Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge rules that the OTHER side of the drug debate can be advertised

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
playahata1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 03:28 PM
Original message
Judge rules that the OTHER side of the drug debate can be advertised
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/06_03_04istook.cfm

Enormous Victory for Alliance as Judge Tosses Rep. Istook's Free-Speech Gag
Thursday, June 3, 2004

Not allowing drug policy reform advertising on subways, trains and buses is blatantly unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled June 2 in a lawsuit filed by the Alliance and our partners against the federal government. The judge's decision effectively strikes down a law passed by Congress this year that prohibited the Drug Policy Alliance and other reform groups from buying ad space on the Washington, DC subway system to attack the unjust imprisonment of marijuana users.

At issue was the constitutionality of the so-called "Istook Amendment." The law, written by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), cuts off $3 billion in federal transportation funds from transit agencies that accept ads critical of the federal government's cruel marijuana laws. Because the agencies that run local buses and trains all across the United States rely heavily on federal funding, the Istook Amendment effectively barred them from accepting the reform ads.

The Alliance, Change the Climate, the Marijuana Policy Project and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government in February after the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) rejected an ad criticizing marijuana laws. In addition to the Alliance's lawsuit, about 10,000 Alliance supporters faxed their representatives and senators condemning the Istook law.

In an opinion and order, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia found the Istook Amendment unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting its enforcement anywhere in the United States. Judge Friedman correctly noted that the federal government cannot ban certain types of speech because it disapproves of their content -- especially in light of the government's own advertising advocating for the punishment of marijuana users on these same trains and buses.

(more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great!
It's about time that unconstitutional crappy legislature was reversed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kazak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Woo!
That's fantastic. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC