xxdr_zombiexx

'A phony 'drug war' war defeats free speech'
St. Petersburg Times | 2.22.2004

By Robyn E. Blumner

The beauty of Jefferson's marketplace of ideas is that it opens our society to all voices and all arguments, presuming the most persuasive will rise to the top.

But those who promote the War on Drugs find this a dangerous concept. Drug reform makes too much sense and in recent years has been too compelling to voters. Already, seven states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana through voter initiatives (and two more states through legislation) and a recent Gallup poll shows that 74 percent of Americans are on that side of the issue.

To combat this outbreak of common sense, the drug warriors have fought back with antidemocratic and repressive methods.

In the mid-1990s, the Cato Institute had its tax-exempt status threatened by a New York Republican congressman incensed over the think tank's sponsorship of a program on the failed drug war.

A few years later, former Republican congressman from Georgia, Bob Barr, successfully pushed an amendment to prevent Washington, D.C., from counting the votes on its medical marijuana initiative. The American Civil Liberties Union overturned the bar in federal court; and when the votes were finally tallied, the initiative passed with 69 percent approval.

Barry McCaffrey, as drug czar under President Clinton, had to be sued after he threatened doctors in California with the revocation of their prescription-writing privileges if they recommended marijuana to patients. The Bush administration continued the policy. But it was set aside by a federal appellate court that said the threats violated the free speech rights of doctors and patients.

And now Congress has just approved a law blatantly censoring pro-drug reform messages.

It was the brainchild of Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., the religious right's water carrier who, as chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee, blocked city ordinances with which he disagreed such as those authorizing publicly funded abortions and needle-exchange programs. Late last year, Istook added an amendment to the omnibus spending bill that cuts off $3.1-billion in federal funds from transit authorities nationwide if they accept ads for their bus, train or subway systems promoting the reform of drug laws. Large transit systems in big cities could forfeit tens of millions of dollars if they don't comply. San Francisco has at least $100-million at risk, New York at least $75-million and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority $85-million.

So once again those who favor a less militant approach to the nation's drug war - and only want the freedom to make their case to the public - have been forced to trot back to federal court to secure their First Amendment rights.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Alliance, among other groups, filed suit against U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and the Washington Metro, after the D.C. transit system refused to accept a paid ad by the groups that proclaimed: "Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans." The suit asks that the Istook amendment be found unconstitutional and that the court rule that no funds shall be withheld from transit systems that accept drug reform ads.

The case should be a legal slam dunk. If free speech means anything in this country it is that a drug reform ad should be permitted to occupy the same bit of public space as an antiabortion ad or a gun control appeal. "Congress keeps forgetting that there is no drug exception to the Constitution," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

And get this: While drug reformers are being gagged by Congress, the same spending bill provides $145-million for communicating the opposite message. That whopping sum, funded by taxpayers, is to be used to buy ads promoting the drug war, with a special emphasis on demonizing marijuana.

What is really going on here? Nadelmann theorizes that for people like Istook, Attorney General John Ashcroft and drug czar John Walters, the war on drugs is less about crack and heroin than it is about marijuana. "It's about the culture clash," Nadelmann says, "It's about continuing ways to wage war against the '60s and '70s."

As Ashcroft continues to send DEA agents into California to raid legal medical marijuana dispensaries and Walters uses the public weal to campaign against drug reform initiatives on state and local ballots, it is clear that Nadelmann is right. This is not about upholding the law, but fighting a movement. The drug warriors are fiercely antagonistic toward the shift in public opinion on medical marijuana and other drug reforms; and their authoritarian impulse is to shut down the free marketplace of ideas.

Apparently, the competition is getting to be a bit too stiff.

© Copyright 2002-2004 St. Petersburg Times.

__________________
Torture Good, Healthcare Bad, Marijuana Evil.

There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

Suetaz

Ain't that the truth! Well said, all of it. Great article. Thanks Doc, that made me smile. The more articles I read like this, the more encouraged I am to fight.

__________________

GrooveGuardian

Very Intelligent article, spread the word. Marijuana legilizeation is inevitable, the people need to spread the word if we want change now though.

THE_ODA

At least they admit it's really a war against a culture they don't agree with. It's not the Marijuana, they know it's harmless.

__________________
A Piper in the Town

WNB

Great article.

I think one hundred years from now, people are going to look back on the Drug War as one of the most insane policies ever sponsored by the US government.

__________________
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

xxdr_zombiexx

Like SEGREGATION

xxdr_zombiexx

But they wont come out and say this. This is why I hammer on the GOP angle all the time.

