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.
So in all that time the legal status of pot was the only thing to change?
Would you please elaborate on exactly who "You guys" are and what "dope business" they're engaged in?
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?
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. 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.
Good grief.. --- Unable to refute historical reality, you want to claim that a psycho woman's drug abuse lead to rape charges. Ever occur that there are psychos everywhere making trouble regardless of drug abuse?
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.
Hmmmmm, - 'you people need stomping' -- speaking of disturbed people...
I'm simply pointing out your absurdity.
The only thing I consume is beer. I don't drive if I am having beer at home. Using your "logic", you could kill me for drinking because I "might" harm you. You're insane.
" The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"
--Bill Clinton, during an interview on MTV in 1993
There is no modern successful society that tolerates widespread recreational drug use. I suppose you could go to Amsterdam, but you've only got a few years until the Muslims take over.
Riiiight. And all those people who frequent bars or spend their evening in front of the TV with a six pack aren't engaged in recreational drug use.
Yes, but you know what I mean. It is nowhere near the widespread drug use that the Libertarians and drug users would like.
I know what you mean, but that doesn't mean it's making any sense. Whether it's a good idea or not is for the people of Colorado to decide. The DEA has stuck it's nose in where it doesn't belong.
LOL!! Where did you learn the language? The DUmmie Dictionary?
Newsflash: You ain't God, your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.
WAAAAA!!! The nasty state won't let me, muawiyah (aka God) steal and kill!!!!
Another logic-less post. Screen name is appropriate.
I don't expect what I say to make any sense to Libertarians or drug addicts except in the rarest cases. If what the DEA is doing is legal then Liberatarians shouldn't have a problem with it. If you think it's illegal, file a lawsuit.
Well, then, you won't be disappointed when it doesn't.
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.