cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Ads Loses Justice Department Support





Marijuana Ads Loses Justice Department Support
Posted by CN Staff on January 26, 2005 at 14:31:53 PT
By Gary Fields, Staff Reporter
Source: Wall Street Journal
The Justice Department told Congress it won't defend a new law that withholds federal funds from transit agencies that run advertisements promoting the medical use or legalization of marijuana. The decision by the acting solicitor general effectively opens the way for transit authorities to display the ads without risking their share of the federal $7.2 billion pot for public transit.
The decision isn't expected to bring big ad dollars to transit agencies, but could offer a boost in election years when marijuana initiatives are on local ballots. In a two-page letter to the top lawyers for the House and Senate, acting Solicitor General Paul Clement said he decided not to appeal a U.S. District Court ruling that allowed the ads in the Washington Metro system, saying the law violated the First Amendment. In his letter, Mr. Clement said he lacked a "viable argument" for an appeal. The case stems from a rider attached to a 2004 appropriations bill by Rep. Ernest Istook Jr. (R., Okla.) that threatened to cut federal funding for transit authorities that accept ads critical of federal marijuana laws. After the law went into effect, the American Civil Liberties Union Drug Law Reform Project, Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project and Change the Climate Inc. tried to buy ad space from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to promote legalizing marijuana. The authority, which had accepted similar ads before the law was enacted, turned down the request fearing it would lose federal funds. The groups sued the Washington Metro and Transportation Department. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington sided with the groups, ruling that the law violated the First Amendment. In a letter to Congress last month about the possibility of an appeal, Mr. Clement wrote "an argument could be made that the possibility that the transit authority could prohibit a broader swath of advertisements than Congress specified would be enough to justify the narrower condition's facial constitutionality." But, he said, doing so might have the larger effect of requiring "a ban on antidrug advertisements and perhaps other similar public-service announcements." "I have therefore determined that the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision holding the provision as currently drafted unconstitutional." The immediate effect of the opinion is questionable. The Washington ad ran in area subway stops after Judge Friedman's ruling. Two past solicitors general, Charles Fried and Seth Waxman, said it is rare for a solicitor general to refuse to defend a statute passed by Congress. Mr. Fried, who served under President Reagan, recalled making such a decision only twice while he was solicitor general from 1985 to 1989. Mr. Clement's opinion also could serve as a warning to Congress that it can't assume the Justice Department will support the controversial riders that lawmakers have been adding to funding bills if those riders are challenged in court. Congress's deadline to file an appeal is today. While the Senate or House could file an appeal using outside attorneys, legal experts say it would be exceptional for Congress to seek one without Justice Department backing. A spokeswoman for Mr. Istook said the congressman hadn't asked anyone to pursue an appeal. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project said he was surprised at the solicitor's opinion because he had battled Justice Department lawyers in two similar cases where "they fought to the bitter end." Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, which runs ads for ballot initiatives on marijuana, said the group doesn't have specific plans for ads. "But, it is comforting to know that we will not be prohibited from advertising wherever we choose to go," he said. Complete Title: New Statute on Marijuana Ads Loses Justice Department SupportSource: Wall Street Journal (US) Author: Gary Fields, Staff Reporter Published: January 26, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Contact: wsj.ltrs wsj.com Website: http://www.wsj.com/ Related Articles:Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congresshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20164.shtmlGroups Display Marijuana Policy Ads in D.C. http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19417.shtmlCensorship Gets Derailedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19003.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by FoM on January 27, 2005 at 09:19:09 PT
WP: Washington in Brief
U.S. Won't Defend Law Limiting Marijuana Ads Thursday, January 27, 2005; Page A02 The Justice Department has decided not to appeal a decision throwing out a law aimed at keeping pro-marijuana ads out of the nation's bus and subway stops. The law threatened to cut off up to $3.1 billion in federal funds to local transit authorities in 2004 if they displayed ads promoting the legalization or medical use of marijuana or other drugs. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled in June that it unconstitutionally infringes on free-speech rights.  
 
 
Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement sent letters to lawyers for the House and Senate saying Friedman's decision would not be appealed because "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense." Copyright: 2005 The Washington Post Companyhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39751-2005Jan26.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Hope on January 26, 2005 at 20:39:31 PT
Our people
We have so many fine people working so hard on changing the unjust drug laws. It's good and I'm grateful. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by mayan on January 26, 2005 at 18:23:01 PT
Istook
I bet he finally feels like the idiot that he is!Here's an unrelated but disturbing piece...Author Theorizes 40 Microbiologists Killed Before Unleashing "The Ultimate Epidemic." 
