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.

(Boulder Weekly)   Federal government terminates quadriplegic's disability housing assistance because she uses medical marijuana for chronic pain   (boulderweekly.com) divider line 55
    More: Asinine, Shelter allowance, Longmont, Housing Authority, Boulder County, chronic, marijuana, roll overs  
•       •       •

5749 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2012 at 7:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-15 06:20:05 PM
8 votes:
crush the weak, smash the sick down and make them pay for needing help! it's what Jesus would have wanted.
2012-12-15 07:13:59 PM
6 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 06:48:14 PM
6 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 08:44:08 PM
5 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:59:03 PM
5 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 07:21:59 PM
5 votes:

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?
2012-12-15 07:25:40 PM
4 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 08:10:09 PM
3 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:56:51 PM
3 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:22:42 PM
3 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:03:15 PM
3 votes:
Wow, the "friend" she was riding with sounds like a piece of work. Hope he's currently getting a regular ass pounding in prison.
2012-12-16 12:34:31 AM
2 votes:

kroonermanblack: I have a question I've never thought to ask before: I've never done weed (long story, etc.), but I've never heard users rant about how it 'dulls pain'. Lots of lovely descriptions of the things it does, but dulled pain isn't ever on that list.

Until someone has 'chronic' pain.

Does it actually do shiat to pain, chronic or otherwise? Because you never see a pot head stab himself in the nads and go 'sweet dude'.


Oh gods yes, it dulls pain. It dulls it in a way that the opioids never manage. You aren't nauseous and taking more drugs to counter the side effects of it. In fact, hello appetite. I would kill (ok not literally) for oil production of it here so I could get a measured amount without smoking - cooking is too variable, and I don't want to be out of my gourd. It's an amazing drug but I can't use much as I need to work and, despite its legality here (on the spot fine for possession of reasonable amount for home use), getting caught would potentially ruin the one job I have found that accepts a very disabled woman in chronic pain. And is a joy to work in. I have to smoke it, and I have asthma, so that causes issues. But, oh, on bad times at home, what a relief to feel almost normal again...
2012-12-16 12:16:56 AM
2 votes:
I pray that there is at least one attorney in her area that will do some pro bono work for her.


Medical marijuana helped to reduce this woman's Oxycontin usage. That is amazing! Oxycontin is a very serious and very dangerous drug. I used to take this medication, in high doses, for Cluster headaches, Migraines and Trigeminal Neuralgia. The medication turned me into a human paperweight. My husband went out of his mind trying to deal with me drugged up all the time. But it was the only way to keep me from killing myself from the pain. Eventually, I found doctors who had alternatives to Oxycontin. The alternatives worked and I got to be a human being instead of a human paperweight. The alternatives included a treatment that totally eliminated my need for Oxycontin as well.
2012-12-15 09:33:11 PM
2 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: 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.


Well... That... That will do it. Yes, thank you.
2012-12-15 08:05:23 PM
2 votes:
2012-12-15 07:29:06 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:18:38 PM
2 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 07:15:54 PM
2 votes:
It's time to amend the Controlled Substances Act
2012-12-15 07:14:37 PM
2 votes:

lenfromak: Evil. Pure evil.


The writing is more horrible than the subject matter.
2012-12-15 07:10:24 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:08:36 PM
2 votes:
WTF is going on here. When did it become time to fark with all the helpless people.
2012-12-15 07:06:51 PM
2 votes:
Evil. Pure evil.
2012-12-15 11:05:20 PM
1 votes:

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

FTFY



Just recognize it for the unconstitutional piece of shiat that it is, and be done with it.

And while you're at it, you can toss out 99% of other federal government acts and agencies that are equally unconstitutional.

If you find some that are worth saving, PROPERLY amend the farking constitution and legalize them. 

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

Right?
2012-12-15 10:34:18 PM
1 votes:
I have a question I've never thought to ask before: I've never done weed (long story, etc.), but I've never heard users rant about how it 'dulls pain'. Lots of lovely descriptions of the things it does, but dulled pain isn't ever on that list.

Until someone has 'chronic' pain.

Does it actually do shiat to pain, chronic or otherwise? Because you never see a pot head stab himself in the nads and go 'sweet dude'.
2012-12-15 10:28:22 PM
1 votes:
It all starts at the top.

Obama could end all of this with a stroke of a pen, by simply directing the DEA to de-classify marijuana.

Boom. Everyone's troubles are gone.

It's so simple, yet he won't do it. I can only gather that he's just not brave enough.
2012-12-15 10:02:21 PM
1 votes:
The first decree is to legalize marijuana.
The tyranny and the bullshiat's gone on too long.
You old farkin' shrivs who blocked it's legalization,
you're banished from the land!
2012-12-15 09:40:12 PM
1 votes:

DubtodaIll: It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.


It would be so inefficient and unjust for this housing complex to not throw a nearly-completely-paralyzed woman and her three-year-old son out of their home.
2012-12-15 09:16:10 PM
1 votes:

Dauvan: 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.


I think they meant Supplemental Security Income or Medicaid. Since she didn't have a lengthy work history, she could have gotten SSI, which is normally reserved for physically or mentally disabled people from birth, like the blind or extremely retarded. SSI will usually come with provisions for Medicaid. But she worked long enough to make her require SSD. She qualified for SSD, but to qualify for Medicaid you have to meet a poverty requirement. Her SSD payments are probably preventing her from getting Medicaid.
2012-12-15 08:59:08 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 08:53:57 PM
1 votes:

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


It's not the federal government. It's the local housing authority. Which has the option to overlook federal laws at its discretion, and chose not to because they are dicks.
2012-12-15 08:48:34 PM
1 votes:

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.


Alignment: Lawful Evil
2012-12-15 08:42:15 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 08:33:35 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 08:29:32 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 08:07:04 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 08:07:04 PM
1 votes:

mrlewish: 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)


You see, she was rushing when she filled out her forms, and declared pot as a medical expense when calculating her income. She was rushing, even though the rest of her life was completely planned and organized. That's how. She was was in a hurry that day. If you'd take the time to run a coffee filter through this sensationalist word soup, you'd have known that.
2012-12-15 08:05:48 PM
1 votes:

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...
2012-12-15 08:00:42 PM
1 votes:
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)
2012-12-15 08:00:01 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:45:43 PM
1 votes:

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


In today's lesson we learn the difference between "legal" and "just", with a side trip into "moral".

Although I imagine the lesson is already lost on you.
2012-12-15 07:41:07 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:40:22 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-15 07:35:09 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:34:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:32:59 PM
1 votes:
And then we wonder why we have people shooting up places...
2012-12-15 07:32:18 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:28:56 PM
1 votes:

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.


Why let facts get in the way of bashing Obamacare and marijuana laws?
2012-12-15 07:25:48 PM
1 votes:
We'll have to reschedule.
2012-12-15 07:25:16 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-15 07:17:36 PM
1 votes:
How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!
2012-12-15 07:08:32 PM
1 votes:
Enjoy your pending Federal Obamacare, proles.
2012-12-15 07:07:29 PM
1 votes:
That's because it is illegal.  Why the fuss?
2012-12-15 07:02:35 PM
1 votes:
they see her rolling, they hatin'
2012-12-15 06:25:07 PM
1 votes:
Tell her to use her non-existent arm functions to grab hold of her unnecessary bootstraps so she can pull herself up.
2012-12-15 06:13:55 PM
1 votes:
Change we can believe in

/kidding 
//Well, kinda kidding
 
Displayed 55 of 55 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report