A PHONY WAR DEFEATS FREE SPEECH

The beauty of Jefferson's marketplace of ideas is that it opens our society
to all voices and all arguments, presuming the most persuasive will rise to
the top.

But those who promote the War on Drugs find this a dangerous concept. Drug
reform makes too much sense and in recent years has been too compelling to
voters. Already, seven states and the District of Columbia have legalized
medical marijuana through voter initiatives (and two more states through
legislation) and a recent Gallup poll shows that 74 percent of Americans
are on that side of the issue.

To combat this outbreak of common sense, the drug warriors have fought back
with antidemocratic and repressive methods.

In the mid-1990s, the Cato Institute had its tax-exempt status threatened
by a New York Republican congressman incensed over the think tank's
sponsorship of a program on the failed drug war.

A few years later, former Republican congressman from Georgia, Bob Barr,
successfully pushed an amendment to prevent Washington, D.C., from counting
the votes on its medical marijuana initiative. The American Civil Liberties
Union overturned the bar in federal court; and when the votes were finally
tallied, the initiative passed with 69 percent approval.

Barry McCaffrey, as drug czar under President Clinton, had to be sued after
he threatened doctors in California with the revocation of their
prescription-writing privileges if they recommended marijuana to patients.
The Bush administration continued the policy. But it was set aside by a
federal appellate court that said the threats violated the free speech
rights of doctors and patients.

And now Congress has just approved a law blatantly censoring pro-drug
reform messages.

It was the brainchild of Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., the religious right's
water carrier who, as chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
blocked city ordinances with which he disagreed such as those authorizing
publicly funded abortions and needle-exchange programs. Late last year,
Istook added an amendment to the omnibus spending bill that cuts off
$3.1-billion in federal funds from transit authorities nationwide if they
accept ads for their bus, train or subway systems promoting the reform of
drug laws. Large transit systems in big cities could forfeit tens of
millions of dollars if they don't comply. San Francisco has at least
$100-million at risk, New York at least $75-million and the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority $85-million.

So once again those who favor a less militant approach to the nation's drug
war - and only want the freedom to make their case to the public - have
been forced to trot back to federal court to secure their First Amendment
rights.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy
Alliance, among other groups, filed suit against U.S. Transportation
Secretary Norman Mineta and the Washington Metro, after the D.C. transit
system refused to accept a paid ad by the groups that proclaimed:
"Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent
Americans." The suit asks that the Istook amendment be found
unconstitutional and that the court rule that no funds shall be withheld
from transit systems that accept drug reform ads.

The case should be a legal slam dunk. If free speech means anything in this
country it is that a drug reform ad should be permitted to occupy the same
bit of public space as an antiabortion ad or a gun control appeal.
"Congress keeps forgetting that there is no drug exception to the
Constitution," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy
Alliance.

And get this: While drug reformers are being gagged by Congress, the same
spending bill provides $145-million for communicating the opposite message.
That whopping sum, funded by taxpayers, is to be used to buy ads promoting
the drug war, with a special emphasis on demonizing marijuana.

What is really going on here? Nadelmann theorizes that for people like
Istook, Attorney General John Ashcroft and drug czar John Walters, the war
on drugs is less about crack and heroin than it is about marijuana. "It's
about the culture clash," Nadelmann says, "It's about continuing ways to
wage war against the '60s and '70s."

As Ashcroft continues to send DEA agents into California to raid legal
medical marijuana dispensaries and Walters uses the public weal to campaign
against drug reform initiatives on state and local ballots, it is clear
that Nadelmann is right. This is not about upholding the law, but fighting
a movement. The drug warriors are fiercely antagonistic toward the shift in
public opinion on medical marijuana and other drug reforms; and their
authoritarian impulse is to shut down the free marketplace of ideas.

Apparently, the competition is getting to be a bit too stiff.