Posted on 12/05/2002 6:52:37 AM PST by MrLeRoy
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Wednesday, December 4, the Marijuana Policy Project will file a formal "complaint of possible prohibited personnel practice" with the federal Office of Special Counsel, charging White House Drug Czar John Walters with violating federal law by using "his official authority and influence for the purpose of ... affecting the result of an election" -- specifically, the election that included Question 9, MPP's Nevada marijuana initiative.
MPP's Executive Director Robert Kampia and Director of Government Relations Steve Fox will discuss the complaint at a noon press conference on December 4. At that time, MPP will also release a letter to the Nevada Secretary of State's office alleging that John Walters illegally campaigned against Question 9 without properly reporting his activities to the state, as required by Nevada's campaign finance law.
"During the fall campaign, John Walters declared war on the law and war on the truth," Kampia said. "Today, on behalf of U.S. taxpayers -- including the 5,000 who contributed to our campaign -- we are declaring war on the drug czar for his illegal and dishonest activities. In filing this official complaint, we are calling for the removal of John Walters from office for gross violations of the Hatch Act." The Hatch Act, originally enacted in 1939, bars federal employees from carrying out certain campaign-related activities.
"Walters has committed numerous crimes against the taxpayers," Kampia added. "He used his official authority to affect the outcome of the Question 9 election, as well as other state drug policy initiatives, in plain violation of the Hatch Act. Because none of this activity was properly reported as campaign contributions, he is in equally plain violation of Nevada campaign finance laws. Walters conducted a campaign of lies against Question 9, using the taxpayers' money to spread misinformation."
If the liberal courts hadn't mothballed that amendment, you'd be right. Enforcing the Tenth Amendment would end the federal War On (Some) Drugs along with the rest of the federal Nanny State.
He dissed dope, and to the pro-dopers that was akin to declaring war.
Never get between a dog and his dish--or a doper and his bong.
Nothing will acclerate the development of the nanny state more than relaxing the dope laws. E.g., Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, England etc.
Belgium is prime example of how one state's or nation's liberal dope laws or lax and inconsistent enforcement inevitably undermine the law enforcement efforts of bordering states or nations. Holland drove Belgium's recent relxation of its drug laws.
That's because drugs are never purely a personal habit. On the contrary, their use imposes horrific burdensome costs far beyond the user. The state always steps in and extorts money from other taxpayers to take care of the dopers and clean up after them. The state may jail them, or coddle them with "doper victim" social transfer payments. Inasmuch as the money is not taken from me voluntarily, I prefer to see it spent to kick them square, swift, and hard in their doper britches.
Now, why are you working so hard to bring on a fuller and more suffocating nanny state?
Dopers don't care. Why do you think they call them "dopers"?
Or a drug warrior and their aversion to truth.
Nothing will acclerate the development of the nanny state more than relaxing the dope laws
In other words, the U.S. prior to the 20th century was a nanny state? I don't think so.
Drug warriors don't care about the truth or their perpetuation of yet another big government bureaucracy. Why do you think they call them idiots?
They definitely have a strong case. It probably won't matter though. The feds have shown an amazing propensity for ignoring laws that are inconvenient to their power grab.
No, calling anyone who makes valid points concerning the federal government's gross overstepping of it's Constitutional boundaries a "doper" makes it easier not to have to come up with an argument that makes sense on any rational level. Why do you think YOU call them "dopers"?
Yep, the feds will claim something like, "Since marijuana is illegal by federal law, and there is no exception granting the State the power to have such a ballot initiative, Czar Walters was simply stating that the State intitiative would not be recognized by the federal government and thus it wouldn't matter if it passed. He was not campaining against it, he was just stating that it wouldn't be legal".
I'm sure their line will be something like that.
They've already turned the commerce clause into a pretzel, I don't believe they'll have any trouble twisting this one into an equally unrecognizable form.
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.