cannabisnews.com: Metro on Track Metro on Track Posted by CN Staff on February 19, 2004 at 21:57:23 PT Editorial Source: Washington Times The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against Metro and the federal government, claiming their ban on pro-marijuana advertising stifles free speech. The suit is similar to one filed against Boston's transit agency. The ACLU lost that lawsuit, and we hope it suffers the same fate in U.S. District Court. The suit was filed on behalf of three organizations: Change the Climate Inc., the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project. Change the Climate, which is based in Boston, and the ACLU succeeded last year in getting Metro to accept its advertising campaign — at no charge, since it was a public service announcement. Moral denouncement would be more fitting, since one of the ads said: "Enjoy better sex! Legalize and Tax Marijuana." The ads sent the wrong message in a region with frightening teen pregnancy and HIV/AIDS rates. Metro officials themselves criticized the content of the ads. Jim Graham, a D.C. Democratic council member who sits on the Metro board, said last fall that the ads were "over the edge." By winter, when Congress began threatening legislation that would force Metro to lose funding if it accepted such ads, Mr. Graham spoke out of the other side of his mouth, calling congressional action "petty and punitive." The legislation, written by Rep. Ernest Istook, prohibits Metro from accepting ads that promote the "the legalization or medical use" of controlled substances, including marijuana. This week, after the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Graham emerged with yet a third opinion, saying "we" should support the ACLU. (Mr. Graham and the ACLU filed a lawsuit in 1998 on behalf of the medical marijuana initiative.) The lawsuit was filed after Change the Climate and others came calling with yet more pro-drug ads. This time Metro stood its ground — fearful of breaking the law and angering Congress and taxpayers, who generously foot their bills. Metro made the right choice. Source: Washington Times (DC)Published: February 19, 2004Copyright: 2004 News World Communications, Inc. Website: http://www.washtimes.com/Contact: letters washingtontimes.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:MPP: http://www.mpp.org/ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/DPA: http://www.drugpolicy.org/CTC: http://www.changetheclimate.org/Suit Targets Ban on Pro-Pot Ads http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18362.shtmlFeds Face Lawsuit in Censorship Fight http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18359.shtmlACLU, Marijuana Rights Groups Sue U.S. http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18358.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #8 posted by lilgrasshoppah77 on February 20, 2004 at 10:43:32 PT: Viagra.... Hey, we had a SENATOR and PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE flogging the little blue pill ON NATIONAL TELEVISON! Nobody questioned his morals. And when this same Bob Dole seemed to purport that PEPSI had a similar effect on the old libido while watching Britney Spears cavort about in a skimpy outfit.... where was the moral outrage over that?Every year we are subjected to to beer commercials, all trumpeting the message: "Chicks dig beer... Chicks will dig you if you drink beer..." "perfect women with barbiedoll breasts will find you more interesting and attractive if you DRINK BEER!" Marijuana makes you pregnant... but beer gets you laid? HUH!? How's that work, professor?Sex sells everything from condoms to air freshener. "If you spring for some sparkley rocks, she'll THANK YOU later! (cue diamond ring and dewy eyed maiden ready to give it up for her grinning man)" "Smooching ain't smooching without FRESH BREATH!" (cue couple in bed). And really, it's logical. If one generation abstained from sex... all human life would cease to exist in one hundred years. Sex is important. Maybe the most important physical act we can perform. And that's why it sells.It's the hypocrisy that drives me nuts! [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by westnyc on February 20, 2004 at 10:34:02 PT Very true I agree; in fact, I think if all the marijuana smokers in Nevada would have cared enough to go-out and vote, it probably would have passed by a considerable margin. I mean, if I understand it correctly, only eleven-percent more would have raised the count from 60/40 to 51/49. Enough to have changed the law. The powers that be make it seem like it was defeated by a overwhelming margin; but, the reality was a very close race. Maybe this year, the smokers will be inspired enough and actually get-out their vote. Let's hope! [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by VitaminT on February 20, 2004 at 10:08:24 PT I agree in part "Remember - people who smoke cannabis are not the targeted audience - it's those who don't that are coming to realize the idiocy of prohibition that we need to reach!"Acknowledge if you will westnyc, that if we could get pot smokers to VOTE in substantially larger numbers - on this issue - it would be like blowing a horn in the vicinity of Jericho.20 million votes? what? 1/4 to 1/3 of pot smokers? That would be very hard to ignore. Half that many votes would be very hard to ignore. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by westnyc on February 20, 2004 at 09:20:25 PT I forgot After I posted my last comment, I realized that someone would bring-up the Viagra issue. I personally agree with your point 100%. There is no difference! However, I think most of the people on this website are rational through education, experience, etc; but, that doesn't mean that those in society on the verge of changing their minds will be persuaded by a combination of marijuana and sex. It's ridiculous even amusing; but many people I personally know "buy-into" the propaganda ads like the one where the young girl tests positive on a pregnancy test because she smoked a little weed.Yes, it's all hypocritical - but hypocrisy, propaganda, and racism are the prevailing basis for the continued "war on drugs;" and, I don't believe from an advertising point of view that "better sex" will work as a selling point to those considering changeing their minds. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Kozmo on February 20, 2004 at 08:52:57 PT: What's the difference........ between ads for Viagra (and a whole host of other similar drugs) that promote "better sex" and pot as a sex enhancing drug ? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by westnyc on February 20, 2004 at 07:22:42 PT Better Sex One more thing - I don't have any problem with people enjoying better sex. In fact, lately, I need all the help I can get. :-) However, marijuana prohibition is a "moral" issue more than it is a "health" issue; and, the moralists who oppose marijuana before based on morals will oppose it even more when you throw sex into the picture. There are however, those whose opinions are on the cusp of new thought when it comes to legalization and regulation. These are the sensible people who we would like to reach; and, I don't think signs proclaiming "better sex" is the most sensible way to do it. Remember - people who smoke cannabis are not the targeted audience - it's those who don't that are coming to realize the idiocy of prohibition that we need to reach! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by westnyc on February 20, 2004 at 07:12:46 PT Hummm I really don't think Mr. Graham is such a bad guy. It seems he might have been saying (1) pro-cannabis lobbying might be better served without signs proclaiming "enjoy better sex," (2) congress is being "petty and punitive" and could better serve our nation by focusing on more important and dangerous issues; and (3), after the lawsuit was filed he tells us that we should "support the ACLU." All in all - it seems he is looking at the picture from all "angles;" and, to me - his comments seem sensible. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by billos on February 20, 2004 at 02:48:49 PT: I see... that the author(s) had not the balls to put his/her name to this article.Is this really you Johnny Pee diddlin' with your computer again? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment