THIS FREE-SPEECH ISSUE SHOULD BE SLAM-DUNK

Last week an important case regarding free-speech rights was argued in
federal court in the nation's capital. Although it attracted little
attention, it has the potential to widen the debate about federal drug
policy - and has already highlighted the intellectual weakness of the most
fervid drug warriors.

At issue is the Istook amendment, tacked onto a transportation bill by
Oklahoma Republican Ernest Istook. It cuts off federal funding from local
transit authorities that accept advertisements critical of current
marijuana laws.

Subsequent to the amendment's passage, the ACLU, Change the Climate, the
Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project submitted a proposed
ad to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. A group of
ordinary people behind bars appeared under the headline, "Marijuana Laws
Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans."

The transit authority rejected the ad and the groups filed suit seeking to
have the Istook amendment declared unconstitutional. Based on the state of
First Amendment law it should be a slam-dunk. The First Amendment's
free-speech guarantees are interpreted in court as requiring the government
to have a compelling - not just justifiable but compelling - policy reason
to restrict freedom of speech. In court, government lawyers argued that
federal money always comes with strings attached. The plaintiffs argued
that a string that restricts free speech is not permissible. The groups
don't seek federal funding for their message, but want to pay for it
themselves. The case should be decided in a few weeks.

Perhaps more significant than a misplaced desire to use taxpayers' dollars
to stifle dissent is what the Istook amendment reveals about the
intellectual bankruptcy of passionate drug warriors. An advocate who
believes he has the stronger argument, one that is likely to prevail in
open and honest debate, seldom tries to prevent his opponents from even
making a case. In most cases a confident advocate is eager to debate, to
expose the weakness of the opposition case.

Obviously, Mr. Istook doesn't believe the case for marijuana prohibition is
intellectually overpowering. And, of course, he's right.