Gov't Won't Contest MJ Transit Ads

[cenacle]

Dear Friend:

The U.S. Justice Department has announced it will not defend a federal
law that intended to cut off funds to public transit agencies that
display ads promoting marijuana policy reform.

Last year, a federal district court ruled that the federal ad-ban law
was unconstitutional, and the U.S. Department of Justice had until
Wednesday to appeal. It didn't.

This victory brings an end to a lawsuit brought by the Marijuana
Policy Project, the ACLU, the Drug Policy Alliance, and Change the
Climate, and it sends another signal to Congress that it should stop
trying to silence public discussion about the failures of marijuana
prohibition.

The lawsuit -- ACLU, et al. v. Mineta, et al. -- was filed on February
18, 2004, to overturn a provision in the 2004 omnibus federal spending
bill, which was signed into law by President Bush on January 23, 2004.
The provision -- inserted by U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) -- denied
federal funds to any public transit agency that allows advertisements
promoting the "legalization or medical use" of marijuana ... despite
the fact that many of these public transportation systems are
plastered with anti-marijuana ads sponsored by the White House Office
of National Drug Control Policy -- at taxpayer expense.

Before the final passage of the spending bill, MPP delivered a letter
to Rep. Istook and his colleagues, warning them that if the
unconstitutional provision became law, it would not only cost the
federal government millions of dollars in legal fees, but it would
also generate a substantial amount of free media coverage for MPP and
other advocates of marijuana policy reform. This has proved true.

MPP, the ACLU, the Drug Policy Alliance, and Change the Climate filed
the lawsuit in February 2004 after the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority rejected an advertisement we submitted that
criticized our nation's marijuana laws.

In June 2004, a federal court ruled in our favor, noting that allowing
one message on a subject in a public forum while prohibiting an
alternate message is "viewpoint discrimination," violating our First
Amendment right to educate the public about the need for marijuana
policy reform.

The government initially appealed the district court's decision, but
the solicitor general this week notified Congress that the Justice
Department would not pursue the appeal because there is "well
established U.S. Supreme Court precedent" that the law "amounted to
viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment."

As the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, "it is rare for a
solicitor general to refuse to defend a statute passed by Congress."

With the dismissal of the government's appeal, the district court's
injunction prohibiting the U.S. Department of Transportation from
enforcing the Istook Amendment becomes final and permanent.

Visit http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20050126.html to view the
solicitor general's letter to Congress, the advertisement, legal
documents, and background materials.

This lawsuit was part of MPP's aggressive approach to force the
federal government -- through lobbying and litigation -- to end
marijuana prohibition ... and the government's hostility to free
speech.

Please visit http://www.mpp.org/donate2002 if you support MPP's work
to rein in an out-of-control federal government. Wednesday's victory
is proof that we can and will succeed ... but we cannot do so without
your help.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

[typonaut]

Yay! A little bit of civil-liberties-flotsam resists the tide!