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.
Someone will use the power of the state ~ and it's either going to be me, to make life more ejoyable, or you to make life a living hell.
Do you think it might be possible to make our lives more enjoyable without involving the federal government in the internal affairs of the state of California? This is no better than Janet Reno coming to Missouri to help the campaign to defeat the CCW initiative.
Why is that?
Because we're advocating limited, constitutional government and not anarchy you dimwit.
L
No doubt there are people in California who want to have MJ (and many other drugs) decriminalized while at the same time prohibiting the people at large from exercising their right of selfprotection ~ just like the gun laws out there.
The MJ campaign is just another step in the plan to make California safe for the criminal classes of the Western hemisphere.
BTW, you are not advocating limited constitutional government. Rather, you wish to prohibit the majority from protecting themselves from the criminal class minority.
So you will subvert the division of authority and responsibility laid out in the Constitution for our own good. Again.
Hardly. We need both the states and the federales keeping back the forces of darkness.
If we needed that, it would have been specified in the Constitution, either originally or by amendment. There is no "Because muawiyah thinks we need it" clause.
'em's fightin' words!
What are you going to do? Type really hard?
And, yes, Miriam Webster is part of a corporate conspiracy to make you look like a fascist.
Sure, you're rational. You might want to get some help for that problem of yours. Try here:
Polish your boots often?
You don't need bother responding to this.
You're an angry whackjob.
You need help.
HAve a nice day anyway (even though I doubt you actually will - you're probably not capable of happiness)
That is exactly how our country worked up until prohibitionists/socialists gained control early in the 20th century.
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.
You erroneously claim that 'substance abusers' actions are harming/threaten you, when in fact the threat/harm is the result of the 'war' that your prohibition caused.
Your claim: "---- I get to take action directly to make sure you cannot harm me or mine as a consequence. [of smoking dope] ---"; is unsupported by historical reality.
How did the 'legal] dope smokers of the 19th century threaten or harm anyone?
She used both at the same time, had the expected hallucination, and now three guys are on hold awaiting trial for a rape they didn't commit.
There's no way the rest of us can be protected from you people unless we have a "hold harmless" clause in the deal that allows us to stomp back.
"Let's take this debate over to the setting provided by the Duke Rape Case where the AV is a self-admitted abuser of alcohol and muscle relaxants."
Good point.
I think we should ban both alcohol and muscle relaxants.
Yeah, we all know how the Republic was unable to function until pot was made illegal by the feds last century.
You have no pre-emptive right of "self-protection" - if I am drinking in my house, you cannot shoot me because I might drive drunk later.
I have a God given right of self-defense that supercedes your limited right to practice acts that can be harmful to me.
Are you denying God?
Try and shoot someone who is not presenting any clear and present danger to you and get back to me. A person drinking at home is not a danger to you. A drunk driver may be. But even then, you can't shoot the drunk driver. If you try, you will be the one going to jail, because you became a greater hazard than he was.
You need to get a friggin' grip.
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.