Banning criticism of government

This wasn't supposed to happen here

[Reprinted from Issues & Views March 1, 2004]

When the first intimation came, over a year ago, that there was a plot afoot by some anti-drug warriors to create laws designed to prosecute and punish groups or individuals who disseminate opinions that oppose official government drug policies, many of us thought it was an exaggeration -- perhaps some misinterpretation by an excessively worried libertarian. Now we learn of the first attempt to limit the public messages of those who support reform of current drug laws and challenge certain strategies of the failed "War on Drugs."

As in other cities, Washington, DC's public transportation -- buses, commuter and subway trains -- regularly carry advertising placed by the federal government trumpeting the official party line on currently illegal drugs. In fact, $145 million in taxpayer money is set aside annually for just such advertising.

Recently, when the Drug Policy Alliance and other drug policy reform groups tried to place their ads on DC transit, which call for a rethinking of the government's position on drugs, they were stymied by a new law, which had been sponsored by Oklahoma Congressman Eugene Istook. This special legislation strips federal funding from any public transportation system that accepts and displays advertising critical of the government's drug policy.

For now, only organizations that are direct recipients of taxpayer money are restricted from presenting nonconformist views on this subject. There is a fear, however, that with the success of the Istook law, more legislation will be proposed to outlaw any and all public announcements, even in the private sector, which urge citizens to consider alternatives to current drug policy, especially suggestions that call for the legalization of some drugs now proscribed by law. For this reason, a consortium of groups have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government and DC's Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Following are excerpts from statements issued by the Drug Policy Alliance:

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.

"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.

Think what the government is doing! They're throwing our taxpayer dollars down the drain on ineffective and offensive drug war propaganda while prohibiting our ability to promote alternatives to current government policies.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views