Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drug Czar's Nevada Expense Report Sought
Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | April 30, 2004 | Sean Whaley

Posted on 04/30/2004 1:17:44 PM PDT by Wolfie

Drug Czar's Nevada Expense Report Sought

Carson City -- A marijuana advocacy group has asked the state Supreme Court to order Secretary of State Dean Heller to require a federal official to provide expense information spent lobbying against a state pot initiative.

The Washington, D.C.,-based Marijuana Policy Project said Heller is not requiring U.S. Drug Czar John Walters to file expense reports on his anti-marijuana efforts because of an erroneous opinion from the attorney general's office.

The group sought campaign reporting from Walters in connection with a 2002 marijuana legalization effort in Nevada that failed at the ballot box.

In January 2003, an attorney for Walters said he is immune from Nevada election laws "as a federal official acting within the scope of duties, including speaking out about the dangers of illegal drugs."

Heller then sought an opinion from the attorney general, who essentially came to the same conclusion.

The marijuana group has filed a new initiative petition this year seeking voter approval to legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of the drug. The signature gathering process is now under way.

As a result, Walters visited Las Vegas in March to oppose the initiative. He called it "foolhardy."

On April 22, the marijuana group sought a writ compelling Heller to require Walters to follow Nevada election law requiring advocacy groups to report donations and expenditures.

Heller has not yet responded. There is no timeline on when the state court will act on the petition.

Rene Parker, chief deputy secretary of state, said Thursday the office is not changing its position as a result of the group seeking the writ.

"We're following the attorney general's advice and they are not changing at this point," she said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: drugwar; johnwalters; rpsuckswaltersweiner; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 04/30/2004 1:17:45 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
4:20 ping
2 posted on 04/30/2004 1:20:03 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
LOL!
3 posted on 04/30/2004 1:23:16 PM PDT by motzman (Like Flaming Globes, Sigmund! Like Flaming Globes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
The spending of federal taxpayers' money to influence state elections is worth knowing more about.

How much was went, and who received the money?
4 posted on 04/30/2004 1:29:07 PM PDT by Imal (Evolution is an intelligent design.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imal
The spending of taxpayers' money to influence elections is outrageous.
5 posted on 04/30/2004 1:55:44 PM PDT by The kings dead (O.C.-Old Cracker:"It's time for some of our freedoms to get curtailed for the sake of the Republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Well you are obviously an east coaster....
6 posted on 04/30/2004 1:57:21 PM PDT by bird4four4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The kings dead
Party of smaller government, and all.
7 posted on 04/30/2004 1:57:38 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bird4four4
As the old saying goes, its happy hour somewhere.
8 posted on 04/30/2004 1:58:56 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Still awaiting the arrival of the WODdie czar-dines to applaud their Ruler by divine right!

I suppose we should be thankful that Walters is a czar, and not a commissar!

Yet.
9 posted on 04/30/2004 2:00:46 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Well, you know how it goes. Installing democracy is an expensive proposition.
10 posted on 04/30/2004 2:04:09 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Imal
This petition directly violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

What's worth knowing more about are the names of any elected officials and/or judges, sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, who sign off on this Soros-sponsored, piece of crap petition.

They should be impeached, tried, convicted, and shot for treason.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
"Section 2. Oath of office.

Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:

I, ................, do solemly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury."

11 posted on 05/01/2004 1:19:20 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
This petition directly violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Nonsense. The petition was to change Nevada State law.

Where does the Constitution or Federal law require a State to make MJ illegal?

What's worth knowing more about are the names of any elected officials and/or judges, sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, who sign off on this Soros-sponsored, piece of crap petition.

They should be impeached, tried, convicted, and shot for treason.

I think you've gone off the deep end.

12 posted on 05/01/2004 6:14:04 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"Where does the Constitution or Federal law require a State to make MJ illegal?"

Ken H, how is it that these "medical marijuana" patients are being arrested in California? Answer: If a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law prevails.

In this case, the Controlled Substances Act is the prevailing federal law. Any state law that conflicts with the CSA is unconstitutional, and the Nevada legislators and judges know this.

"I think you've gone off the deep end.

What, they shouldn't be shot? Fine, drawn and quartered then.

13 posted on 05/02/2004 12:01:53 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Vegas, what hapens there stays there.
14 posted on 05/02/2004 12:06:02 PM PDT by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Ken H, how is it that these "medical marijuana" patients are being arrested in California? Answer: If a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law prevails.

These patients are not being arrested now. Here is a thread you might have missed that explains why the Feds can't touch them--

Medical Pot Group Basks in Victory, Eyes New Harvest

"'We're going to go ahead and plant a garden,' Mike Corral said."

See robertpaulsen, he's going to plant a garden. There's nothing you can do about it. There's nothing the Feds can do about it for now. They'd likely go to jail if they tried, don't you think?

So they're not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent, now would it?

15 posted on 05/02/2004 2:30:04 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I should save this post. I will save this post.

"There's nothing the Feds can do about it for now."

Yep, that's why they call it a "preliminary injunction".

16 posted on 05/03/2004 6:24:08 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Nevada is proposing the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Since this is clearly contrary to federal law, what, if anything, should happen to those elected officials, or state judges, who approve of this legislation?

I'm trying to determine just how much of an anarchist hides within you under the guise of constitutional rights.

17 posted on 05/03/2004 6:30:21 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Nevada is proposing the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Since this is clearly contrary to federal law, what, if anything, should happen to those elected officials, or state judges, who approve of this legislation?

All that Nevada is proposing is removing Nevada penalties against MJ possession below a certain amount.

Let's assume it is not a violation of Nevada law to have a toilet that exceeds Federal regulations on flush capacity.

You can have as big a pot as you want and that's perfectly fine with Nevada.

Now, if the Feds are staking out your toilet in Nevada and they find you in violation of the EPA flush standard, they can still apply appropriate penalties.

Nevada does not have to have a law that penalizes Nevadans for possessing either toilets that are too big or small amounts of pot.

I can't decide if the EPA got their authority over toilets from the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause.

18 posted on 05/03/2004 7:04:16 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"All that Nevada is proposing is removing Nevada penalties against MJ possession below a certain amount."

That is legalization. You having a problem with that word? Legalization of ANY amount of marijuana for recreational use is contrary to federal law.

I am asking you for the second time, what are we to do with legislators who pass, and the judges who approve, legislation that is contrary to constitutional federal law?

19 posted on 05/03/2004 7:31:44 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I am asking you for the second time, what are we to do with legislators who pass, and the judges who approve, legislation that is contrary to constitutional federal law?

Vote out the legislators and impeach the judges.

Oh, I'm sorry, you were talking about STATE officials.

20 posted on 05/03/2004 7:36:39 AM PDT by dirtboy (John Kerry - Hillary without the fat ankles and the FBI files...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson