DRUG WARRIORS TRY TO CENSOR THEIR OPPONENTS

Representative Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) has discovered a mortal threat
to the republic. The threat is a display ad placed by a pro-drug
legalization group, Change the Climate, Inc., on Washington DC's bus
and subway system. The ad showed a young couple, with the caption:
"Enjoy Better Sex! Legalize and Tax Marijuana."

And to deal with this outrage, Istook has introduced a measure to
financially penalize Washington's Metro transit authority for running
the ad. Moreover, Istook's bill would prohibit any transit system that
receives federal funds from running advertising from a group that
advocates decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.

This is hardly the first time that the blackjack of withholding
federal funds has been used to coerce recipients into embracing pet
policies of politicians, but it has to be one of the more odious.
Istook's bill shows utter contempt for the First Amendment, and indeed
for the entire concept of political debate.

But drug warriors have repeatedly showed their intolerance of opposing
views-and their eagerness to use the power of government to suppress
critics. For example, in the mid-1990s, the late Rep. Gerald Solomon
(R-NY) attempted to have the tax-exempt status of the Cato Institute
revoked because it had the temerity to sponsor discussions of the
legalization option.

The most ominous proposal for repressing pro-drug reform speech comes
(not surprisingly) from the United Nations. The UN's International
Narcotics Control Board has issued a report implicitly calling on
member states to criminalize opposition to the war on drugs. Citing
the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances, the INCB asserts that all governments are
obligated to enact laws that prohibit "inciting" or "inducing" people
to use illegal drugs and to punish such violations as criminal offenses.

If such a vague and chilling restriction on freedom of expression were
not odious enough, the UN board contends that any portrayal that shows
illicit drug use "in a favorable light" constitutes incitement and
therefore should be banned as well. Since the report also repeatedly
denounces medical marijuana initiatives as well as decriminalization
or legalization proposals, even the most sedate advocacy of changing
prohibitionist drug laws might run afoul of the censorship regime
being pushed by the United Nations.

It is not reassuring that the US government has pledged to cooperate
with the UN group's global anti-drug efforts. Although Washington has
not explicitly endorsed the censorship recommendations, neither has it
stated that the United States rejects such proposals-even though it
certainly could have added that caveat. Indeed, one official pledged
"absolute cooperation" with the UN's drug control programs.

Those who might be tempted to dismiss the significance of efforts to
gag proponents of drug legalization should know that government
officials have already sought to implement censorship measures (albeit
more limited ones than the comprehensive bans suggested by some drug
warriors). For example, authorities in Maryland prosecuted an
individual for publicly divulging the identity of two undercover
narcotics officers. Attempting to prohibit such disclosures by
charging the defendant with "obstructing and hindering a police
officer," Maryland officials endeavored to give undercover narcotics
officers the same protection that Congress afforded to the CIA and
other intelligence agents to wage the Cold War and the subsequent war
on terror.

Although the Maryland Court of special appeals eventually overturned
the conviction on the grounds that it violated the defendant's state
and federal constitutional rights to freedom of speech, several
aspects of the case remain troubling. First, the fact that Maryland
authorities sought to impose such censorship in the first place;
second, that the defendant was convicted in a trial court; and third,
that the Court of Appeals overturning the conviction on a divided
vote. It is hardly reassuring that a minority of the justices were
willing to allow such a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee
of freedom of speech to pass muster.

Such examples suggest that some advocates of drug prohibition regard
the "war" on drugs as more than a metaphor. Pervasive intolerance is
also all too typical of a wartime mindset in which opponents are seen,
not merely as people who hold a different point of view, but as
traitors to a noble cause.

Regardless of one's position on drug legalization, Americans who
believe in freedom of expression and in the importance of political
debate ought to condemn Istook's measure and all other attempts to
stifle the pro-legalization case. Otherwise, the First Amendment might
become the most prominent example of "collateral damage" in the war on
drugs.

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy
studies at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org) and is the author or editor
of 15 books, including "Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington's Futile War on
Drugs in Latin America.