They have set out to demonize anyone who contradicts them. Look at what they have done in the last 20 years turning "liberal" into a dirty word, like "n_____".

It's just ugly.

Marijuana is such a threat to oil pricing and pharmacy profiteering - their main contirbuters - that they have to suppress it to keep profits up.
Otherwise, lots of people can grow a renemable resource.

Imagine if people had their own oil well. Same differnce. The GOP would be all about land theft and would craft laws telling people they cant touch the oil on their own property so BP and Standard can make gargantuan profits.

it's not about concern for the children at all, as evidenced by the Assistant Principal story - setting up a youth to have his life ruined, to be framed by a baggie of weed. Thats evil, my friends.

Starting viciously with Nixon, the GOP war on drugs was also a war on Hippies and "the counter culture" Nixon is on tape saying he wont let the "hippies" win. Reagan and King George the First re-escalated the war.

Clinton - the best Republican President ever, just stood and watched while 5 million lives were ruined, and he appointed Barry McCaffery - architect of the Highway of Death in Gulf War I - as Drug Czar, and that man definately was not voting for social programs.

The Cheney Administration HATES marijauan and marijuana activists.
Hell, the GOP STILL calls anti-war protestors "hippies". And you can see from John Asscough's jihad, he hates hippies, freedom, protests, freedom of speech, and so forth.

smoking_joe_lee

Here's an idea; don't ALWAYS "hammer the GOP." They are not ALL or always evil. A quick search on yahoo unearthed the following:
http://www.hr95.org/Prop215.html/
"The Hawaii legislature has also legalized medical marijuana. Leglislatures of more than 30 states have approved medical marijuanalaws at some point during the past 30 years. AMONG ITS FEDERAL ADVOCATES WAS THE NOTORIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE GOP CONGRESSMAN NEWT GINGRICH.
I had no idea...also:
http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htm
Click on "GOP Lawmaker Backs Pot at Rally" This is someone out on the street, literally, trying to make a difference. He deserves some credit. also...
http://www.drugsense.org/dpfwi/
Click on " NEW Republican Lawmaker Introduces Medical Marijuana Bill" This is from Wisconsin. The title tell it all.
Yes, there were other stories of GOP opposition to marijuana reform. I just think fairness should apply.
ps
It looks like Dr. Zombie has changed his opinion on Bill Clinton. I once asked (under my former name hehatemetoo) what the former president did in the name of mj reform. Wow, did I ever get flamed...something about me blaming all the troubles of the world on Clinton. All I wanted to know is if Clinton did anything to change previous policies...later

swimfan13191

The article was a well thought out point of view, however that is just what it is. Marijuana is very harmful to the users. By just taking the drug it is not deadly, but it is proven to impair your judgement, slow your reaction, and kill your brain cells,exc. Some adults will gladly accept the drug, but when asked (20 parents asked total) 16\20 parents using marijuana would not recommend it to their children. If marijuana is harmless why wouldn't users recommend it to people they love?

Higher Self

That's a fairly large assumption you make their swimfan. Not everyone is the same. What one person finds beneficial, another may deem non-bendificial. Both are correct. Judge for yourself instead of taking other peoples perspectives as the truth. Children, blossoming minds, maturing personalities, should be prohibited from consuming cannabis. Adults who take responcibility for the personal life experiences should have the freedom of choice. What if your a sucsessful, contributing member of your community? What if your alone, without children, and prefer a different kind of lifestyle?

If you are a fully cognizant human, cannabis does not impair judgement, it may influence it by altering your state of being, but impairment is something else.

Cannabis does not slow reaction time. If so, there would be no such animal as snowboarding. The syncronicity of mind, body, and spirit are percieved by many to be enhanced after consuming it. Altering one's consciousness should be a crime. If this were not true, why is it banned from the 'official' sport as an performance enhancing herb (drug), or do you think it's their job to practice law enforcement? The flip side of that concept is currently being considered by the federal legislators. They purport it to be impairing when the metabolites remain in your system, long after it's psycho-active effects have worn off.

Sounds more like a modern day witch hunt.

Killing brain cells is a misnomer. I don't think there is a credible source out there that would stand by that sort of thing.

A sampling of twenty parents does not constitute statistical inference, it constitutes twenty parent's opinions.

Lastly, something that is rarely addressed about consumption. Long term habitual use of cannabis has a different kind of effect than a casual or new user would percieve. People who are treated for long-term chronic pain with narcotics don't percieve a 'high' after long term use, but it can manage pain effectively.