DRUG ELECTION AGENCY

Feds Shouldn't Use Offices to Keep U.S. Off the Grass

It's no great shock that agents in the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration oppose the Colorado initiative that would legalize the
possession of small quantities of marijuana. But it is surprising
that the DEA feels duly entitled to wade into a state political debate.

Amendment 44 on the statewide ballot would legalize the possession of
up to one ounce of marijuana by adults over 21. At present,
possessing this amount of marijuana is a Class 2 petty offense in
Colorado, punishable by a fine of up to $100. About 3,700 people were
convicted of this offense last year.

It would still be illegal to grow the stuff, to sell it, to possess
more than one ounce and to smoke it in public. And it would still be
a crime to drive under the influence. Further, the drug would
continue to be illegal under federal law.

Amendment 44 is a matter of statewide concern, but one in which the
feds surely have an interest.

As the Camera reported last month, DEA agent Michael Moore has sent
an e-mail soliciting help in finding a campaign manager to help
defeat Amendment 44. Moore notes that the group has raised $10,000 to
fight the initiative, and he asks those interested in helping to call
him at his DEA office.

The e-mail, which was sent from a private account, lists his work
phone number and government e-mail address.

Under Colorado law, state workers may not campaign for or against any
ballot issue or candidate on the job, and they may not use public
resources such as government phone lines and e-mail accounts for
political advocacy.

But federal law gives greater leeway for federal employees. The Hatch
Act of 1939 bars employees from campaigning in partisan politics, but
allows them to campaign for or against non-partisan ballot issues. It
also prohibits federal employees from using "his or her official
authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or
affecting the result of an election."

A federal agent who uses the imprimatur of his office -- and his
government phone number and e-mail address -- to solicit help in
defeating a state ballot issue would be apparently violating the rule
against using "official authority" to affect an election. But there
are exceptions to the rule, and the DEA appears to be exploiting one.

Jeff Sweetin, the special agent in charge of the DEA's Denver office,
told the Camera that voters are entitled to change drug laws. At the
same time, he argued, the DEA is entitled to inform people that
marijuana should remain an illegal drug.

"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. ...

"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 would be more compelling if it were more germane. No
one argues that Agent Moore, Special Agent Sweetin should not express
their expert opinions on Amendment 44. That is their right under
federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

The question is whether it is proper for a federal worker to invoke
his employer's name and use a government phone line and e-mail
account to try to defeat a citizen initiative. And the answer is "no."