Posted on 08/28/2006 3:45:15 AM PDT by Wolfie
Denver DEA Rep: Don't Legalize It
Colorado -- The Drug Enforcement Agency is stepping into the political fray to oppose a statewide ballot issue that would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.
In an e-mail to political campaign professionals, an agent named Michael Moore asks for help finding a campaign manager to defeat the measure, which voters will consider in November. If passed, it would allow people 21 and older to have up to 1 ounce of marijuana.
In the e-mail, which was sent from a U.S. Department of Justice account, Moore also writes that the group has $10,000 to launch the campaign. He asks those interested in helping to call him at his DEA office.
That has members of Safer Colorado, the group supporting the marijuana legalization measure, crying foul. The government has no business spending the public's money on politics, they said.
Steve Fox, the group's executive director, said members of the executive branch, including the DEA, should leave law-making to legislators.
"Taxpayer money should not be going toward the executive branch advocating one side or another," Fox said. "It's a wholly inappropriate use of taxpayer money."
Jeff Sweetin, the special agent in charge of the Denver office of the DEA, said voters have every right to change the laws. And the law allows his agency to get involved in that process to tell voters why they shouldn't decriminalize pot.
"My mantra has been, 'If Americans use the democratic process to make change, we're in favor of that,'" he said. "We're in favor of the democratic process. But as a caveat, we're in favor of it working based on all the facts."
Sweetin said the $10,000 the committee has to spend came from private donations, including some from agents' own accounts. He said the DEA isn't trying to "protect Coloradans from themselves" but that the agency is the expert when it comes to drugs.
"The American taxpayer does have a right to have the people they've paid to become experts in this business tell them what this is going to do," he said. "They should benefit from this expertise."
That argument threatens states' rights to make their own laws, says Safer's Fox.
"By this logic, federal funds could be used by the executive branch without limitation to campaign for or against state ballot initiatives," he said. "Our federalist system is based on the notion that states can establish their own laws without federal interference. The DEA ... is thumbing its nose at the citizens of Colorado and the U.S. Constitution."
State and federal law take different approaches to whether government employees should be allowed to mix work and politics.
Colorado law prohibits state employees from advocating for or against any political issue while on the job, and also bars those employees from using government resources — including phone and e-mail accounts — for any kind of political advocacy.
But federal law — which governs what DEA agents can do — is different.
The Hatch Act, passed in 1939 and amended in 1993, governs most political speech. Passed in the wake of patronage scandals in which the party in power would use government money and staff to campaign against the opposition, the law is mostly aimed at partisan political activity, said Ken Bickers, a University of Colorado political science professor.
While the act's prohibitions against on-the-job partisan politicking are strict, for the most part it allows federal employees to take part in non-partisan politics. And it's mostly silent on non-partisan ballot measures.
"I'm not sure that this doesn't slide through the cracks in the Hatch Act," Bickers said. "The Hatch Act isn't about political activity — it's about partisan political activity. Since this is a ballot initiative, and there's no party affiliation attached to it, that part of the Hatch Act probably wouldn't be violated."
An official from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency charged with investigating violations of the act, said in a statement last week that the DEA hasn't run afoul of Hatch.
Colorado decriminalized pot posession years ago - it's a summary offense to have an ounce or less on your person.
Wanna call the majority of the people in Colorado drug addicts or Libertarians?
Or maybe, just maybe, a lot of people believe it is royally stupid to waste enforcement money on pot.
The "advocates" are in the business as much as the dealers.
You must have avoided reading my brief synopsis of the Duke rape case. It's pretty clear abusive use of intoxicating substances is behind that one.
Again, you are either jumping to "shooting" or "killing" as the only means of self-defense available. Sometimes I'd simply like to be able to sue you for all your wealth ~ that'd get your attention Fur Shur.
Oh, and just TRY suing someone pre-emptively. You'll get spanked by the judge for a nuisance suit.
Sometimes I don't mean that at all. In fact, lawsuits are much better ~ keep his tail in court, in a state of high anxiety, for a long time, in an environment where they can bust him for the slightest use of any of his favorite recreational drugs.
Isn't it MJ overdosing on a long term basis that gives you schizophrenia and hallucinations?
First you LIE about not referencing violent action (your post was pulled), and now you SLANDER me by saying I use pot when I don't. Any other slime you wish to spread on this thread?
Are you still trying to find a way to accuse anyone who doesn't oppose this initiative and support any opposition to it from any source of being a drug dealer, without getting your wrist slapped?
Dopers, anti-gun nuts, leftwingers, Democrats ~ they all have this problem of construing self-defense to be some sort of attack.
Words have meanings. Defense, for example, means "defense". Offense, in contrast, means "offense".
I don't think it's possible for you guys to avoid being "offensive" and "dangerous" in your use of your favorite recreational vehicles.
YOu got lost in your syntax. Might try that one again.
You're lying again. Your post #61 got yanked - you know, the one that referenced garroting.
. You have consistently misrepresented my comments on "right of self defense".
No, you have consistently claim a pre-emptive right of self defense that you do not have.
Dopers, anti-gun nuts, leftwingers, Democrats
I don't do illegal drugs. I'm staunch 2nd-Amendment conservative and Republican. You, sir, are an embarassment to the conservative movement.
~ they all have this problem of construing self-defense to be some sort of attack.
Ah, you threaten pre-emptive action, including violence, and wonder why someone has a problem with it?
Words have meanings. Defense, for example, means "defense". Offense, in contrast, means "offense".
Look up pre-emptive and bet back to us.
I don't think it's possible for you guys to avoid being "offensive" and "dangerous" in your use of your favorite recreational vehicles.
I drink beer. That's legal. I know folks like you just can't stand the fact that someone is doing something you disapprove of, but deal with it.
The question still stands. Are you going to answer it or not?
Even the reference to garroting was instructive ~ you had suggested that every act of self-defense consisted of sneaking up on someone and shooting them ~ I suggested yet another technique that did not involve shooting.
No doubt in your complaint to the moderator you misconstrued what that was in response to.
Again, you and your little buddy consistently misrepresent what the right of self-defense might be, and you generally reject the use of self-defense against crimes commited by dopers in some sort of future where dope is not regulated or controlled.
In making such arguments you have demonstrated conclusively that you are not Conservatives, but more like the crowd over at DU.
Did you have something else in mind? It's all pretty clear to folks who can keep their syntax straight.
If I may add: LOL!
So in your mind that rationalization justifies the involvement of the DEA - they are in essence the "morality police", with an omnipresent jurisdiction, and support of this initiative is tantamount to supporting an across-the-board legalization of any and all drugs, for anyone at any time?
Find me the word "drugs" in the Constitution.
L
Already been done. See decisions of the Supreme Court.
Is that a penumbra or an emanation?
I'm still waiting on an answer to 117.
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.