A U.S. district judge ruled unconstitutional a law prohibiting transit systems that get federal funds from accepting advertising that advocates drug laws different from existing ones. The suit was in response to legislation that barred drug advocacy groups, such as those wanting to legalize marijuana, from advertising on the D.C. Metro system.
No matter how you might feel about marijuana, this ruling is a victory for free speech in an area that sorely needs it. Federal drug laws that lump marijuana into the same class as harder drugs need to be re-examined.
Federal drug agencies misrepresent the dangers of marijuana. One oft-repeated contention that today’s marijuana is much more potent that marijuana of 30-40 years ago is questionable. Several years ago I contacted a scientist whose studies were cited by federal drug agencies as proof of the more potent marijuana. He said the agencies were misrepresenting his conclusions.
In any case, Judge Paul L. Friedman:
…declared that the case was not about drugs or crime, but about free speech. He called the law a clear case of “viewpoint discrimination” and noted that Metro displayed the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s anti-drug ads when it refused the other ads.
“Congress . . . cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences,” the judge said. He called the law “an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ broad spending power.”