Let Colorado Decide

DEA SHOULD BUTT OUT OF STATE BALLOT DEBATE

Given how badly the so-called war on drugs is going in this country
and abroad, one would think that the frontline soldiers in that effort
at the Drug Enforcement Agency would have better things to do with
their time, manpower and money than to try to sabotage a
marijuana-legalization measure on Colorado's ballot this fall. But
hey, maybe it's the lack of progress on other fronts in the drug war -
in Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, for instance - that has the drug
warriors looking for easier victories closer to home.

According to a story broken by the Boulder Daily Camera, a
Denver-based DEA agent named Michael Moore recently sent out an e-mail
to campaign operatives across the country, offering $10,000 to the
consultant that could help defeat the marijuana measure on November's
ballot. We haven't taken a position on the initiative. But we do have
strong feelings about a federal agency using taxpayers' money to
meddle in the internal affairs of the states, and in trying to sway
voters in this way. It's outrageous, plain and simple.

If the DEA wants to make itself look hard-headed, hardhearted and
ridiculous prosecuting medical marijuana users, that's one thing. But
when it begins meddling in the political process, to influence a
policy decision that only Colorado voters can and should make, that's
another.

Whether or not this violates the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal
employees from using their positions to influence partisan outcomes or
lobby on issues in which they have an interest - DEA officials say it
doesn't - it's clearly inappropriate, in our view, and a troubling
development. We've never before heard of a federal agency hiring
campaign consultants to influence the outcome of state elections - but
it's something Congress should investigate. It wouldn't be out of
character for the Bush administration, after all, which has pushed the
outside of the envelope in attempts to spin the issues its way,
including, most notoriously, paying commentators and journalists to
promote certain initiatives.

"Taxpayer money should not be going toward the executive branch
advocating one side or another," Steve Fox, one backer of the ballot
measure, told the Camera. But Jeff Sweetin, special agent in charge of
DEA's Denver office, argues that the agency has an obligation to
provide Coloradans with the "facts" about marijuana, so we can make an
informed decision. Who better to do this, Sweetin says, than the
"experts" at DEA.

We question the DEA's credibility as an honest broker of information,
however, given the agency's record of selectively presenting the facts
in a way that bolster its opposition to drug legalization and medical
marijuana use, and given the overzealous way the DEA has gone after
doctors and patients that do believe in marijuana's medical benefits,
even in states that have approved such uses. It's also impossible to
see the DEA as a disinterested party in the debate, given that the
agency depends for its existence on the government's prohibition
against certain drugs.

It's one thing for agency brass to provide their expert views on such
subjects, when asked by the media or the public to do so. It's quite
another thing, in our view, to hire political consultants to impact
the outcome of an election. If agency insiders don't recognize such
distinctions, perhaps members of Congress can help them do so. The DEA
should immediately put a stop to such activities and butt-out of
Colorado's business. If it can't find better uses for the taxpayers'
money, Congress should slash its budget accordingly.

If the agency wants to divert resources from criminal investigations
and narcotics interdictions in order to delve more deeply into policy
debates, in Colorado and elsewhere, it should change its name to the
DIA - The Drug Indoctrination Agency.