A Shambling Mound: So you're seriously suggesting that laws should only apply to some of the people, some of the time and only in certain situations?

Judges make that determination all the time, zero tolerance is always asinine.

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

So is money laundering especially when it involves drug cartels.

HSBC got a profit from that.

So is defending bad laws in the first place just because "it's the law!".

david_gaithersburg: Just what the fark do you think her local housing authority is

A local housing authority is not the federal government. In most states it is a political subdivision created under that state's laws. They receive funding from HUD under an Annual Contributions Contract and they have to follow HUD regulations in running their program. However, they have a great deal of latitude in their rules and are permitted to create most of their own policies. They are not an arm of the federal government.

TheJoe03: A Shambling Mound: So you're seriously suggesting that laws should only apply to some of the people, some of the time and only in certain situations?

Judges make that determination all the time, zero tolerance is always asinine.

If a judge makes a ruling outside of the letter of the law that case is then possibly subject to appeal. I would wage this woman could attempt to appeal this ruling in hopes of a sympathetic judge.

DubtodaIll: I would wage this woman could attempt to appeal this ruling in hopes of a sympathetic judge.

Yeah.

Let's see.... this woman is....

[✔]photogenic
[✔]white
[ ]rich

Nope, she didn't get all three marks. Her story will not matter one whit when it comes to decriminalizing or even rescheduling marijuana.

On the plus side, she got more than zero checkmarks, which means there's slightly [just "slightly," mind you] less chance that she spends the rest of her life in federal prison and her son gets moved between foster homes from now until his 18th birthday, at which point he'll be dumped in the street to fend for himself and be completely ineligible for any sort of federal financial assistance because he once lived under the same roof as someone who dared to inhale even the slightest amount of The Devil's Weed.

DubtodaIll: If a judge makes a ruling outside of the letter of the law that case is then possibly subject to appeal. I would wage this woman could attempt to appeal this ruling in hopes of a sympathetic judge.

Unlikely as the law, as stated in HUD v. Rucker, is that any drug related activity is grounds for eviction. In actuality, a judge overturning a housing authority's decision to terminate tenancy/voucher would be making a ruling outside the law. There are several cases in many states where a sympathetic trial court judge was overturned on appeal for not following the mandate set forth by HUD and the US Supreme Court.

danvon: 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.

While the Rucker decision did allow "one strike and you are out" evictions and terminations of vouchers, shortly after the decision the HUD secretary issued a circular suggesting that local agencies do not have to terminate assistance, and should use compassion on a case by case basis. Unfortunately draconian measures, as in this case, are allowed.

While I have a lot of experience arguing Rucker related cases, it is not in Colorado. Do any farkers know what state rights she might have. If medical marihuana were legal where I practice I would love to argue this case.

A Shambling Mound: 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?

Laws ALREADY only apply to some of the people, some of the time and only in certain situations.

It's why Mitt Romney can have a $100 million IRA despite that kind of account having a $6000 annual deposit limit, but you'd get arrested, jailed and have all assets seized for trying to game the system so that you can deposit $6,001 in one year into an IRA; why nobody at Customs batted an eyelid when Rush Limbaugh was caught with a bunch of Viagra on his way to a country rife with sex tourism, but you'd get locked up for trying to get a 3.1 ounce bottle of tap water past the metal detector; why cops can perform summary executions with impunity, but if you accidentally strike and kill a drunken jaywalker while committing any sort of moving violation and that drunken jaywalker was a cop, you can face the death penalty, even if the dead cop was entirely at fault for the traffic accident and you did everything in your power to avoid the accident; and why HSBC didn't even get a slap on the wrist of laundering drug money for terrorists, while you'd go to prison for even wondering out loud how you could go about engaging in questionable international financial transactions.

Some people are more equal than others.

It is a bizarre policy the government has. In my second job I am a part time caregiver. (Yea- as much as a troll here, I am not a totally bad person... I do have a good side.) So some of my DPs have used medical marijuana for the control of pain and symptoms. It is common for them to significantly cut the amount of pharmaceutical drugs they take and face less side effects. I see it over and over.

