DENVER DEA REP: DON'T LEGALIZE IT

Agent Seeks Support to Fight Proposed Legislation

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.