Confirmed!
To the editor,
Kudos to the Aurora Daily Sun & Sentinel for rightly criticizing the US
Drug
Enforcement Administration¹s decision to use taxpayers¹ funds and paid
staff
time to campaign against Amendment 44, The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization
Initiative. (³Tax dollars used for ill-conceived DEA push,² August 29,
2006)
Regardless of whether one favors or disapproves of Amendment 44, Colorado
voters deserve the opportunity to decide this issue free from undue,
federally sponsored interference.
Of course, it¹s not surprising that the DEA would oppose any potential
liberalization to the current blanket prohibition of cannabis a policy
that results in the arrest of some 750,000 Americans on marijuana charges
every year and costs taxpayers between $10 and $12 billion annually.
Nevertheless, despite this costly criminal crackdown, the US National
Institute on Drug Abuse reports that 94 million Americans -- that¹s 40
percent of the US population age 12 or older -- have used cannabis during
their lives.
It makes no sense to continue to treat nearly half of all Americans as
criminals for their use of a substance that poses no greater -- and
arguably
far fewer -- health risks than alcohol. The law should reflect this
reality,
not deny it.
Sincerely,
Paul Armentano
Senior Policy Analyst
NORML | NORML Foundation
Washington, DC
Source: Aurora Sentinel (CO)
Published: August 29, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Aurora Sentinel
Contact:
[email protected]
Website: http://www.aurorasentinel.com/
Colorado -- It's hardly news that Drug Enforcement Agency officials are
opposed to a Colorado ballot initiative seeking to make it legal for adults
to possess small amounts of marijuana.
It certainly is news, however, when DEA agents admit to spending staff time,
paid for by taxpayer dollars, fighting that ballot measure or any other. The
Daily Camera reported Aug. 27 that DEA agent Michael Moore sent out e-mails
to political consultants looking for someone to advise the federal agency
how to set up a campaign against the amendment.
The issue comes before voters in November and seeks to allow state residents
over 21 to keep up to 1 ounce of marijuana.
The wisdom of such a change in drug laws is certainly debatable. American
learned hard lessons during Prohibition, mostly that it neither kept people
from drinking nor persuade Americans to shun alcohol.
Clearly, for all the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on fighting the
so-called War on Drugs, illegal drug use seems as dangerous and pervasive as
ever.
It's unclear whether decriminalization of drugs such as marijuana would have
any effect on American drug use or drug sales, but it's hard to argue that
there's much of a black market for alcohol these days.
There are many unanswered questions from this proposal that the media and
voters will certainly look to the DEA to for answers. Rest assured anything
the DEA says about the issue will be big news, freely disseminated as their
side of the story. But any opinions from the DEA are just that.
It's a given that drug-agency officials will be releasing only information
that supports their position that legalizing even small amounts of marijuana
would be bad for Coloradans. It could be that there would be a need for
fewer DEA agents. That means current DEA would be spending time on the job
paid for by taxpayers to lobby voters to keep them employed. That's wrong.
Certainly DEA agents, like all Americans, enjoy the right of free speech.
But here in Colorado, we've wisely limited how the government can use tax
dollars to promote that free speech.
Congress would do well to amend the age-old Hatch Act, which limits federal
employee involvement in partisan political races, to include limits on all
political questions.
And DEA agents would do well to back off their ill-conceived plan against
this state ballot issue so that any Hatch Act amendments are precautionary
rather than justifiably punitive.