MPP Declares War on Drug Czar's Illegal Campaigning

Marijuana Policy Project (press release) ^ | DECEMBER 2, 2002 | unknown

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list ping

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[proxy_user]

I would think you would have more of a 10th amendment case. What authority do federal officials have to spend federal money to influence state elections?

When Bush campaigns in support of Republican candidates, he always has the GOP pay for it.

Of course, if you don't spend any money, and merely express your (unfavorable) opinion, that probably protected by the 1st Amendment.

[MrLeRoy]

I would think you would have more of a 10th amendment case.

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.

[Kevin Curry]

"During the fall campaign, John Walters declared war on the law and war on the truth," Kampia said.

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.

[MrLeRoy]

"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."

But I guess a little thing like the law doesn't matter to Drug Warriors.

[MrLeRoy]

... after all, you're happy to piss on the Constitution.

[Kevin Curry]

Enforcing the Tenth Amendment would end the federal War On (Some) Drugs along with the rest of the federal Nanny State.

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"?

[irix]

Never get between a dog and his dish--or a doper and his bong.

Or a drug warrior and their aversion to truth.

[alpowolf]

I'm not surprised that you completely dodged the issue of the Constitution. Why won't you just go ahead and admit that it means nothing to you, and less than nothing if it gets in the way of the War on Drugs?

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.

[irix]

Dopers don't care. Why do you think they call them "dopers"?

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?

[jmc813]

Kevin, in your opinion, did Walters viol;ate the Hatch Act or not?

[FreeTally]

I have never heard of MPP, but I believe they have a clear cut case here. The issue of Walters effectively campaigning against State initiatives was discussed here before the elections.

[hove]

Liberals like Kevin Curry just want pot illegal because it insures perpetual government spending. They don't care about wasting tax payer's money. After all, that's where their paychecks come from. It's all about the money baby......it's all about the money.

[AUgrad]

I have never heard of MPP, but I believe they have a clear cut case here. The issue of Walters effectively campaigning against State initiatives was discussed here before the elections.

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.

[truenospinzone]

Dopers don't care. Why do you think they call them "dopers"?

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"?

[philman_36]

This should get interesting. As Walters noted, if the government has anything it has plenty of lawyers.

[FreeTally]

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.

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.

[AUgrad]

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.