Wednesday, June 2, 2004

Judge rules for free speech; Istook vows fight to eliminate it In tomorrow's Washington Post: Judge Voids Law Against Drug Ads On Metro A federal law aimed at keeping advertisements critical of national drug policy out of Metro stations and bus shelters illegally chills free speech and cannot stand, a federal judge ruled yesterday U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman barred the U.S. government from enforcing a law passed by Congress this year that calls for denying federal transportation money to any transit system that accepts ads promoting the legalization of drugs. ... "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." My earlier posts on this are here, here, and here (reverse chronological order). The idiot that got this all started was Ernest Istook, Moron First Class from Oklahoma. I'm still trying to decide if Istook is just that stupid, or if he's actively attempting to subvert the Constitution of the United States. Today's ruling didn't slow him down: "I'm confident that ultimately the courts will agree with the long-standing principle that Congress is free to decide what we will or will not fund," Istook said. "We provide major funding to combat drug use, and tax dollars should not be used to subsidize contrary messages." He'll have a hard time convincing the courts. The judge's opinion (available at Change the Climate specifically stated: There can be no legitimate argument that the government is "speaking" through its funding of capital improvements to mass transit facilities or that the grant of funds for mass transit is "designed" to facilitate private speech. and 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, an illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible reason. ... Just as Congress could not permit advertisements calling for the recall of a sitting Mayor or Governor while prohibiting advertisements supporting retention, it cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences. Now it's time for someone to send the bill for the costs of this court case to Istook. I don't want to have to pay for his violation of his oath of office. 11:46:49 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Drug task forces - a federal jobs program gone fishing on the highways I have never liked federally funded drug task forces -- for a lot of reasons, including dangerous tactics and a lack of accountability. Now, the ACLU of Texas has given me another reason to dislike drug task forces, in their recent report: Flawed Enforcement: Why drug task force highway interdiction violates rights, wastes tax dollars, and fails to limit the availability of drugs in Texas (pdf report). The report's findings include: Task forces perform searches at traffic stops much more often than regular police and sheriffs departments. In some task forces, 98% of task force searches at traffic stops are discretionary searches where the officer searches the car with the driver’s verbal “consent,” but has no other legal authority to do so. Texas law allowing arrests for fine-only-traffic offenses creates a coercive environment for discretionary so-called “consent searches.” Unlike most traffic enforcement, up to 99% of traffic stops by some task forces result in no citation. Along with the high ratios of discretionary searches, this indicates task force officers in highway interdiction programs routinely trump up excuses to stop drivers who are committing no crime. Task forces were more likely to search blacks than whites in eight of nine task forces that supplied sufficient data to calculate search rates by race. Latinos were searched more often than whites by seven of nine task forces reporting race data on searches. In reading the Wilson County News report of this study, I am once again impressed by U.S. Representative Ron Paul. Another suggestion was made to make task forces more self-reliant by paring down or eliminating the federal funding stream that currently keeps them running. "Instead of directing Byrne funds toward other programs that are eligible, you're spending it on a task force because agents want new SUVs for their department," said Jeff Deist, a spokesman for U.S.  Rep.  Ron Paul, R-Clute. Rewarding task forces with funds generated from drug seizures compounds the problem, Deist said. "You dangle the carrot of federal dollars in front of them, and it's just become a great jobs program.  The fundamental problem is that we've just accepted this 'drug war,' and it's costing an incredible amount of money. No kidding. 9:21:38 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []