Suetaz

Lawsuit filed on drug ads on transit
SF Gate |Thursday, February 19, 2004
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
begelko@sfchronicle.com

Civil liberties and medical marijuana advocates sued Wednesday to overturn a new, little-noticed federal law cutting off funds for any public transit agency that runs ads calling for the legalization or medical use of any illegal drug.

The suit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., will be followed by similar challenges in San Francisco and other cities, unless the law is struck down, said Joseph White, executive director of a group called Change the Climate. A congressman's displeasure at the group's marijuana ads in the D.C. transit system gave rise to the law.

"There is no community that has more money at stake than the San Francisco Bay Area,'' White said. He noted that the $3.1 billion measure includes $100 million for the already completed BART airport extension and $9 million for the Municipal Railway's Third Street light rail project in San Francisco, money those transit systems would forfeit if they accepted a forbidden ad.

"The government does not want the public to know how badly our drug policy has failed, so it is trying to silence Americans who oppose the war on drugs,'' said Graham Boyd, the American Civil Liberties Union's chief litigator on drug issues and a lawyer in the lawsuit filed Wednesday.

BART spokesman Mike Healy said no one has tried to buy pro-marijuana ads in its trains or stations. He called the new funding law "blackmail of the transit industry'' and predicted it would be ruled unconstitutional.

The suit claims the law, which took effect Feb. 1, violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

The law's sponsor, Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., reacted angrily. "We will spend over $12 billion this year to discourage illegal drug use. It makes no sense to use federal dollars or federal property to undercut that effort,'' he said in a statement.

It makes no sense to use taxpayer money to tell taxpayers lies either!

__________________

smoking_joe_lee

If public trasportation systems like BART expect federal funds they must take, or not take certain actions. Kind of like prostitution. What does BART neen federal money for anyway? Expansion? Day to day operations? This system has been around for a long time. Should it not be self- supporting, like Amtrack...or something...
Bush is like a thousand Nixons and a thousand bushs is a pretty good hedge!

WNB

Watch as Bush "appoints" a neocon judge, who will promptly get the case and throw it out.

__________________
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Suetaz

Federal Court to Hear Arguments re: Government Censorship of Marijuana Law Reform Ads

Drug Policy Alliance

WASHINGTON - April 20 - At 9:30 a.m. next Wednesday, April 28 the nation’s major drug policy reform groups will present oral arguments before Judge Paul L. Friedman in two consolidated lawsuits filed against the United States government and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for censoring the speech of those critical of the government’s “War on Drugs.”

With more than $85 million at stake, WMATA rejected in February an advertisement submitted by the ACLU, Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Marijuana Policy Project that promotes the reform of our nation’s marijuana laws. The groups are challenging Section 177 of the 2004 federal spending bill, which directs Congress to deny federal funds to local transit authorities that display advertisements promoting “the legalization or medical use of any substance listed in Schedule I…of the Controlled Substances Act.”

The lawsuits, filed on February 18, ask the court to declare the law unconstitutional because it coerces local transit authorities into censoring pure political speech protected by the First Amendment. The lawsuits name Norman Y. Mineta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, and Richard White, the CEO of WMATA, respectively, as defendants.

The rejected advertisement, previous press releases, the plaintiff’s complaint, the United States government’s opposition brief, and the plaintiff’s reply brief can be found online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy, www.changetheclimate.org, www.drugpolicy.org, and www.mpp.org.

WHEN: Wednesday, April 28 at 9:30 a.m. EST

WHERE: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. / Washington, D.C. 20001 Courtroom 17 – Open to the Public


WHO: Hadrian Katz, Arnold & Porter LLP, Counsel for Plaintiffs

Arthur B. Spitzer, ACLU of the National Capital Area

Steve Fox, Director of Government Relations of the Marijuana Policy Project

Bill Piper, Director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance


WHAT: Oral arguments in challenge to government censorship of marijuana law reform advertisements. Spokespersons for the groups bringing the challenge will be available after the hearing.