DEBATE RAGES OVER DRUG POLICY BILL PROVISIONS

The federal government would be empowered to spend tax dollars for
advertisements opposing citizen led statewide drug legalization initiatives
and ballot measures under a proposed Drug Control Policy bill before
Congress, according to critics of the measure.

Opponents of the drug bill say a provision within the Office of National
Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003 would allow for federal tax
dollars to be used to campaign against drug legalization initiatives across
the country.

Social critic Daniel Forbes, who authored an analysis of the bill, called
the measure an outright abuse of federal authority and an effort to strike
at the heart of ballot initiatives nationwide.

But David Marin with the House Committee on Government Reform, called the
attacks totally bogus and part of a campaign of rhetoric by the pro [drug]
legalization lobby.

The debate raises the issue of whether any government agency should be
allowed to use tax money to finance ad campaigns in state and local matters
subject to voter approval, effectively meddling in local politics.

Abuse Of Public Funds Alleged

Forbes, in an interview with CNSNews.com, counters that the bill is not even
a slippery slope, it's an outright abuse on the part of the federal
government to use public funds to seek to influence elections, and that is
what state ballot initiatives are.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Democratic members of Congress
and the CATO Institute have also expressed their objections to certain
provisions in the bill.

Forbes and the ACLU say the bill would allow the federal government the use
of nearly $200 million dollars annually to oppose various state drug
initiatives. The entire drug bill's projected five-year cost is estimated to
be about $1.02 billion.

The ACLU called the bill an assault on medical marijuana and believes the
bill would allow the drug czar to use almost $200 million to oppose medical
marijuana initiatives and any candidates that support such initiatives.

The [Reauthorization Act] could give the drug czar authority to use taxpayer
dollars to pay for media campaigns directly targeting state ballot measures,
wrote Forbes in his essay.

Forbes believes the proposal would run counter to the whole purpose of
ballot initiatives, establish a disturbing precedent for federal
electioneering and hobble advocates pushing for saner alternatives to the
War on Drugs.

'Totally Bogus'

David Marin, press secretary for the Republican-led House Committee on
Government Reform, told CNSNews.com that the allegations that the bill would
authorize federal government to advertise against state initiatives are
totally bogus.

The bill is scheduled for a vote in the House Committee on Government Reform
in early June.

There is nothing in the bill that is or ever was intended to convert the
media campaign into a political campaign device, nor will it have that
effect, Marin explained.

Marin did concede, however that the bill had to be rewritten to clear up
some of these concerns. I will acknowledge that the original drafting of the
provision was not as clear as it should have been, he said.

Marin said the attack by critics of the bill is based on rhetoric put
forward by the pro [drug] legalization lobby. There is no truth to it.

But Forbes counters that the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP) will be able to produce ads opposed to state drug initiatives
under the bill.

ONDCP head John Walters could begin using whatever portion he sees fit of
over $2 billion in total media time and space to try to swing state and
local drug-reform ballot elections starting as early as this fall, according
to Forbes.

Democrats on the committee have expressed concern over the possibility of
government money being used in ad campaigns against state initiatives.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said the reauthorization bill should not be
used to influence elections on ballot initiatives or candidates for public
office, or to influence the consideration of legislation.

'Propaganda Tools'

The bill also grants a special exemption to the ONDCP that allows the agency
to air anti-drug advertisements without having to identify itself as the
sponsor of the ads, according to Forbes.

The ONDCP would no longer have to identify itself as the sponsor of the
messages, reversing an (1934) FCC ruling and making the ads potentially much
more effective as propaganda tools, Forbes wrote.

Viewers are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded, Forbes told
CNSNews.com.