The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is lobbying to oppose a Colorado ballot item that would legalize marijuana possession, the Rocky Mountain News reported Aug. 28.

DEA agent Michael Moore recently wrote to political activists seeking a campaign manager to oppose the ballot item, saying opponents to the measure have $10,000 in the bank and urging supporters to contact him at his DEA office. Moore sent out the appeal from his Justice Department e-mail account.

The DEA's point man in Denver, Jeff Sweetin, said that the agency has the right to inform voters about the downside of marijuana legalization. "My mantra has been, 'If Americans use the democratic process to make change, we're in favor of that,' " he said.  "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. They should benefit from this expertise."

The $10,000 raised by the anti-legalization committee in Colorado comes from private sources, including donations from DEA agents, Sweetin said.

Safer Colorado, the primary supporter of the ballot initiative, said the DEA should not be involved in political lobbying. "Taxpayer money should not be going toward the executive branch advocating one side or another," said executive director Steve Fox. "It's a wholly inappropriate use of taxpayer money ... 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."

Colorado state employees are barred by law from any political advocacy using government resources. But the federal Hatch Act, which governs politicking by U.S. government employees, is mostly concerned with partisan politics.

"I'm not sure that this doesn't slide through the cracks in the Hatch Act," said University of Colorado political-science professor Ken Bickers. "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."