GROUP SUES OVER LAW ON POT BUS ADS

Fed Funds Would Be Denied

WASHINGTON - An alliance of civil liberties and activist groups filed
suit last week in federal court, challenging a federal law that
threatens to deny funding to local transit systems that display ads
challenging marijuana laws.

"That's just ridiculous," said Britta Stunkard, president of the
University of Wisconsin-Madison's chapter of Students for Sensible
Drug Policy. "You have to hear both sides of any story. Because an ad
is critical is not grounds for full-out censorship."

Though the lawsuit involves the Washington Area Metro Transit
Authority, the law applies to any local transit system in the United
States that relies on federal funding.

The American Civil Liberties Union and three drug policy reform
organizations - Marijuana Policy Project, Change the Climate, and the
Drug Policy Alliance - sought an injunction Thursday against the
Washington Transit Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation
after the authority rejected an ad that claims marijuana laws are a
waste of tax dollars.

The ad depicts a crowd of men and women behind bars. It reads:
"Marijuana laws waste billions of taxpayer dollars to lock up
nonviolent Americans." The ad calls for "more realistic marijuana
laws." (It may be viewed online at www.drugpolicy.org )

The law that prohibits such ads is called the "Istook Amendment" after
Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., who added it to the massive omnibus
spending bill passed last month. Istook dismissed the suit as
off-the-wall.

"These are fanatics who seek attention by making threats and filing
lawsuits," Istook said. "Congress has the clear right and also the
responsibility to place strict conditions on how we use taxpayer dollars."

The provision states that after Feb. 1, federal funds are to be
withheld from local transits "involved, directly or indirectly, in any
activity that promotes the legalization or medical use of any
substance listed in the schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled
Substances Act."

Istook noted that the federal government would spend more than $12
billion this year to discourage illegal drug use.

"It makes no sense to use federal dollars or federal property to
undercut this effort," Istook said.

The Madison Metro Transit System has never been confronted with the
choice of whether or not to run an ad advocating marijuana law reform,
according to Metro spokeswoman Julie Maryott-Walsh. But Metro would
have to proceed carefully, Maryott-Walsh said, "We do receive a good
deal of funding from the federal government."

Federal funding provided slightly more than 10 percent of Metro's
total funding in 2002. Figures for 2003 have not yet been calculated.

"Boy, this is disgusting," said Cheryl Rosen Weston, a former
Wisconsin ACLU vice president who lectures at UW-Madison.

Weston pointed to the 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case, Arkansas
Educational Television Commission vs. Ralph P. Forbes, which defined
the parameters of public debate.

"You can limit speech in a lot of ways, but the criteria cannot be
based on the content of the speech," Rosen Weston explained. This ad
is not suggesting viewers break the law or commit a crime, Weston
explained, rather it is suggesting viewers reconsider the law itself.

Stimulating examination and discussion "over matters of public policy
inherent to democratic debate," said Rosen Weston.

"It's no different than saying you can put "re-elect Bush" ads and not
"elect Kerry" ads in the subway. I don't think they'd like it if
Congress passed that," Rosen Weston said.