In what seems to me to be a clear violation of the First Amendment, Rep. Ernst Istook (R-OK) has proposed legislation threatening ceasation of federal funding for any state or local transit authority that displays ads for marijuana policy reform.  This federal spending bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives late last year, and the U.S. Senate will most likely vote on it any day now. Since it was inserted into a federal spending bill (and we know how congress like to spend our money) it will likely pass. Once it passes, a First Amendment suit would probably force transit authorities to take the ads, causing them to lose funding, causing many to have to shut down. Think of the nation's largest cities without public transportation because the government doesn't want people to see so much as a medical marijuana ad! This could be fun.
click here for this article's associated links
Istook on drugs

Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange

01.21.04 - Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) is a mischievous soul. He doesn't
command the media spotlight like fellow Republican Congressman Tom DeLay,
and he certainly isn't a household name like former GOP Speaker Newt
Gingrich, but there always seems to be some sort of cockamamie "Istook
Amendment" circulating in Congress.

A few years back he offered up the so-called Religious Freedom Amendment, a
provision that the Anti-Defamation League called a "pernicious and
dangerous assault on religious freedom." Now, the longtime conservative
congressman is going after free speech.

While the Consolidated Appropriations Act - 2004 (H.R. 2673) was in
conference committee, Rep. Istook, who chairs the House Transportation and
Infrastructure subcommittee, inserted a provision that would prohibit all
local and state transit agencies from displaying marijuana policy reform
advertising if they receive funding from the federal government -- which
pretty much covers most transit agencies in the country.

Rep. Istook's anti-marijuana reform amendment comes on the heels of his
having slashed $90,000 from Washington, DC's transit authority budget in
December after discovering that local buses were carrying advertisements --
placed by a Massachusetts-based pro-marijuana legalization group, Change
the Climate, Inc. -- that had the tagline, "Enjoy Better Sex! Legalize and
Tax Marijuana."

"At a time when the nation and Washington, D.C., area in particular suffer
from chronic substance abuse and sexually transmitted disease, I find it
shocking that WMATA provides this ad space, and at no cost!" Istook wrote
in a Nov. 10 letter to the chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority.

Rep. Istook isn't opposed to advertisements dealing with marijuana per se.
As Ron Kampia, the executive director of the DC-based Marijuana Policy
Project, wrote in a letter to Rep. Istook dated January 15, there are a
number of "display ads that discuss the subject of marijuana" -- including
one produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy entitled "The
Enforcer" -- that are placed on DC Metro system vehicles.

Kampia pointed out that Rep. Istook's support for prohibiting marijuana
reform advertisements appears to be a bit disingenuous given the fact that
the congressman receives financial support from the alcohol industry. In
October 2003, for example, the National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC
contributed $5,000 to his campaign coffers.

In addition to the $5,000, Istook received nearly $20,000 from the NBW PAC
between 1998 and 2002, according to the Federal Elections Commission Web
site. He also got $1,000 from Anheuser-Busch's PAC in October 2002 and
$1,000 from the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America PAC in September of
last year.

"It's fair to say that Rep. Istook is awash in alcoholic beverage industry
money," Bruce Mirken, MPP's Director of Communications told
WorkingForChange in an e-mail exchange. "Perhaps that's why we hear so much
from him about marijuana and so little about alcohol, which is well
documented to be far more toxic and far more addictive."

The Istook Amendment "is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution, [and it] is just one more example of the desire by
federal officials to have the public hear only one message on the subject
of marijuana, and that message is that 'Marijuana is bad and must be
prohibited,'" said Steve Fox, the director of government relations for the
Washington, DC-based Marijuana Policy Project.

"Over the past six years," Fox pointed out, "Congress has given the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars to convey this message, but now that advocates of
marijuana policy reform want to promote an alternative viewpoint -- with
their own money, no less -- marijuana prohibitionists in Congress are
trying to silence them. This is called 'viewpoint discrimination,' and it
violates the First Amendment."

Rep. Istook is no stranger to the loopy side of censorship and separation
of church and state issues. As one of the most conservative members of the
House he has, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, compiled a 0
percent record when it comes to voting on issues of concern to the ACLU.

Over the past few years, he's supported such issues as: allowing school
prayer during the War on Terror; allowing vouchers in DC schools; allowing
vouchers for private & parochial schools; giving federal aid only to
schools allowing voluntary prayer; and letting schools display the words
"God Bless America." The congressman also supports and sponsored a
Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.

In 1998, Istook authored the "Religious Freedom Amendment" which the
Anti-Defamation (ADL) said "would take the country back to the days when
public schools forced a single religion upon students of myriad faiths."

"The cleverly named 'Religious Freedom Amendment' constitutes one of the
most pernicious and dangerous assaults on religious freedom that we have
seen in many years," said Howard P. Berkowitz, ADL National Chairman. "It
is really religious coercion in disguise and opens the door for public
schools to impose prayer and religious ceremony on students, as well as for
religious symbols in courthouses and other government institutions. Passage
of the Amendment would allow for an unprecedented entanglement of
government and religion to the detriment of both."

Comcast says no

Rep. Istook isn't alone in his effort to freeze out pro-marijuana
advertisements. According to Aaron Houston, the campaign coordinator for
Granite Staters [New Hampshire] for Medical Marijuana, Comcast, the largest
cable TV provider in the nation, has refused to air its advertisements in
support of ending prosecution of medical marijuana users. A late-December
picket line at Comcast's Manchester offices organized by Houston's group
brought media attention to the issue.

According to a spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, Comcast told
the group that the company would refuse to run any advertisements
supporting any kind of marijuana policy reform, including medical marijuana
ads. Although it is company policy nationwide, according to the MPP,
Comcast refuses to put in writing. MPP was looking to spend $10,000 in
issue ads before the January 27 New Hampshire primary.

This year alone, the White House drug czar's office will spend $145,000,000
to run anti-marijuana scare ads, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America is receiving $50,000 worth of free airtime "to run its own
untruthful TV ads," an MPP spokesperson charged.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the Marijuana Policy Project is hoping the
"The Istook Amendment" will be removed from the omnibus appropriations
bill. If it isn't, the organization is pledging to sue the federal
government to have the provision declared unconstitutional. "MPP will not
only succeed in this legal fight, but we will also succeed in embarrassing
the drug warriors when our legal fight generates free publicity for our
issue," Mirken said.

(c) 2003 Working Assets Online. All rights reserved


 
Associated links:
URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16313
Hope you are enjoying your Tidbits. If you're not a member of and would like to join, please fill out our membership application.  And be sure to visit our website.
Click here to unsubscribe to this mailing list.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.