The First Amendment Even Protects Speech That Offends Pot Prohibitionists


Marijuana Policy Project

Next week voters in Portland, Maine, will decide whether to repeal local penalties for possession of up to two and a half ounces of marijuana by adults 21 or older. The ballot initiative, Question 1, will not affect state law, which treats possession of amounts below that cutoff as a civil violation punishable by fines ranging from $350 to $1,000, although local legalization might influence the enforcement priorities of Portland police. While the practical impact of Question 1 may be minor, the campaign's messaging, if successful, is apt to influence efforts to fully legalize marijuana in Maine and other states. The campaign's ads, which are displayed on the sides of buses and bus shelters in Portland's transit system, feature harmless-looking marijuana consumers who explain why they prefer pot to alcohol. "I prefer marijuana over alcohol because it is less harmful to my body," says one. "Why should I be punished for making the safer choice?" The ad urges people to "vote yes on Question 1" and includes the address for a Marijuana Policy Project website that compares cannabis to alcohol.

According to McClatchy DC, this message, which is a variation on the approach that seems to have worked in Colorado, really bugs anti-pot activists, who say it should not be allowed:

Opponents say the ads go well beyond endorsing a ballot measure, instead promoting an illegal product. They say the ads shouldn't be allowed in places where they're so easily viewed by youths, including high school students who ride city buses to school.

An anti-drug group called 21 Reasons has asked the Greater Portland Transit District to take down the ads. "What we say and what we do is being watched by the kids in our communities," Jo Morrissey, a spokeswoman for the group, tells McClatchy, "and they look to us for clues on what's acceptable and what's normal and how they should act." Kevin Sabet, executive director of the prohibitionist group Project SAM, agrees that the Question 1 ads pose an intolerable risk to the youth of America. "We're witnessing the birth of Big Marijuana," he says, "and I really worry about the messages this advertising is going to be sending to kids, giving them the impression that marijuana is safe."

Unlike Jo Morrissey, the Greater Portland Transit District has heard of the First Amendment. The sides of Portland's buses are what the Supreme Court calls a "designated public forum," and restricting that forum to speech that Morrissey and Sabet like would be clearly unconstitutional. "We're allowing this message because it's political speech," explains Gregory Jordan, the transit agency's general manger. "It's designed to help change a law….We don't have a position on the content of the advertising, just that it's a political message and by its very nature it's protected by the First Amendment."

Even when it perturbs pot prohibitionists? How can that be?


NEXT: Latest Snowden Revelation: NSA Infiltrates Links That Connect Yahoo and Google Data Centers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They say the ads shouldn’t be allowed in places where they’re so easily viewed by youths, including high school students who ride city buses to school.

    The Bill of Rights wasn’t meant to further the corruption of innocent minds by drug addicts on a mission to recruit more little drug addicts. NOT ON MY CHILD’S PLAYGROUND.

    1. Thank you, FoE. This is one of my favorite fallacies. “The Founding Fathers would never have approved of [Columbine|Playboy|Pot|Boogie Man of your Choice]. Therefore, let’s suspend the Bill of Rights they bequeathed to us in order to preserve the spirit of 1776.” What’s amazing to me is that others don’t immediately see the comedy inherent in such arguments, but rather take them seriously.

      1. They didn’t “bequeath” us shit. They simply recognized natural rights inherent in each individual.

        1. Perhaps pedantry, but pmains said that the Founding Fathers bequeathed the BILL of Rights, not the rights themselves.

        2. Perhaps pedantry, but pmains said that the Founding Fathers bequeathed the BILL of Rights, not the rights themselves.

          1. I hate rodents!

      2. Well, if they want to go all original intent, then let’s take a look at that commerce clause shall we?

        1. “Throw people in an iron cage for smoking ground-up dried flower buds” is NOT one of the Enumerated Powers.

  2. might influence the enforcement priorities of Portland police

    I just snarfed my iced tea.

  3. What is so dangerous about marijuana anyway? Isn’t the real danger that kids will be told from a very young age that marijuana is a dangerous drug that will ruin their lives then they will find out that all of the dangers attributed to the plant are lies. Children might lose faith in authority figures and begin to question other things too.

    If prohibitionists knew better they should just let the marijuana battle end so people don’t get crazy ideas about questioning authority. Plus I hear stoners are a fairly docile and easy to control bunch anyway.

    1. Yep. For laws to be respected they must be respectable. Immoral and unjust laws lead to disrespect of the law in general, and for people who lack a strong sense of morality that can be a very dangerous thing.

    2. “Easy to control?”

      We Hippies ended the War in Vietnam, kiddie.

  4. Opponents say the ads go well beyond endorsing a ballot measure, instead promoting an illegal product.

    Well, how to you ask to legalize something without mentioning or talking about that which is illegal? Does illegal stuff become an un-word?

    1. “We can’t just let abolitionists publish their tracts and newsletters subverting our duly established laws!”

  5. My hat’s off to whoever paid for the advertising! And to the people who accepted their business.

  6. Can anyone explain what makes a “civil violation” not a crime? There’s a law telling you not to do something. When you do that thing you are punished. Why is it not considered a “crime”?

    1. Criminal offenses carry jail time while civil offenses carry fines. They’re both crimes.

      1. Are traffic violations crimes? I’m really not sure, but I thought that violations, while against the law, are not technically properly called crimes, only misdemeanors and worse are criminal.

  7. What’s the snobby New-England pronunciation of ‘youths’?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.