TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

What's the political issue you feel most strongly about? Abortion? Gun
rights? Banning smoking in public places?

Now imagine a campaign waged on that issue, with forces pro and con
fighting out both sides.

Now imagine your tax dollars going to pay for the side with which you
vehemently disagree.

You may not have to imagine it, if House Resolution 2086 becomes law. That
bill would authorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy -- aka the
drug czar -- to air issue ads opposing the legalization of drugs.

The alert folks at Reason magazine's Web site caught this outrageous
proposition tucked inside the bill to reauthorize spending on the drug
czar's office. Although the section on the National Youth Anti-Media
Campaign bans using federal money "for partisan political purposes," it
does allow spending under the provisions of the 1998 reauthorization.

And in that legislation, the director of the office "shall ... take such
actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a
(prohibited) substance." Legalization apparently includes reducing
penalties for possession of marijuana or medical marijuana initiatives,
such as Maryland's new law that would reduce the fine for possession of
marijuana in cases of "medical necessity" to just $100 from the usual
$1,000, plus a year in jail. (The bill, signed last week by Gov. Robert
Ehrlich, was fiercely opposed by the White House.)

If you think we should at least debate the merits of drug legalization, be
prepared to see those hard-earned tax dollars deployed against you.

Actually, you don't have to wait. Regular readers of this space know that
John Walters, the current drug czar, visited Nevada last year to campaign
against Question 9, which would have legalized possession of up to 3 ounces
of marijuana. Back then, federal anti-drug ads were airing in Nevada.

When the Marijuana Policy Project prompted Nevada Secretary of State Dean
Heller's office to ask Walters to file a campaign contribution and expenses
report -- required of groups that advocate the passage or defeat of a
ballot initiative in Nevada -- Walters' office refused, saying he didn't
have to comply with the law, because he was just doing his job. A Nevada
attorney general's opinion agreed, and the matter was dropped.

So every one of you 196,037 voters who cast ballots in favor of Question 9
should know that your own money was used to defeat you at the polls.

When it comes to government intervention in the media, it doesn't even stop
at politics. Remember in 2000, when Salon.com reported that the government
had purchased $1 billion in anti-drug ads on television, but agreed to take
anti-drug messages inserted into television shows as "credit"? Scripts for
shows including "ER," "Chicago Hope," "The Drew Carey Show" and "Beverly
Hills 90210" had government-approved messages woven into their story lines,
unannounced.

Recently, I opined that lawmakers should ignore the will of voters who
advocated stricter local laws to ban smoking in restaurants and stores. In
this case, I'm arguing that government shouldn't use our tax dollars to
frustrate the will of the voters, should they decide to legalize drugs.

What's the difference? It's a thing called liberty: A store owner has a
property right in his store, and should decide what goes on there. A person
has a property right in his own body, and should be free -- in my view, at
least -- to use that body however he sees fit.

When the government gets involved in politics -- using tax dollars as
involuntary campaign contributions -- only mischief can result.