|
|
| ACTION ALERT: Meth Bill Outlaws Any Drug Speech |
|
Posted by FoM on January 31, 2000 at 14:03:18 PT For Immediate Release! Source: Drug Policy Foundation 
Action is urgently needed to block passage of S.486, the “DEFEAT Meth Act.” In addition to containing hefty sentencing enhancements for illegal production of both amphetamine and methamphetamine and significantly increasing funding for law enforcement, the bill’s most threatening aspect is its less publicized restrictions on drug related speech.
The bill makes it illegal "to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance." This provision was aimed ostensibly at preventing the Internet publication of instructions on how to make methamphetamine. In reality however, it is a mandate so broad that it criminalizes any published speech about illegal drugs, even if that speech is aimed at reducing the harms associated with drug use. For example, the bill would apply to information about safe dosage levels of illegal drugs and which combinations of drugs pose dangers. It would apply to explanations about how to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. It would apply to instructions on how to identify psilocybin mushrooms in the wild, or extract codeine from Tylenol 3. In short, anything that could possibly be "intended" to encourage drug use. Additionally, the bill makes advertising any information that could lead to the sale of drug paraphernalia a felony. This would mean that if one were to post the address of a head shop to a newsgroup, or the e-mail address of someone who makes water-pipes as a hobby, it would be a crime punishable by three years in jail, even though head shops themselves remain legal. Under this bill, even linking to a paraphernalia site is illegal. Given the vague and inclusive interpretation of federal conspiracy laws, almost any information about criminalized drugs and any dissent against existing drug laws could be construed by federal law enforcement as furthering drug crimes. Any anti-Drug War website could be shut down directly, or indirectly because Internet service providers, who could also be prosecuted under the law, would refuse to host such sites. S.486 already passed the Senate by a voice vote on Nov. 19. The bill is now awaiting House action. Chris Cannon, the sponsor of the House version of the bill, told the Village Voice in a recent article that legislators supporting the bill were pushing for hearings in March, and wanted to pass the bill this year, “sooner rather than later." The importance of S.486 cannot be understated. With it, Congress is quietly attempting to escalate the drug war to a whole new level, one which grossly assaults the civil rights of every American citizen, particularly the freedom of speech. If it becomes law, the publishers of drug related Web sites and books could wind up in jail, or out of business—including DPF. While hearings may not take place until March, it is critical that House members hear voices of opposition as early as possible. The Drug Policy Foundation urges you to contact your representative and tell them to oppose S.486. To Call: Find out who your representative is by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 225-3121. To Fax, Write a Letter or E-mail: Call the Capitol Switchboard, then call your representative’s office to get the fax number. You can e-mail your House members by going to www.house.gov . Letters can be addressed to your representative as follows: Honorable [name of your representative] THE DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION dpf@dpf.org Washington 451 - 1/25/2000 Amendment To 'Meth Bill' Would Censor Information - 8/13/99 Reefer Madness Hits Congress - 8/08/99 Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #7 posted by tom cunningham on February 01, 2000 at 09:37:54 PT:
|
| Comment #6 posted by Wiccan on January 31, 2000 at 23:46:01 PT |
| Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on January 31, 2000 at 19:07:49 PT |
But what I am proposing is simple, and for the person who does it, risk-free. All they have to do is write or call their Congressperson and say: Can you tell me, Mr. or Ms. Congressperson, why this bill does not infringe on my First Ammendment rights, when it so clearly *does*? You don't have to explain the reason for your call. All you have to do is demand an answer why they think that they are not violating their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution - as they have sworn to do. Put it *in exactly that way*. LEAVE THEM NO ROOM TO WEASEL THEIR WAY OUT OF IT.
If they ask you *why* you are so interested, put the ball back in their court and tell them every American *should* be worried when somebody threatens their First Ammendment rights. Keep at it. After all, they are supposed to work for you. No mention of cannabis or any other drug need be made. Just that you believe this bill to be a serious mistake - for the country in general, and him or her in particular.
We - the Internet community - succeeded in stopping the Know Your Customer Bill dead in it's tracks. The pols who stupidly mouthed off in support of it got their fingers and their bums burnt royally. We can do it again.
The pols whose brains are so ossified that they really don't understand this medium got a nasty shock when the KYC bill went down in flames. They know that they must now adapt to a new way of circumventing the Good 'Ol Boys network of politics - edemocracy. They are afraid of it. And like some lumbering Neanderthal, what they fear they are trying to destroy. Now they are seeking to destroy the most viable means of revitalizing democracy.
If we don't speak up, if we let them get away with it, then maybe we don't deserve to be free after all.
|
Comment #4 posted by J Christen-Mitchell on January 31, 2000 at 19:06:26 PT:
|
|
Comment #3 posted by J Christen-Mitchell on January 31, 2000 at 19:04:28 PT:
|
| Comment #2 posted by Dave in Florida on January 31, 2000 at 17:42:04 PT |
| Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on January 31, 2000 at 15:39:02 PT |
'It's for your own good.' How many times in your life have you heard that phrase? Sure, when you are children and have no experience with the world and its' myriad dangers, the restrictions of your parents make sense - at least, in retrospect But when a government makes the statement that 'FYOG' it is going to restrict your right to say what you will, and read what you want, then it's long past time to remind said government that it is a servant, not a master. Tyrannies rarely spring up overnight, and without warning. Hitler told the world what he was going to do in Mein Kampf - published in 1927. And there were people even then who warned of what this wretched little monster would do, given half the chance. The world ignored the warning... and maybe 30 million people died as a result. Here, in the States, we are getting our own wake up call. The Senate wants to destroy our civil liberties. So does the House. But if this wolf-in-sheep's-clothing is killed in the House (by forcibly reminding your Congressperson that if he or she wants to continue to feed at the trough, their vote should be NO!) then we won't have to face the awful, inevitable series of turns of the screw which lead to tyranny. We have made some real, measurable gains here. Two State governors have said publicly what a lot of others wish they had the cojones to say: the DrugWar doesn't work. Media types are remembering their own 'hazy' days and starting to ask the pols (who have themselves sampled the wacky-baccy and are none the worse for their experiences) some hard questions about fairness. This legislative backlash brought about by the DrugWarrior's allies is the latest proof that we are winning. When they try an end run like *this*, they are getting desperate. Time to press our advantage, call your Congressperson and let them know in no unceratin terms that you believe your First Ammendment rights are being infringed, you don't like it one bit, and what are they going to do about it? Because if we don't, who will?
| Post Comment |  |
|  |