http://freepress2005.blogspot.com/2005/01/author-theorizes-40-microbiologists.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by ekim on January 26, 2005 at 18:02:36 PT
America Lost Its War Against Drugs 
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) 
WAR AGAINST DRUGS LOST, FORMER OFFICER CLAIMS America Lost Its War Against Drugs and It's Time to Fight a Different Battle, According to a Group Advocating the Legalization and Regulation of Drugs. Peter Christ is treasurer of a group called LEAP, or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. He will be in Wilkes-Barre next week to meet with community groups and Luzerne County Commissioner Greg Skrepenak. LEAP, a group of retired law enforcement officials from across the world, has a simple message. "Prohibition does not work," Christ said. "Not only does it not work, it also creates problems that exist in our society." snippedJan 26 05 Allentown West Rotary Club 07:20 AM Peter Christ Allentown Pennsylvania USA 
 The Allentown West Rotary Club welcomes Board Member Peter Christ for breakfast and discussion of the failures of drug prohibition. Jan 26 05 Kiwanis Club of Reading 12:00 PM Peter Christ Reading Pennsylvania USA 
 The Kiwanis Club of Reading welcomes Board Member Peter Christ for discussion of the failures of drug prohbition. Jan 26 05 Kutztown Rotary Club 06:00 PM Peter Christ Kutztown Pennsylvania USA 
 The Kutztown Rotary Club welcomes Board Member Peter Christ for dinner and discussion of viable alternatives ato America's failed war on drugs. Jan 27 05 Weatherly Rotary Presentation 06:00 PM Peter Christ Weatherly Pennsylvania USA 
 Weather or not, Board Member Peter Christ meets with members of the Weatherly Rotary to discuss issues related to the failure of drug prohibition. Jan 27 05 Tunkhannock Rotary Club 12:00 PM Peter Christ Tunkhannock Pennsylvania USA 
 The Tunkhannock Rotary Club sits down with Board Member Peter Christ to discuss the issues related to the failure of drug prohibition. Jan 31 05 Contemporary Social Issues Course 02:00 PM Eleanor Schockett Blue Ash Ohio USA 
 Board Member Judge Eleanor Schockett speaks to students of the Contemporary Social Issues Course at Raymond Walters College. Topic: Issues related to the failure of drug prohibition. February 2005 
Feb 1 05 Columbus Downtown Lions Club 12:00 PM Eleanor Schockett Columbus Ohio USA 
 Board Member Judge Eleanor Schockett is growling the truth in the city when she meets with the Columbus Downtown Lions Club to discuss the failures of drug prohibition. Feb 1 05 Big Walnut Breakfast Lions Club 07:30 AM Eleanor Schockett Sundbury Ohio USA 
 Board Member Judge Eleanor Schockett shells out the truth when she meets with members of the Big Walnut Breakfast Lions Club to discuss issues related to the failure of drug prohibition. 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by siege on January 26, 2005 at 15:33:15 PT
Marijuana Policy Project
Please also visit http://www.mpp.org/2005poll to vote for the
Marijuana Policy Reform Activist of 2004. We'll present this award at
the Los Angeles event to the activist who obtains the most votes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 26, 2005 at 14:45:03 PT
Jose
That's ok. Jump in and add your 2 cents if you want!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by jose melendez on January 26, 2005 at 14:43:31 PT
oops
'twas already posted, sorry . . .http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20164.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 26, 2005 at 14:43:09 PT
Thanks Jose
You must have missed it. Here it is.http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20164.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by jose melendez on January 26, 2005 at 14:41:12 PT
change the climate
from http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0126-19.htm Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress in Legal Battle Over Law Censoring Marijuana Policy Ads Solicitor General Says Government
‘Does Not Have a Viable Argument to Advance in the Statute’s Defense’ 
 WASHINGTON -- January 26 -- The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The Solicitor General Paul Clement stated in a letter to Congress that, “the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute’s defense and will not appeal the district court’s decision.” Today is Congress’ last day to respond to the federal appeals court in the D.C. Circuit.“The Justice Department finally met a law so unconstitutional that it could not find any way to defend it,” said Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “Congress should stop trying to silence public discussion of the cruel and expensive failures of current marijuana laws.” As the Wall Street Journal reported today, “Mr. Clement’s opinion also could serve as a warning to Congress that it can’t assume the Justice Department will support the controversial riders that lawmakers have been adding to funding bills if those riders are challenged in court.” The Wall Street Journal added, “Two past solicitors general, Charles Fried and Seth Waxman, said it is rare for a solicitor general to refuse to defend a statute passed by Congress” and that “Mr. Fried, who served under President Reagan, recalled making such a decision only twice.”The law at issue in ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta is Section 177 of the FY2004 federal spending bill, also known as the ‘Istook Amendment,’ which threatens to cut off more than $3 billion in federal funding from local transit authorities nationwide that accept advertisements critical of current marijuana laws. Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) introduced this amendment to the spending bill last year and Congress re-included the same law in this year’s federal budget. The ACLU, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project, and Change the Climate, Inc. filed the lawsuit in February 2004 after the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rejected an advertisement they submitted that criticized marijuana laws. In June 2004, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the ‘Istook Amendment’ unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, stating “there is a clear public interest in preventing the chilling of speech on the basis of viewpoint,” and that, “the government articulated no legitimate state interest in the suppression of this particular speech other than the fact that it disapproves of the message, an illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible reason.” The government initially appealed the district court’s decision, but the Solicitor General recently notified Congress that the Justice Department would not pursue the appeal because there was, “well established Supreme Court precedent” that the law “amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.” The Solicitor General’s letter to Congress can be viewed online at http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/USDOJIstookLetter012605.pdf - snipped
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 26, 2005 at 14:33:39 PT
Just a Note
I think this part of the article was for a ad in the WSJ so I removed it since I don't have access to check for myself. Here it is though.An advertisement from a recent campaign in Massachusetts by Change the Climate Inc., a group advocating for reform of marijuana laws.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment