Let’s be clear: this entails taxpayer money being used to tell those exact same taxpayers how they should vote on a particular issue. It involves the federal government trying to interfere directly in the democratic processes of state politics.
I’m not sure if this is illegal, but doesn’t it pretty clearly undermine the whole spirit of the democratic process? To have ones own government telling you what the government should be doing?
It’s just one more example of ‘the way things are going in this country.’ Love it or leave it.
I’ve got my eye on a nice piece of land in Canada, myself. q;}
Government agencies lobby Congress all the time about matters affecting their budget, authority, scope, and charge. How is this different than the EPA lobbying to designate a rural area as a protected resource over the objections of the residents?
Should the Defense Department be able to run pro-war ads on TV?
I agree with the OP. This is undemocratic.
Actually, Apos, I’m not sure that you quoted the most damning sentence out of the article. As far as John Walters is concerned, well, I suppose that part of his job is to oppose drug legalization. By analogy, we might say that part of Colin Powell’s job was to rally support for the war in Iraq. But this sentence was way over the line:
Wonderful. Maybe next they’ll gin up some ads telling me how I should vote the next time my park district floats a bond issue. What would I do without the federal government to hold my hand?
"Government agencies lobby Congress all the time about matters affecting their budget, authority, scope, and charge. How is this different than the EPA lobbying to designate a rural area as a protected "
Oh it happens all the time? Carry on then.
As an Ontario resident I can tell you I’m pretty damn unimpressed with the ad blitz that accompanies almost every gov’t plan (just got my “education reform update” or WhateverTF they call it. I don’t like my tax dollars being converted to garbage and mass mailed to me.
Special Interest Group lobbying (at least that which happens to align with my world view) has a begrudged about of my approval, only because it is one of the few methods actually able to capture the elusive attention of Washington regarding issues like gay rights, environmental impact, etc. However, I do not think the ends justify the means. It is a broken and corrupt system.
I’m always one for a fair fight. if the Drug Czar gets to lobby and advertise against the legalization of marijuana based on the fears of a bunch of folks who have never used it, who’s experience with it have been bad, who’s experience with the people who use it have been bad…I propose some "grass"roots lobbying of a different sort. Let’s roll up a few million joints and round up a few million stoners and unleash them on the pot-fearing masses. If you’re not comfortable smoking the joint, then you get to spend the day with the stoner, so it can be known that they are not all that scary.
That’s one battle with ignorance that I’d like to see…
Yes, not all those who use marijuana would qualify as “stoners”…
Uh… because it’s not spending money telling the residents who to vote for and how to vote?
There’s a huge difference from a buerracracy lobbying internally, and the government spending taxpayer money to tell taxpayers what to think.
The fact that they are actually doing this leads me to believe they have a real fear that some states might actually legalize pot. Then the rest of the nation will look at those ads and discover gaspthat civilization did not collapse because of pot legalization. Then the rest of the nation might follow suit.
Can’t let that happen!
Exactly. Why is the DEA so terrified of the democratic process that they feel compelled to thwart it with taxpayer funding? This really, really bothers me.
I dont’ think what the Drug Czar is doing is undemocratic. He’s using taxpayer money to argue against a semi-popular campaign to legalize a substance which many feel is quite dangerous. For all the pro-legalization arguing we hear, how many states have actually voted in favor of it? It is seen by the government as a public health issue and they spend on the campaign against it with the same semi-righteous tone they do with smoking and unprotected sex. Not only that, but its’ a federal crime to posses marijauna (at least, I’m pretty sure it is—Harrison Tax Act and all), so what Walters is doing is campaigning against the growing acceptance of breaking a particular law.
I think the best way to legalize pot in the United States it to have American pot smokers move to Canada. Think about it: pot, good beer, AND socialized medicine.
there’s massive internal vested interests in keeping marijuana illegal. the DEA are the most obvious example but consider the whole prision industry as well, I recall hearing that half of all offenders in US prision (which is the highest population in the world in terms of the population as a whole) are there for drug offences and of those 50% 90% are in for dope. prision is big money as we all know. furthermore there are many political reasons for marijuana to be demonised so badly, keeping the left wing down is one I feel as pot is generally a “liberal pinko hippy” type thing isnt it?
what bugs me is living in the UK where we are, step by painful step, forcing the powers that be to adopt a more sensible approach to dope, having Asa Hutchinson come over and mouth off about the lambeth experiment. He complained that he met kids who thought cannabis was, shock horror legal and that this dangerous experiment was madness which should be stopped. We are a sovereign nation, how dare he try and impose his ignorance, and it is ignorance, who here would argue in favour of keeping cannabis illegal, on us?
dont forget the struggle
dont forget the streets
Could you please explain how ‘prisons are big money’?
That seems counter to the fact that they absorb resources without producing anything, or in the forced-labor states produce very little.
I dont mean they make an especially large amount of money, merely that for those involved in the industry there is massive scope for gouging more and more money out of the taxpayer for bigger and better prisons. Hence lobbying takes place on government to be tougher on crime which necessitates building more prisons, pork barrell politics and so forth.
I think the Drug Czar’s purpose should be to enforce the laws – not to be an advocate on either side. And yes, I think it is very undemocratic.
I am surprised that tobacco companies haven’t lobbied to get marijuana legalized. It would certainly perk up their falling sales.
You may have a point. I didn’t read the OP carefully enough, and thought the drug czar was lobbying Congress
I agree that running a campaign directed at voters is inappropriate.
Like any other business, they get money for what they do, and can make more by minimizing costs or using prisoners for labor where possible. Prision construction is a great contract to get as well.
Let’s say that there’s a candidate that supports lower taxes. The government in power decides that it wants more tax revenue, so the IRS spends taxpayer money on advertisements telling voters that lowering taxes is irresponsible, foolish, and that people who are for it are just out to stiff the country.
Doesn’t that sort of thing weird you out just a little?
I agree that this is undemocratic.
I was opposed to it when agencies were using taxpayer money to promote pro-choice agendas, and I am opposed to it in this case. The government should not assume the role of an advocate in situations like these.
Not really because smoking marijuana is a crime; many feel that it’s the governments job to prevent law-breaking from becoming popular (or, in the case of pot, more popular than it already is). Comparing the situation in the OP to taxes is a bit of a stretch; raising and lower taxes doesn’t break the law. Compare what Walters is doing instead to the government criticizing a popular campaign to kill all Muslims in this country out of fear or the legalization of DDT or something like that.
How many people would say that it’s wrong for the government to criticize those drives using taxpayer money?
The fact is that marijuana is illegal; legalization drives (which would make pot legal on a local or state level) promote people to break federal law.
I think, however, that using any federal money to criticize anything having to do with marijuana is stupid. It’s POT! Just pot! You smoke pot, you eat a twinkie, you watch TV; you don’t hit kids on bikes or get raped or anything stupid like that. A government study (initiated by former drug czar Barry McCafferty) has even discounted the gateway drug theory.
And when I smoked pot (back in my high school days), I only bought authentic, good ol’ American ditch weed. Wouldn’t that help the economy now: buying American?
–greenphan