RTFA: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/200…

A proposal to decriminalize the possession of marijuana has the support of about half of Massachusetts voters as the election nears, according to a new poll.

Fifty-one percent of registered voters supported Question 2 on the ballot, while 32 percent opposed it, and 16 percent were undecided, in a Suffolk University/WHDH-TV (Channel 7) News poll taken earlier this week.

The poll also found strong opposition to Question 1, a proposal to repeal the state income tax, and a nearly equal split among voters on Question 3, a proposal to ban dog racing in the state.

Law enforcement officials have mobilized to oppose the marijuana decriminalization proposal, making significant progress in swaying people to their side, said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University.

In an August poll, 72 percent of those surveyed had supported decriminalization.

“The ‘no’ side has gained momentum over the past two months,” said Paleologos. “The issue is whether the brass and blue will be able to move enough additional voters to their side in 12 days.”

Election season is heating up!

…but this article raises an interesting question: why should law enforcement oppose 3/4 of the popular will on a certain issue, and attempt to influence an election to maintain the criminality of that issue? Does this make sense to anyone? I’ll grant that police officers are citizens, and are therefore entitled to their vote. However, it seems like the police should want to create a law-abiding society, and should not oppose a movement that would make it easier to achieve this end. If that strong of a majority don’t think something should be a crime, then maybe it just shouldn’t be a crime!

Of course, this issue cannot simply come down to a moral question of whether or not it should be legal. Other factors are likely to include funding for certain programs, rates of incarceration, and other entrenched interests.

The bottom line is: bring this issue out of the dark! Decriminalization will prevent money from funding violent crime. Bring this financing into the light, choke out the illegal dealing, and reduce crime in this country!

RTFA: http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=134

After the raid, and after the story had been published by the LAT, Abdollah was contacted by Sarah Pullen, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles office of the DEA. Pullen requested that the face of the agent wearing the Blackwater t-shirt be blurred because he was an undercover agent and the photo might jeopardize his apparent anonymity. At the same time, Pullen assured Abdollah that the “undercover” agent was in fact an employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration and has never been an employee of Blackwater. Pullen also felt it necessary to explain to Abdollah that the request to blur the agent’s face and the fact that he was wearing a Blackwater t-shirt was completely coincidental. In a subsequent conversation with the DEA, Abdollah was told that the agent was not undercover for the raid, but does routinely engage in undercover operations.

Rebecca writes in with a pointer to Kris Hermes’ follow-through on the DEA/Blackwater connection. Thanks for fact-checking!

So, it seems the DEA story is:
1. he wasn’t undercover, but he wasn’t wearing a DEA uniform either (i.e. not “over-cover”)
2. he’s sometimes undercover, so his face needs to be blurred from the public
3. He isn’t connected to Blackwater, but he’s wearing their shirt
4. It’s illegal by Federal law to have marijuana, but no arrests were made

I have to admit: I don’t work for Google, but I wear a Google shirt once a month. Why? I got it from a job fair, since I’m in the industry. Early on, speculation at BoingBoing was going down this path, and it is definitely plausible. I detect striking parallels between the DEA and Blackwater-Iraq, so I could imagine this fellow getting recruited by Blackwater (and by the DEA).

I do have a suggestion for the DEA: next time you want to keep your agents undercover, don’t dress them up in a private merc shirt, don’t give them a conspicuous gun, and don’t drop them off at a raid to perform custodial work. That way, you won’t have to force the LA Times to disappear the evidence in a shady and suspicious sequence of events. …and you won’t have to explain that he’s only undercover some of the time, but not this one time that he got caught on camera.

Here’s another suggestion: only engage in actions that are legal, only tell the truth, and if the law REALLY has your back, then accomplish this agenda as if you were legitimate (i.e. drop the terrorist tactics). I call bullshit on Pullen’s story. Four contradictions don’t make a right.

RTFA: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana1…

Federal agents raided a Culver City medical marijuana dispensary where they spent more than four hours this afternoon, serving a search warrant that resulted in no arrests but left the shop in disarray.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents arrived about noon at Organica Collective in the 13400 block of Washington Boulevard, said Sarah Pullen, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles office of the agency.

“Marijuana remains a controlled substance, and it is illegal under federal law to possess, dispense or cultivate marijuana in any form,” Pullen said of the purpose of the raid.

The federal operation came on the same day an appellate court in San Diego ruled that federal law does not preempt the state’s law allowing the use of medical marijuana — a ruling touted by supporters of California’s medical marijuana law as a significant win.

WHOAH - SLOW DOWN. There are two major problems with this event.

Problem the first: whereas the state-level debate over California’s authority to regulate marijuana takes place in a courtroom, the federal-level response takes the form of militaristic thuggery. I would argue that the proper response to a ruling by this particular appellate court is to challenge the ruling in a higher court.

Problem the second: THE “AGENT” IN THE ABOVE PHOTO ISN’T DEA - HE IS WEARING A BLACKWATER SHIRT!

Get that? He’s a hired mercenary. He’s not even a federal officer. So the courts arrive at a decision, and the feds hire armed mercenaries to “overturn” the ruling? Did you read the part about there being no arrests? According to Pullen’s quote (above), she claims that marijuana is illegal… which is obviously at odds with the ruling of the California courts. They just stole things, and broke everything else.

Wow… Just wow…

EDIT: picture via boingboing

RTFA: http://okfuture.net/2007/10/31/schwarzenegger-says…

The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, recently told an interviewer for the British edition of GQ that marijuana is “not a drug”. When pressed by the interviewer on his well documented use of marijuana in the film documentary Pumping Iron, he said ” That is not a drug. It’s a leaf”. So, you bench press several hundred pounds, squat nearly half a ton, you get tired and you want to unwind . . . the obvious non-drug of choice is marijuana! Alas, when the PR implications of this statement became obvious, we got this from his press secretary:
“The governor was doing an interview with the host of ‘America’s Got Talent,’ the newest version of the gong show,” McLear said. “I think it’s important to keep that quote in the context of the environment where it was said.”

Good fellow, that Arnold is.