One of my DPs went from 20 to 8 medications, and doesn't have to take powerful pain prescriptions that makes her like a zombie. But no - the government would rather pay $2,000 a month more out of their already tight Medicaid budget... and accept more frequent emergency room visits due to problems caused by those medications - and take someone who is progressing in therapy and trying to become productive again - returning them to back less than useless blob that sleeps 18 hours a day and can't move. Some of the medications are just to stop the side effects of other medications, which on their own have side effects. Yes, medical marijuana is far from perfect and has side effects too; it is more effective than a many "legal" drugs with less harm.

What's the choice next? - put the DP in a nursing home with round the clock care (very expensive), or allow her to be somewhat independent in her own apartment with just a small number of a few-hours-per-day cargivers? With the reduction in medications and pain pills through the use of medical marijuana products - there is a path to self-sufficiency and possibly to become productive again in some way.

Locally under state law, the state department of health and welfare understands this, despite the pressure from the federal government. The state is taking a more pragmatic approach to what is in the best interest of the disabled person. Ya, in theory as a "mandatory reporter" I could be on the hook federally for allowing a patent to take certain healthcare decisions in to her own hand - I also have to take point of view of what is moral and right in this case. There is a difference between what is "Lawful" and what is "Legal." What the fed is doing may be "legal" but it is "not lawful."

/off soap box now.

FreeLawyer: While the Rucker decision did allow "one strike and you are out" evictions and terminations of vouchers, shortly after the decision the HUD secretary issued a circular suggesting that local agencies do not have to terminate assistance, and should use compassion on a case by case basis. Unfortunately draconian measures, as in this case, are allowed.

It did. However, as you well know, that is merely a suggestion and not precedent. The state where I live doesn't give the HUD letters any consideration.

My legal question is how did the federal government learn that she was taking medical marijuana? I mean since the relationship between an doctor and a patient is sacrosanct they should have no knowledge of her medical treatment and even if they came across that information somehow they have to treat is as if they never saw it. see Roe v. Wade (not about abortion but about doctor patient confidentiality)

Did someone say marijuana?



NSFW (18+)
NSFW (18+)
NSFW (18+)
NSFW (18+)
NSFW (18+)

mrlewish: My legal question is how did the federal government learn that she was taking medical marijuana?

She likely openly disclosed it on a form or something. It is not uncommon for DPs to not understand that if they give full disclosure, they are more likely to hurt themselves than if they don't list out everything...

danvon: FreeLawyer: While the Rucker decision did allow "one strike and you are out" evictions and terminations of vouchers, shortly after the decision the HUD secretary issued a circular suggesting that local agencies do not have to terminate assistance, and should use compassion on a case by case basis. Unfortunately draconian measures, as in this case, are allowed.

It did. However, as you well know, that is merely a suggestion and not precedent. The state where I live doesn't give the HUD letters any consideration.

Agreed. I was just point out that the policy can be set at the local level for those of us that are, fortunately, unfamiliar with HUD regulations.

There are a few legal theories where I am that might work if medical were legal. A lot would depend on the wording the housing authority used in their termination notice.

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

Approximately 75,000 years ago. The only difference now is, we have a communications network so good we hear about it. Even when it's just a young woman in Colorado who made a truly stupid error while filling out federal forms.

I feel for her. Mostly because she clearly recognizes this current problem was entirely her fault. No, one does not mention medical marijuana on federal paperwork. Maybe soon, but not this year.

If some of you good folks can stop SCREAMING AT OBAMA TO BAN GUNS for a moment, it might not be a bad idea to tell him, politely, to call off the farking DOGS when in comes to MMJ.

Mmmmkay?

Thanks

Tommy Moo: 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.

Goddammit, now I have to rtfa.

Crunch61: It's time to amend repeal the Controlled Substances Act

FTFY

She is partaking in a prescribed medication that is legal in that state. Start with the lawsuits and don't stop. She is pretty and this is well publicized; this will get her some help.
Subsidized housing always has the lowest of scrunge people tht are f*cked up on pain meds, generic smokes and a variety of ther sh*t. Her situation is unique. I may kick her a few bucks.

AbbeySomeone: She is partaking in a prescribed medication that is legal in that state. Start with the lawsuits and don't stop. She is pretty and this is well publicized; this will get her some help.
Subsidized housing always has the lowest of scrunge people tht are f*cked up on pain meds, generic smokes and a variety of ther sh*t. Her situation is unique. I may kick her a few bucks.

