FARK.com: (7488077) Federal government terminates quadriplegic's disability housing assistance because she uses medical marijuana for chronic pain

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Federal government terminates quadriplegic's disability housing assistance because she uses medical marijuana for chronic pain (boulderweekly.com)		148
		More: Asinine, Shelter allowance, Longmont, Housing Authority, Boulder County, chronic, marijuana, roll overs

• • •

5720 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2012 at 7:04 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7488077

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

148 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

cman		2012-12-15 06:13:55 PM

Change we can believe in

/kidding
//Well, kinda kidding

Weaver95		2012-12-15 06:20:05 PM

crush the weak, smash the sick down and make them pay for needing help! it's what Jesus would have wanted.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier		2012-12-15 06:25:07 PM

Tell her to use her non-existent arm functions to grab hold of her unnecessary bootstraps so she can pull herself up.

Saborlas		2012-12-15 06:43:50 PM

Something tells me that the word "chronic" was chosen for the irony.

Lsherm		2012-12-15 06:48:14 PM

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in response to medical marijuana laws passed in 15 states since 1996, did issue a memorandum in January 2011 saying that while it was still the federal policy not to permit the use of marijuana, medical or otherwise, whether local housing authorities decided to evict someone on the basis of marijuana use was at their discretion. Public housing authorities and owners of houses leased to housing voucher recipients, the memo says, "have the discretion to evict, or refrain from evicting, a current tenant who the PHA or owner determines is illegally using a controlled substance. ... Thus, while PHAs and owners may elect to terminate occupancy based on illegal drug use, they are not required to evict current tenants for such use."

Seems to me like that's a pass, except:

"Our rules don't require the housing authority to terminate assistance, but our rules do provide that the housing authority needs to have a policy that provides for what to do in those sorts of situations," Rodriquez says. Unfortunately for people like Weber, the Longmont Housing Authority settled on a zero-tolerance policy.

It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

calbert		2012-12-15 07:02:35 PM

they see her rolling, they hatin'

fusillade762		2012-12-15 07:03:15 PM

Wow, the "friend" she was riding with sounds like a piece of work. Hope he's currently getting a regular ass pounding in prison.

lenfromak		2012-12-15 07:06:51 PM

Evil. Pure evil.

loudboy		2012-12-15 07:07:29 PM

That's because it is illegal. Why the fuss?

redTiburon		2012-12-15 07:08:32 PM

Enjoy your pending Federal Obamacare, proles.

upndn		2012-12-15 07:08:36 PM

WTF is going on here. When did it become time to fark with all the helpless people.

TheJoe03		2012-12-15 07:09:19 PM

fark the Feds.

Tommy Moo		2012-12-15 07:10:24 PM

fusillade762: Wow, the "friend" she was riding with sounds like a piece of work. Hope he's currently getting a regular ass pounding in prison.

This. Why don't we talk more about this shiatdick.

vicioushobbit		2012-12-15 07:10:52 PM

fusillade762: Wow, the "friend" she was riding with sounds like a piece of work. Hope he's currently getting a regular ass pounding in prison.

I'm assuming not or they probably would have mentioned him being jailed.

Personally I hope he died of gangrene of the penis.

snocone		2012-12-15 07:11:27 PM

upndn: WTF is going on here. When did it become time to fark with all the helpless people.

Unlike politicians, they are always in season.

The Green Intern		2012-12-15 07:13:59 PM

It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

jaytkay		2012-12-15 07:14:07 PM

The job-creating private sector is striving to give this woman comfort and safety.

Jack-booted government bureaucrats are blindfolding her for the death-panel firing squad.

/ According to FOX

Lenny_da_Hog		2012-12-15 07:14:37 PM

lenfromak: Evil. Pure evil.

The writing is more horrible than the subject matter.

Crunch61		2012-12-15 07:15:54 PM

It's time to amend the Controlled Substances Act

Sgygus		2012-12-15 07:16:42 PM

That's because it is illegal. Why the fuss?

Fark accepts all, even bootlickers.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom		2012-12-15 07:17:30 PM

I thought Lord Black was going to legalize weed and provide healthcare for everyone. This is the opposite of that!

DubtodaIll		2012-12-15 07:17:36 PM

How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

Thank You Black Jesus!		2012-12-15 07:18:35 PM

Woohoo! Freedom!

ShannonKW		2012-12-15 07:18:38 PM

One fine day, hopefully in my lifetime, the great American ban on cannabis will be lifted. I wonder what the history book will say was the cause of it.

TheJoe03		2012-12-15 07:18:52 PM

DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

Wulfman		2012-12-15 07:19:17 PM

Where's the hero tag for somebody finally upholding the law, subby? Won't somebody think of the bureaucrats?

Buffalo77		2012-12-15 07:20:24 PM

where's the husband, did I miss that in the article. And the child support from husband.

danvon		2012-12-15 07:21:59 PM

redTiburon: Enjoy your pending Federal Obamacare, proles.

This had been a HUD regulation long, long before Obama. In fact, in 2002, the US Supreme Court held in HUD v. Rucker that any drug related activity by the tenant or their guest, whether the tenant knew or not their guest had drugs, is subject to an eviction under the HUD regulation. The court specifically said that there is no innocent tenant defense. HUD argued in favor of that strict interpretation and the court agreed. Unanimously. In 2002. HUD is a cabinet position under the executive branch.

