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.
Have no idea where to begin with that one ~ but it does look like you and your buddy favor anarchy.
Then you shouldn't have any problem at all explaining where those premises differ from those your original statement is based on.
The consequence is you create meaningless challenges that you consider to be questions.
Sorry, it's not a game I care to play. Go back to your delusion of a future with free dope.
It ain't gonna' happen!
You post veiled threats and implied accusations and then howl that you're misunderstood, but refuse to make any attempt to clarify your position, even when asked explicitly to do so. The only game you won't play is to state your position and opinions in clear, unambiguous terms.
Best you keep your paranoia to yourself.
Your post didn't get pulled for nothing. Perhaps it was the implied accusations. I notice you don't bother to deny those.
Obviously you have no sense of personal responsibility, nor do you comprehend English well enough to use it as a debating language. That you were able to fool the moderator is a surprise, but sometimes that happens ~ occasionally while dining on their full lunch of roast duck and mango salsa, or washing it down with Piper-Heidsieck champaign, they'll fall back on the old "Don't say nothin' 'bout the brother" standard, or just cave in to the village crank to get you out of their hair.
I'm sure there was nothing personal in it, or even well thought out, on the part of the moderator(s). In your case, I detect elements of a conspiracy to trash me.
I didn't report anything to the moderator. I did ask you to clarify what you had posted. You declined.
The moderators don't search for stuff.
I didn't say they did. I believe they will pull inappropriate posts that they run across, and will monitor threads on topics known to produce flame wars and personal attacks. We can ask them if you like. All I can tell you for sure is that I didn't report anything to them.
SCOTUS has the authority to add things to the Constitution? Well that's a very LibDem way you think, there.
I suppose next you'll be in full agreement with SCOTUS adding the right to kill unborn children to the Constitution.
L
Hmmm ~ hijacking this thread eh?!
Why don't you just answer the question?
Are you in favor of the SCOTUS adding 'rights' and 'powers' to the Constitution?
L
More frightening than sad if you ask me.
L
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.