We settled this in 1865. Federal law always trumps state law. Petitioning the Fed. government for an exclusion will go over better than any number of lawsuits.

Weaver95: crush the weak, smash the sick down and make them pay for needing help! it's what Jesus would have wanted.

Ummmm.... it's a Democrat administration..... (Thanks, Obama. This is almost as good as your not demanding Congress extend Federal UI extensions. 45,000,000 out of work people thank you.)

She should have put her fate in the hands of God rather than sin with marijuana.

I want to know where the hell the guy is who knocked up a chick in a wheelchair.....and then left her with $70 child support payments.

That's the lowest possible shoplifting of pussy I've ever seen.

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

Apparently it's after the election. Obama doesn't have to pretend to give a shiat anymore. And there's not a farking thing you can do about it, suckers. (And I include myself as one of the suckers.)

Tommy Moo: 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.

/Don't worry, i got this....ahem...

You Sir, are a farking piece of shiat. Not only did you drive drunk, and roll the vehicle over with a passenger inside, you farking MOVED her when she told you her neck was broken, and begged you to leave her alone and call an ambulance, who have the proper equipment to immobilize her neck, possibly saving her ability to walk, and use her arms. But no, despite her pleas, you throw her over your shoulder like a sack of potatoes, severing her spinal cord, and quadding her. Then she begged you to take her to the hospital, and still you refuse in your drunken desire to save yourself from arrest, and call her mom. She was going to be a doctor, and a valuable asset to any community she chose to serve, and you have ruined her life, and her chances at helping others. You did this out of a desire to save your own ass from prison for driving drunk. You deprived her not only of a normal and productive life, but have risked all the lives she could have potentially saved by becoming a practicing physician. Whereas you, Sir, are a worthless piece of offal, a maggot, a stain upon the fabric of life, with no intrinsic value to polite society at all. You are, rather, a detriment. I hope you get ass raped in prison with a iron cot leg every night...so hard and so deep your lower intestine pops out of your mouth, and dangles to your belly button like a gruesome party favor. Die...do it now.

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

Well, they don't enforce it as regards to zillions of Mexicans streaming across the border. So why the Zero Tolerance on pot use?

/Pot never stole anyone's job by working under the table for less than minimum wage.
//Pot never drove drunk with no license, no insurance, and a La Raza attitude.
///Pot never refused to learn English.

danvon: 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?

SO WHY HASN'T OBAMA FIXED IT? Hope and change, remember?

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.

So you agree that the federal government should be rigorously guarding our borders to prevent illegal immigration? (No waffling weasle-words now.)

kombat_unit: 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.

And I'm hearing Jebus has a hand in this too.

You're sounding like a broken record. Please get a new meme to mindlessly babble.

Bacontastesgood: 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.

Hope and change? Whar? Whar?

Welcome to Obamacare Death Panels

There are other drugs to take care of pain.

King Something: A Shambling Mound: 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?

Laws ALREADY only apply to some of the people, some of the time and only in certain situations.

It's why Mitt Romney can have a $100 million IRA despite that kind of account having a $6000 annual deposit limit, but you'd get arrested, jailed and have all assets seized for trying to game the system so that you can deposit $6,001 in one year into an IRA; why nobody at Customs batted an eyelid when Rush Limbaugh was caught with a bunch of Viagra on his way to a country rife with sex tourism, but you'd get locked up for trying to get a 3.1 ounce bottle of tap water past the metal detector; why cops can perform summary executions with impunity, but if you accidentally strike and kill a drunken jaywalker while committing any sort of moving violation and that drunken jaywalker was a cop, you can face the death penalty, even if the dead cop was entirely at fault for the traffic accident and you did everything in your power to avoid the accident; and why HSBC didn't even get a slap on the wrist of laundering drug money for terrorists, while you'd go to prison for even wondering out loud how you could go about engaging in questionable international financial transactions.

Some people are more equal than others.

So much this.

That whole article is hosed, the worst part is "if she maded $.25 less on her SS payments she could get SS insurance" So for what accounts to less than 7dollars a year she is denied SS insurance. She needs a waiver.