Despite the better judgment of Congress, voters in Washington, D.C. got to count the votes on their medical marijuana initiative after all.

The results of Initiative 59 were released by the city's elections board on Sept. 21. Voters, on November 3, 1998, overwhelmingly supported the ballot initiative, voting 69% in favor. The initiative passed in every precinct. It took nearly seven months to release the tally, because Congress had passed a furtive rider making it illegal for D.C. officials to count the vote. D.C. citizens, who have no representative in Congress, could not be trusted to vote properly, so their vote was declared impossible.

The congresspersons responsible openly admit that, when it comes to conflicts between drug policy and democracy, three out of four congresspersons choose drugs. The anti-vote amendment sponsor, Rep. Bob Barr (R., Georgia) in a brave attempt at lucidity, said: "Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and it would send a terrible message to America's young people to allow those laws to be openly flouted in the same city where they were passed."

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts ordered on Sept. 17--over seven months after hearing argument on the issue--that the vote tally be released. "In this case," said the judge, "First Amendment speech through the vote would have been effectively extinguished if the Barr Amendment had blocked releasing and certifying the results." Plumbing the very depths of common sense to immortalize the obvious, he added: "To cast a lawful vote only to be told that that vote will not be counted or released is to rob that vote of any communicative meaning whatsoever."

Nevertheless, the Barr Cartel is already at work to make sure that, now that the people have had their say, their say will become meaningless.

A fresh rider (albeit on a tired mule), attached to the Fiscal 2000 D.C. Appropriations Bill, prohibits the District of Columbia from enacting any law that would legalize any drugs or reduce penalties. They may, however, increase penalties of their choosing.

The residents of Washington, D.C. do not have an elected legislature of their own. Congress is privileged to carry out that function on their behalf. Apparently for the sake of convenience, Congress takes its cues from the Georgia State Legislature. As Rep. Barr postulates: "If Fairfax County [Georgia] voted to allow medical use of marijuana, the state wouldn't let us, would it? That's the analogy I hear from members [of Congress]."

Hedging their bets in case President Clinton, during a wild Oval Office democracy binge, gets a hankering to light up a pro-pot veto, Rep. Thomas Davis (R.-Va.) reminds us that "it's hard for the president to veto a D.C. appropriations bill because we won't allow legalized marijuana use in the District. That's just a tough sell." Rep. Ernest Istook (R.-Okla.) piped in with: "If there is a veto, it'll show that Bill Clinton is as soft on drugs as he is on Puerto Rican terrorists."

Explaining that it's better to be hard on democracy then soft on cancer patients, one voter-sympathetic congressperson, James Moran (D.-Va.) offered: "Most of the members are rightfully reticent to override a democratic referendum." Reluctant, but not entirely averse, as Moran points out: "They're afraid that they will be subjected to 30-second ads claiming they voted to legalize drugs."

And what brave steward of American democracy could be called upon to make such a sacrifice? What patriot could bear to face a 30-second attack ad? You can almost hear the screaming from the aisles: "Oh the humanity, oh the horror!" The British must be kicking themselves about now. "Blast it Giles, if we'd only employed attack ads while General Washington was camped at Valley Forge; instead, we blew our money on Hessian mercenaries!"

Neither Judge Roberts nor his boss, The Law, can be accused of being soft on speech. Roberts ruled simply on a technical issue: that the Barr amendment did not specifically prohibit the initiative process from going forward. He pointedly did not rule on the issue of whether the rider amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. In the interests of interminable argument, the court left that question to prowl restlessly in the hall. The question of whether the vote, now counted, means anything, or if the mere privilege of having that vote publicly counted is enough free speech for any one democracy, is left open for a further lawsuit. That lawsuit is certain to be filed as soon as Congress passes the latest D.C. appropriations bill and after President Clinton doesn't veto it.

As this court ruling affirms: the First Amendment is to be protected, but only as a last resort.

For more info: www.aclu.org/court/.