Damn, who in the hell was president in 2002?

A Shambling Mound		2012-12-15 07:22:42 PM

Lsherm: "Our rules don't require the housing authority to terminate assistance, but our rules do provide that the housing authority needs to have a policy that provides for what to do in those sorts of situations," Rodriquez says. Unfortunately for people like Weber, the Longmont Housing Authority settled on a zero-tolerance policy.

It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

Zero tolerance policies are great when you don't trust anyone to apply reason or logic to a situation or in cases where you suspect they may not actually have those capacities in the first place. Unfortunately the one and only absolute guarantee zero tolerance policies provide is that they will eventually make you look like a total dickbag.

Other than allowing for the employment of dimwits and making yourself look bad, they aren't good for much else.

DubtodaIll		2012-12-15 07:24:16 PM

TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

I support the government enforcing laws as they are written therefore giving credence to those laws. If a law results in an unintended circumstance that corcumstance then provides force to rewrite or change that law. This is an unfortunate incident but as a practice I prefer laws to be executed equally to all citizens within jurisdiction of said law. It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.

kombat_unit		2012-12-15 07:24:28 PM

danvon		2012-12-15 07:25:16 PM

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority

Yes, that is true. However, HUD could very easily carve out an exception in their regulation that precludes eviction for tenants who have a valid medical marijuana prescription. For some reason, they don't.

Pray 4 Mojo		2012-12-15 07:25:21 PM

I'd empty her colostomy bag.

Bacontastesgood		2012-12-15 07:25:40 PM

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

Yeah, technically, but no. They made it clear their funding is HUD and they are superboned if HUD finds out they are assisting a known druggie. They are right to be worried and anal about this, they could lose funding for hundreds of people if they're found in violation.

The problem is not the locals following the rules, it is not even HUD, it is the leadership in the federal government, who knows that smoking a few joints is not that bad and yet refuses to stop the bullshiat.

the_chief		2012-12-15 07:25:48 PM

We'll have to reschedule.

BarkingUnicorn		2012-12-15 07:26:33 PM

It wouldn't surprise me to see private landlords forbid MJ use because it's against federal law.

No, it's not an ADA case; it's not about your disability, it's about the legality of your treatment choice. Asking a landlord to permit illegal activity is not a reasonable accommodation.

TheJoe03		2012-12-15 07:26:43 PM

DubtodaIll: TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

I support the government enforcing laws as they are written therefore giving credence to those laws. If a law results in an unintended circumstance that corcumstance then provides force to rewrite or change that law. This is an unfortunate incident but as a practice I prefer laws to be executed equally to all citizens within jurisdiction of said law. It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.

Oh, you're a lawyer! Good job being part of the problem dude.

IlGreven		2012-12-15 07:28:56 PM

A Shambling Mound		2012-12-15 07:29:06 PM

ShannonKW: One fine day, hopefully in my lifetime, the great American ban on cannabis will be lifted. I wonder what the history book will say was the cause of it.

Old white people and corporate interests.

But I repeat myself.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom		2012-12-15 07:29:18 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: I'd empty her colostomy bag.

I'd fill it...

danvon		2012-12-15 07:29:25 PM

Bacontastesgood: Yeah, technically, but no. They made it clear their funding is HUD and they are superboned if HUD finds out they are assisting a known druggie. They are right to be worried and anal about this, they could lose funding for hundreds of people if they're found in violation.

On top of that, they have reason to be concerned about subjecting their agency to a civil rights suit if they forgo evictions on some and not others. The minute you start treating some people differently, someone is going to say it is for illegal reasons--whether or not the claim has merit. The regulation really needs to be overhauled.

david_gaithersburg		2012-12-15 07:29:50 PM

UsikFark		2012-12-15 07:30:05 PM

the_chief: We'll have to reschedule.

Then all the lives lost in the drug war would be in vain!

DubtodaIll		2012-12-15 07:30:22 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus		2012-12-15 07:30:47 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Pray 4 Mojo: I'd empty her colostomy bag.

I'd fill it...

Just don't go CBTM.

david_gaithersburg		2012-12-15 07:31:04 PM

kim jong-un		2012-12-15 07:32:18 PM

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

Let me tell you how this works.

If you ignore it, or even try to regulate it on a local level, the Federal government can charge YOU, the local government official under the drug laws because you are engaging in an enterprise 'handling' drugs.

So of course, it is the local jurisdiction doing this, because if they didn't, well it would be a real shame if anything happened to your funding.

A Shambling Mound		2012-12-15 07:32:45 PM

TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

I support the government enforcing laws as they are written therefore giving credence to those laws. If a law results in an unintended circumstance that corcumstance then provides force to rewrite or change that law. This is an unfortunate incident but as a practice I prefer laws to be executed equally to all citizens within jurisdiction of said law. It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.

Oh, you're a lawyer! Good job being part of the problem dude.

So you're seriously suggesting that laws should only apply to some of the people, some of the time and only in certain situations? How does that make any sense at all to you?

Not that this line of discussion makes any sense at all in the context of this article, but hey, whatever. I like tangents.