(Marijuananews note: At the recent NORML
Conference I had dinner with a group of old friends, including some past and present NORML
Board members, and we drank a toast to Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, the author of the ban
on the District’s medical marijuana initiative, which has kept the votes from getting
announced. Oh my, are we really a DEA front, after all? Noo. It is just that we think
that the marijuana reform movement owes Barr a great debt of gratitude. The Congress would
almost certainly have vetoed the initiative’s results citing the sacredness of the
FDA, etc., and the issue would have been ignored by the Washington Post.
In stead, because of Barr’s prohibitionist zealotry, the issue is getting regular
coverage in the Post. Post columnist Steve Twomey has been writing a series of
increasingly scathing columns about the nullification of the vote of D.C. residents by an
authoritarian white Republican from Georgia! It is hard to think of a non-vulgar way to
describe how that goes over in the District. The issue is not medical marijuana, but
Democracy! And guess who is on the side of the angels?
Everyone except the Girl Scouts have joined in a lawsuit to get the results released.
Medical marijuana has now been linked with Democracy, home rule, freedom of speech, and
the American way. And Bill Clinton has been linked to Bob Barr, who is to his constituency
what Monica is the religious right, an impeachable offense.
See
ACLU Sues To
Protect Vote On D. C. Medical Marijuana Initiative, Washington Post Reports and links
Now Clinton’s Justice Department has filed a brief in support of Barr’s ban,
calling it "sensible." Twomey is seething.
To the politicians who think that this is what the American people want, I have just
two words, Dan Lungren. Forgive the vulgarity.)
December 3,1998
From The Washington Post
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
By Steve Twomey <twomeys@washpost.com>
AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE
You wouldn’t think President Clinton would support a single thing Rep. Robert L.
Barr Jr. does, including breathe, given that the Georgia Republican and member of the
Judiciary Committee craves presidential impeachment probably more than he craves waking up
next to a $100 million winning Powerball ticket.
But in court papers filed three days ago, Clinton’s Justice
Department not only rose to a complete defense of Barr’s legislation that mothballed
an election in the capital last month, it suggested that Congress acted
"sensibly" in committing electoral homicide.
My guess is the presidential praise won’t douse Barr’s lust for impeachment,
but at least it lets Washingtonians know that Clinton, who came
to office gushy for statehood as a way to end two centuries of congressional control of
the city, is capable of saying anything.
Then again, we knew that.
How did Congress act?
"Sensibly,"
Clinton’s team says in its
court papers.
It is now sensible to strip some Americans of the right to an election.
It is now sensible to get all misty about what a great country we are, what a beacon of
freedom, and simultaneously to tell residents of that great country’s capital that it
shall be illegal to express their feelings at the polls about an issue being debated
nationwide.
The issue is marijuana, specifically Initiative 59, which asked
District residents whether doctors in the city should be allowed to prescribe it legally
to ease the pain of those with severe illness. It’s an idea that just passed in
five states—each of them blessed, like the other 45, with self-rule—but
it’s an idea that apparently offends Barr, who warned in House debate about "these
drug legalization people."
Powerless to invade Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state to stop their
marijuana referenda and round up their drug legalization people, at least Barr managed to
pull the leash of the District dog, proposing a successful amendment forbidding the city
to spend funds to supervise and count the Initiative 59 segment of the Nov. 3 election.
See
In A Great Victory For
Freedom, The Voters Send The Right Messages. But Who Is Listening?
Analysis By Richard Cowan
Unfortunately, the city’s ballots had been printed already, so electors still got
to vote yea or nay on marijuana on Election Day. But the outcome isn’t known, because
the election board hasn’t asked its computer for the result. To release it, the board
fears, might represent spending and anger Congress, which probably wouldn’t bother to
put the disobedient city officials on trial. It’d send them straight to Leavenworth.
And so the outcome sits hostage in the dark, awaiting an effort by the American Civil
Liberties Union and others to convince the federal courts—the one branch of
government that hasn’t deserted Jeffersonian ideals yet—that the other two are
guilty of un-American activity.
In aiding and abetting Barr, Clinton’s folks didn’t
have much choice. Traditionally, the executive branch defends the laws of the legislative.
But it doesn’t have to enjoy it. Clinton’s brief, far from expressing reluctant
disgust, makes killing an election seem no biggie
: The Constitution says Congress,
where no District resident has a voting voice, has Mussolini-esque power over the capital.
It can block any local law any time, the brief said, and rather than waiting until medical
marijuana was legalized and nixing it, Congress saved itself the trouble by simply
stopping the election.
"It has sensibly prohibited the use of public funds to
conduct an election on Initiative 59," the Justice Department brief said.
Tossing residents a bone, Justice didn’t object to releasing the results, given
that Congress acted too late to stop the vote. But it made clear they would represent only
information, not law. They’d represent public opinion, not election results Congress
has to confront, and their release would stem merely from the quirky facts of the
situation. Generally, canceling a District election seems just fine to Justice.
It’s Not Fine. It’s Censorship.
Not liking the topic, Congress engaged in prior restraint, taking from residents of the
city the right to express themselves, which is what an election is, the collective speech
of a community. The Constitution may give Congress the power to overturn the results of
that speech— a law—but it shouldn’t be able to muzzle the speech itself. A
democracy functions only with free debate.
The real issue is not drug legalization.
The real issue is not whether Congress has constitutional power over the city.
The real issue is how this democracy continues to justify depriving several hundred
thousand citizens of the same rights and status as all other citizens, even as they pay
the same taxes and fight the same wars.
It is oft said that any District resident who doesn’t like his or her lot can
move, that full representation on the floor of Congress and freedom from congressional
meddling in the minutiae of local life await the disaffected just beyond the
District’s borders.
Let us leave aside whether relocation is a practical option for thousands of people
living on the margins who might not have the spare cash to pick up and move. Let us,
instead, pose the issue a different way:
How can anyone—Clinton, Barr, the rest—defend on moral grounds having an
island of authoritarian rule from which residents must escape like Third World refugees to
taste the ideals of their own nation?
(Marijuananews note: Thanks, Bob, we couldn't have done it without
you!)
Copyright: 1998 The Washington Post Company
Supported