy Alliance and other major drug policy reform groups have joined together to file a lawsuit against the U.S. government and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for censoring the free speech of drug policy reformers. The Alliance and its partners announced the suit today before a full house of local and national media at the National Press Club.http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/istook_complaint.pdfDuring the press conference, we unveiled a paid ad – co-sponsored by the Alliance, ACLU, Change the Climate, and Marijuana Policy Project – that was censored by the federal government. Our ad states the facts about the government’s severe and wasteful marijuana laws. The transit authority, which operates the Metro subway and bus systems in the nation’s capital, rejected the ad under pressure of a new law that cuts off all federal funding to local transit authorities that display ads criticizing the government’s drug policy. The law, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), passed as part of a giant spending bill that also dished out $145 million in taxpayer money for pro-“War on Drugs” advertising. The White House, as part of its billion-dollar “War on Drugs” media campaign, often runs ads trumpeting its policies on public buses, trains, and subway systems, including the D.C. Metro.“Congress keeps forgetting that there is no ‘drug exception’ to the Constitution,” said Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “But there’s a silver lining to the Istook Amendment in the opportunity it presents for us to show just how foolish and extreme the drug war’s proponents have become.”Already, almost 10,000 Alliance supporters faxed their Representatives and Senators condemning the government’s blatant censorship. Now, our lawsuit asks the court to declare Istook’s new law unconstitutional, to order the Washington Metro System to accept the plaintiffs' paid advertisement, and to prohibit the federal government from cutting off any funds to transit authorities that permit the display of advertisements criticizing the government’s drug laws.The lawsuit asserts that Metro’s censorship of this political speech is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically ensures that groups may freely express – and citizens must be permitted to access – all issue viewpoints.Download the ad in pdf format:http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/transit_ad_04.pdfRead the text of the lawsuit:http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/istook_complaint.pdfRead the comments of Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance.http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/ethan_istook_comments.cfm News Article Link: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/02_18_04istook.cfm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on February 18, 2004 at 17:10:05 PT
Schedule 1 criteria
Schedule I drugs are those with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use in the United States.Actually there are three criteria that are required instead of the two listed. The first criteria concerns addiction and cannabis is not physically addictive and according to the Canadian Senate report is psycologically addictive in only one in twenty people. By not meeting this qualification it is not allowed in Schedule 1. Criteria two refers to medical value and 9 states and 80% of the people say it has recognized use so that kind of negates the "no" word, and you could add history on top of that including the federal program and the state laws of the 1970s and 1980s. Not meeting this criteria means no Schedule 1. The third criteria concerns harm. There is the famous Francis Young quote that puts the harm question in its lying place. Even in states that have medical cannabis laws do not worry about monitoring patients like my friend that has to have liver test so they can continue his patent medicine. Here we have three criteria of a proven remedy to pain and stress that may even prevent cancer of all things and the government says no medical value. It defines safety and if the THC were taken out there would be little objection of Wal-Mart executives selling it as a nutritional supplement next to the pharmacy window. Some people find the THC trip enjoyable but it is not addictive, although no bureaucrat could ever admit such a thing. Refined sugar has much more qualifications for Schedule 1 than cannabis does and we can see the government lies on that dangerous substance if you read the Internet. It is precisely because cannabis has such tremendous value to the peasants of the world that it is in the schedule at all and why sugar is left out. This is the link to the CSA of 1970: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/csa.htm
About a sixth of the way down in Title 21, Section 13 it says this:"(b) Placement on schedules; findings required. Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on the effective date of this part, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows: 1) SCHEDULE I. (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment