FASCISM RIDES THE D.C. METRO

Four drug-policy reform advocacy groups on Feb. 18 filed suit in
federal court in Washington, D.C., against the federal government,
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, and the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, claiming that an amendment to a
recently enacted federal appropriations bill violates constitutionally
protected free speech.

At issue is an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act (HR
2673) offered by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., which forbids local
transit authorities from accepting and displaying advertisements that
advocate for marijuana (and other drug) policy reform on buses,
trains, or at depots or shelters.

Under the Istook amendment, failure to comply with the law results in
the loss of federal funding, which most transit agencies (including
Austin's Capital Metro) receive; Bush signed the bill into law in late
January.

Even before its passage, drug reform advocates decried the amendment
as an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech, and threatened
to sue unless it was removed from the bill. But that plea, spearheaded
by the Drug Policy Alliance, fell on deaf - and punitive - ears,
according to the report of the House-Senate conference committee
considering the Istook amendment. "[T]he conferees note with
displeasure that public service advertising space in [Washington
Metro] rail stations and buses has been used to advocate changing the
nation's laws regarding marijuana usage," the conferees wrote of a
November ad produced by the parent-led advocacy group Change the
Climate. "WMATA has provided $46,250 worth of space to these types of
ads; therefore, as a warning to other transit agencies, the conferees
have deleted funding totaling $92,500 from projects and activities for
WMATA in this bill."

So, unsurprisingly, on Feb. 5, the DPA and its partners Change the
Climate, the Marijuana Policy Project, and the ACLU sought to buy
space for a new ad, and WMATA rejected their request.

On Feb. 18, the four groups sued. The Istook amendment "impermissibly"
imposes content and viewpoint restrictions of public speech, the
lawsuit charges, and its imposition of funding conditions on transit
authorities oversteps Congress' spending power. "Enforcement É would
violate the constitutional rights of plaintiffs, their members, and
members of the public," wrote attorney Hadrian Katz, and could force
federal transit grantees "to forgo a substantial government benefit to
which [they] would otherwise be entitled." The drug reformers ask that
a federal judge declare the amendment unconstitutional, enjoin the
government from enforcing it and the WMATA from rejecting the ads, and
order the transit authority to accept the ad "for the next available
time."

"There is, of course, a silver lining to the Istook amendment," DPA
Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann said while announcing the suit at a
National Press Club luncheon. "It's outrageous acts like this that
often prove most effective in sensitizing Americans to the excesses of
the war on drugs.

Substantial reform of our nation's drug policies is inevitable, no
matter what drug war extremists say. But we think Istook's crass
proposal will likely accelerate the pace of reform. For this we thank
him."

To see the lawsuit and a copy of the rejected ad, go to
www.drugpolicy.org.