Marijuana Policy Project

WASHINGTON—Four drug policy reform groups sued the U.S. government and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Wednesday for refusing an advertisement critical of the nation's marijuana laws.

"Our ad was rejected because it provides the stark facts and plain truths that the White House fears will shed light on its failed drug policy," said Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union policy litigation project. "Our ad does not promote or advocate drug use - it is an attempt to restore fairness and reason to drug policy in America."

The lawsuit is in response to an amendment to the 2004 omnibus spending bill sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla. It instructs Congress to deny local transit authorities federal funding if they display advertisements promoting legalization or use of any substances listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

Schedule I drugs are those with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use in the United States.

In a Nov. 10 letter from Istook to Washington, D.C., Councilman Jim Graham, who also chairs the transit authority, Istook says he wrote "out of grave concern and displeasure at the recent wide-spread run of advertisements" in the bus and rail system advocating change in the marijuana laws.

Istook said members of Congress, staff and senior administration officials complained to him about ads. The most common ad showed a young couple embracing and the words "Enjoy Better Sex!" and "Legalize and Tax Marijuana."

The rejected advertisement shows a group of people standing behind bars beneath the headline, "Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans." Small print below says one in three adults in the United States has tried marijuana.

Istook said Metro provided $46,250 in free ad space for the advertisements.

The ads were produced for the ACLU, Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project, Boyd said.

The transit authority provided free ad space to Change the Climate because the group qualified for a public service advertising program, said Lisa Farbstein, Metro public affairs officer. At that time, Metro was "completely content neutral," she said.

Metro no longer accepts public service advertising because it needs to raise revenue, Farbstein said.

"Given our critical dependency on continued federal funding, we have no choice but to follow the law that Congress passed and the president signed into law," Farbstein said.

Across the nation, the government could withhold more than $3.1 billion in grants to transit systems if they accept or display such advertisements.

For example, the BART San Francisco Airport extension project relies on $100 million in federal funds and the Sound Transit Central Link Initial Segment in Seattle gets $75 million, according to 2004 federal budget figures provided by the ACLU.

On the Net: www.dea.gov

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.)