THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECOMES ANOTHER CASUALTY OF THE NATION'S WAR ON DRUGS

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- First the drug warriors attacked our right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the name of fighting the
illicit drug trade, they told us they needed to be able to use
drug-sniffing dogs on cars without a warrant, to search inside garbage cans
and peer into backyards in helicopters without a court order, to seize
cash, the family car and boats where trace amounts of drugs were found. And
the courts let them.

Now, having gutted the Fourth Amendment and still failed to stop drugs,
they've turned their sights on the First Amendment. Congress has decided
the right of citizens to be heard in an election is disposable -- that is,
if Congress doesn't like the election results. After citizens got a medical
marijuana initiative on the ballot in Washington, D.C., U.S. Rep. Bob Barr,
R- Ga., slipped an amendment into a massive federal appropriations bill to
prohibit the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics from
spending any money on it.

Although exit polls show that 69 percent of voters approved the November
initiative, we may never know the official results. John Ferren, the
district's corporation counsel, estimates that it would cost only $1.64 for
a clerk to press the computer button to make the results known. This kind
of viewpoint-based restriction on voting rights violates the First
Amendment. A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of the
National Capital Area and joined by the district seeks to emancipate the
election results and limit Congress' ability to use its power of the purse
to stymie voters in the future.

"Congress wants to prohibit any initiative that would reduce the penalties
for marijuana, but allow any initiative that would increase those
penalties," said ACLU legal director Arthur Spitzer. "That is like saying
voters can vote for Republicans but not for Democrats."

Restricting speech by doctors is another way our nation's drug warriors are
trashing the First Amendment to further their cause. After initiatives
passed in both California and Arizona in 1996 to legalize marijuana for
medical use, the Justice Department, drug czar Barry McCaffrey and Drug
Enforcement Administration chief Thomas Constantine pledged to punish any
doctor who recommended its use. Again, the ACLU sued, and a federal
district judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order
blocking the federal government from prosecuting doctors for recommending
marijuana. Judge Fern Smith ruled that the government was trying to silence
a medical viewpoint with which it disagreed.

Another innovative approach was concocted by U.S. Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-
N.Y., who introduced unsuccessful legislation in the past to strip the tax
exemption from any non-profit group advocating the reform of drug laws.

All this pent-up need to shut down any dissent apparently couldn't be
contained on our shores; we have also had a hand in international
repression. Phillip Coffin, a research associate at the New York-based
Lindesmith Center, a drug-policy think tank, wrote in Reason magazine:
"U.S. officials continue to lead the international fight against deviation
from the official line on drugs. According to staff members at the U.N.
Drug Control Program, the INCB's (International Narcotics Control Board)
U.S. representative, Herbert Okun, has played a vital role in developing
the U.N.'s censorship standards."

These standards call for nations to pass laws that ban any incitement or
inducement to use illicit drugs, including showing "illicit use in a
favorable light" and advocating "a change in the drug law." According to a
1997 report by the INCB, any tolerance for the promotion of illicit drug
use, including campaigns to legalize the medical use of cannabis and the
glamorization of drugs in movies and song lyrics, is a violation of the
1988 U.N. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances.

This has shocked even a pre-eminent human rights organization. In a letter
to members of the INCB, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights
Watch, warned about this censorious approach to drug prohibition. He wrote:
"In noting the presence of constitutional free speech protections in some
countries, the INCB suggests that since the harm of drug abuse is great,
the interests of speech must cede to the public interest in preventing that
harm . . .

"It is always tempting to try to silence the view we abhor, fear or which
competes with our own. The right to free speech must be vigorously
safeguarded precisely because of such temptations."

Rational, nuanced arguments convinced voters in six states so far (and
probably the District of Columbia) to legalize medical marijuana, and more
will probably follow. Our government's doomsday rhetoric on drugs is no
longer being swallowed whole. Which makes the powers that be very nervous,
and correspondingly makes this a dangerous time for free speech.

Checked-by: Richard Lake