As early as next week, the Senate will vote on a new provision that would effectively silence community groups around the country from advertising to educate Americans about medical marijuana and other important drug policy issues. After seeing pro-drug policy reform ads on a D.C. subway, an incensed Representative Ernest Istook (Rep- Oklahoma) made exterminating such ads a personal crusade. His provision, buried within the omnibus federal spending bill that the U.S. House of Representatives approved in December, would take away federal grants from local and state transportation authorities that allow citizens to run advertising on buses, trains, or subways in support of reforming our nation’s drug laws.

If passed, the provision would alter the American landscape by setting a precedent whereby the government prevents groups with dissenting voices from accessing public space. “Today, it’s the government trying to censor medical marijuana ads. Tomorrow it could be gagging organizations that are critical of US environmental policy,” said Bill Piper, Associate Director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “This isn’t just about drug policy—freedom of speech is on the line.” 

The provision raises both constitutional and political concerns. Local and state authorities could soon be put in an impossible position: if they reject advertising in support of drug policy reform they risk running afoul of the First Amendment; but if they accept drug policy reform advertising they lose federal money.

Courts have generally ruled that public transportation authorities cannot legally discriminate against any political viewpoint. However, if this provision passes, those rulings will be in question; In Michigan, for example, where Detroit residents will soon vote on a medical marijuana bill, groups that support the initiative will not be able to purchase ads on buses. 

Critics point out that while this provision would allow the federal government to ban drug policy reform, another provision of the same bill would give the White House $145 million in taxpayer money to run anti-marijuana ads next year. “The government will spend taxpayer money promoting one side of the drug policy debate while prohibiting taxpayers from using their own money to promote the other side,” said Bill Piper.  “The government is afraid of people hearing the whole story, so they’re rigging the debate.” 

The provisions in the omnibus spending bill are part of a growing controversy over the use of taxpayer money to influence state and federal drug policies:

·         In 2000 it was discovered that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy used financial incentives to persuade newspapers and magazines to editorialize in favor of the drug war, and TV and movie producers to change their scripts to reflect pro-drug war views.

·         Current Drug Czar John Walters and his staff have used taxpayer money to campaign against local and state ballot measures and legislation they disapprove of. After Walters spent taxpayer money to defeat a 2002 ballot measure in Nevada, the Nevada Attorney General complained, “The excessive federal intervention that was exhibited in this instance is particularly disturbing because it sought to influence the outcome of a Nevada election,” he said.

·         Earlier this year, Members of Congress tried to give the White House the ability to spend over a billion dollars in taxpayer money on ads attacking both medical marijuana ballot measures and Congressional candidates who support drug policy reform. Although a public outcry stopped the legislation, existing federal law may already allow the White House to use taxpayer money to influence elections.

·         Court records show that federal bureaucrats created the federal government’s first anti-drug advertising campaign in 1998 as a way of using billions of taxpayer dollars to influence voters to reject state medical marijuana ballot measures.

The Drug Policy Alliance is urging Congress to remove the anti-free speech provision from the omnibus spending bill, eliminate taxpayer-financed advertising in favor of the war of drugs, and prohibit the drug czar from using federal money to campaign and lobby against reform.

“The drug policy debate is the only debate in which federal bureaucrats are allowed to use taxpayer money to influence how taxpayers vote,” said Piper. “This sets a dangerous precedent.  It is the role of Congress to uphold the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Their role is not to use their powers to strong arm local transit authorities in order to silence citizens attempting to engage in the democratic process.” 

###