Ethics Newsline®

WASHINGTON
While it may disagree with their message, the U.S. government has no right to block ads urging a dialogue over the decriminalization of marijuana, a federal judge ruled last week.

Such ads, which briefly appeared in Washington-area Metro stations and bus shelters, questioned the government’s decision to make marijuana illegal, urging a broader conversation on the issue.

Acting on the indignation of Rep. Ernest Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), the government adopted a law in January that would withhold $3.1 billion from any of the nation’s 53 public transit agencies if they accepted such an ad.

The government provides “major funding to combat drug use, and tax dollars should not be used to subsidize contrary messages,” Istook argued last week.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman said Congress had overstepped its reach and violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech by approving the law, reported the Washington Post.

While the ads advocating the legalization of marijuana may clash with official U.S. policy on drug control, their message is a matter of policy, not incitements to wanton lawlessness, Friedman ruled.

“The government has articulated no legitimate state interest in the suppression of this particular speech other than the fact that it disapproves of the message,” Friedman said, calling such the move “illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible.”

Art Spitzer, the Washington litigation chief for the American Civil Liberties Union, which was a co-plaintiff in the case, agreed.

“While reasonable people may disagree about drug policy, clearly the Constitution doesn’t allow Congress to try to censor that debate,” he said.

The Justice Department said it has not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling, according to the Post.