Daniel McQuade: The need for free discourse on drugs

In my eighth grade religion class, my otherwise smart, well-spoken teacher told us that if we used Ouija boards, an actual evil spirit sent by the devil would come into our house and corrupt our young minds.

Religion does, of course, require leaps of faith and believing the unbelievable, but I have my limits and so did the rest of Room 30.

A classmate of mine -- I could only wish at the time to have had such courage -- raised his hand.

"An actual evil spirit?" I felt it a fair question, if not a necessary one.

He was immediately shushed, and the class was admonished for even considering the use of such an object. Because if there is a way to contact the afterlife, it is most certainly a plastic, mass-produced game from Parker Brothers.

All joking aside, I thought back to this preteen scene when hearing of the bill that was passed in the House of Representatives shortly before the new year.

The bill effectively limits an adequate debate on drug policy and is another case of America's failure in the drug war.

The Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which allocates $145 million for anti-marijuana advertisements, also includes a provision that cuts federal funding to any transit authority that accepts pro-medical marijuana ads.

In essence, it's a way to stop pro-legalization and similar ads from appearing on any subway, bus or train.

It makes sense, of course. If the government is spending $145 million on ads like the "Harmless?" series -- which cost just under $10 million to run during the 2003 Super Bowl -- why not cut competition as well? It is, of course, a sensible argument on the surface, but not one that can really be taken seriously.

OK, so the House doesn't want drug law reform ads on buses, since marijuana is illegal. What's to prevent similar provisions against pro-gay marriage ads, for example? After all, only male-female marriage is legal.

It doesn't stop there, of course: special interest groups could have a field day: pro- and anti-gun control, pro- and anti-abortion -- pretty much whatever issue you can think of.

Also, courts have generally ruled that advertisements on public transportation are legally protected free speech and cannot be discriminated against.

And so, transit authorities like SEPTA could be kind of caught: break the law (by blocking free speech) or lose important federal funding (by running said advertisements). Hell, with the way SEPTA's finances are going, they can't afford to lose any advertising or federal money.

But such is the case in the drug war, in which Americans who are so disenfranchised that they don't even have lobbying groups are discriminated against without a peep.

Philadelphia cable giant Comcast recently blocked a group from running pro-medical marijuana ads on their cable stations in New Hampshire. This is the same Comcast that recently struck a $50 million advertising deal with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Comcast didn't even view the ad and doesn't issue written explanations for ad refusals.

Despite the free-speech issue, there may not be anything illegal with either provision -- the government has used similar tactics before, such as Pennsylvania's recent change in the maximum blood alcohol level while driving from .10 to .08. The state would have lost $11 million in highway funding had it not lowered the limit.

And Comcast is a private company, albeit one that has a FCC-regulated monopoly in its pockets.

The fact is, drugs can be a horrible thing for people and for families. Whoop-de-damn-doo. Everyone knows that. And, despite the (self-admitted) failures of taxpayer-funded drug education programs like DARE, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't be allowed to try and encourage kids not to become addicts.

But the other side should be allowed to speak freely, too. Hell, even the government has seen the light: A 1999 report commissioned by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that medical marijuana was a reasonable treatment for many afflictions.

So why can't pro-medical marijuana advertisements or ones criticizing the drug war get plastered on buses or played on TV?

Look, right now the biggest oppositional speech on drug policy comes from Snoop Dogg. This recent decision does nothing but squelch a hot-button issue. It paints a bad future picture for other debates which may even be more important.

What's next? Evil spirits?

Daniel McQuade is a senior English major from Philadelphia, Pa., and outgoing 34th Street managing editor. Lone Wolf McQuade will appear on Thursdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.