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.
Just to piss off fascist like yourself is a good enough reason for me (I don't use pot either) - I just believe in freedom.
George's lackeys are also deep into anti-semitism as they attempt to take over the Demoratic party.
I'd suggest you brush up on what it means to be a "fascist" these days because you are one and I am not.
And, you not a fascist because you want to use the power of the state and federal governments to force adults to behave "as you see fit" - for their own good of course. And, well - for the good of the children.
Wow...you're one of those black is white, up is down and war is peace people.
If you continue - this will be fun - trying to watch you twist logic in order to make you're illogical, irrational unsupportable points.
BTW - I'm married to a nice Jewish girl...so I really don't think anti-semitism is the problem!!
No, for me, the pot (that I don't smoke anymore - it's not healthy) - is strictly a Constitutional issue. You've heard of that "Bill of Rights" thing - I guess.
I am not a fascist because I want to use the powers of the state to prevent you from harming otherwise innocent, but ignorant people, from killing themselves with powerful substances you recommend.
Or, more precisely, you favor death and I favor life.
BTW, George Soros is a "nonpracticing Jew" ~ proving once again that one's Jewishness is no bar to anti-semitism.
Where did KeepUSfree recommend these substances? Is that just another sleazy desperate WODdie lie?
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
I'd say that using the government to put people in jail for smoking pot (especially since the laws were originally enacted to control the black population) - is, pretty much THE textbook example of Fascism.
L
Talk about your cognitive dissonance.
L
The Nazi's used "the powers of the state" to protect all of those innocent Germans from those nasty, nasty Jews.
Same thing. If you think it is the states job to protect people from themselves, you are, by definition - a fascist.
Done - I have no need to continue a dialogue with a such a hate-filled, bitter, fascist, loser.
You HATE freedom...go over to DU where you belong.
We've heard ~you~ say what you are not.
What do you think ~we~ should say about people who want to use "the power of the state"?
Of course a DEA agent doesn't want any of it legalized. He wants to keep his authoritarian, taxpayer-funded job. Pot available legally at 7-11 cuts into his margin.
"-- If you think it is the states job to protect people from themselves, you are, by definition - a fascist. --"
Nature of Personal Liberty
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1691536/posts
"-- a man has an entire right to use his own body as he will, provided he do not so use it as to interfere with the rights of his neighbor.
He may go where he will, and stay where he please he may work, or be idle; he may pursue one occupation, or another, or no occupation at all; and it is the concern of no one else, if he leave inviolate the rights of every one else; that is, if he leave every one else in the undisturbed enjoyment of those means of happiness bestowed upon him by the Creator. --"
Nah! Their afraid there will be no more cool helicopter rides into the national forests to stand around bonfires of herb!
Did you ever suspect that maybe the committee at the dictionary company counseled their definition to serve their narrow corporate ends?
Gad, you pot sniffers and leftwingnuts will buy into any old piece of corporate propaganda with narry a thought to the contrary.
Enough!
Why is that?
Without such advocacy, all you are demanding is that the jackbooted thugs and other state organs be sent out to PREVENT me from exercising my right of self protection against you.
That's why you are fascists.
Hey, it's not like your side of the debate wants to just keep the state out of it. No, you will be the first to demand the state come and protect you from outraged citizens and those who wish to exercise their right of self-defense against any depradations, harm or threat associated with your actions.
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.