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.

(Kansas City)   We're not saying potheads are bad at running a business, but Colorado's first recreational marijuana club officially closed a day after it officially opened   (kansascity.com) divider line 122
    More: Sad, Colorado, marijuana, Del Norte  
•       •       •

19532 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2013 at 10:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-01 05:02:35 PM
The first rule of Recreational Marijuana Club is...
 
2013-01-01 05:22:48 PM
"Wow man have you seen the keys anywhere?" "No man I think Squeeky must have'em." "Dude I guess we're closed, what a bumper."
 
2013-01-01 05:55:19 PM
As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-01 05:59:08 PM
They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.
 
2013-01-01 06:22:16 PM

ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.


Only I read yesterday that the club was legal because they weren't selling weed or food or drink on the premises. But whatever. They'll open again somewhere else.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-01 06:41:42 PM

According to the Denver Post article

Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.
Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.
 
2013-01-01 06:50:00 PM

ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.



Oh, this IS sweet.

From you link:

QUOTE

The DEA set the U.S. attorney into motion. It has a special agent here in Boston who seeks out targets for forfeiture.

Civil Forfeiture

"As he describes his job, he looks through the newspapers and looks at the Internet, looking for news stories of properties that might be forfeitable and brings them to the attention of the U.S. attorney," Caswell's attorney, Larry Salzman, said.

According to the agent's sworn testimony, he then goes to the Registry of Deeds to determine the value of the targeted property. The DEA rejects anything with less than $50,000 equity.

In the case of the Caswell, the agent saw its worth close to $1.5 million with no mortgage. That made it a fat target for the U.S. attorney, says another of Caswell's lawyers, Scott Bullock.


END QUOTE

They're looking for any excuse to seize property under the guise of the Drug War, and they don't give a shiat whether the property owners are guilty or not. They just want to steal property (but only if it's valuable enough to make it worth their trouble).

If anyone EVER wondered whether the War On Drugs, the DEA (and the farking Federal Government in general) have the "best interests" of the People of the US at heart, read that farking article.


/Ready to give up your guns, yet?
//Land of the Free
///Pukes
 
2013-01-01 06:55:43 PM

ZAZ: According to the Denver Post article
Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.


Wow you wouldn't have the address there or anything, I mean like I'm not going there I just want to know how to avoid the place or maybe just a phone number cause like really I'm trying to AVOID the place. Man what a bumper they stopped making twinkies I'm so bumped up. Is Star Trek on tonight? Oh yea I got some petetions for the November 2012 elections to turn in, later dud
 
2013-01-01 07:00:22 PM

ZAZ: According to the Denver Post article
Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.



Legalities aside, the landlord had EVERY reason to fear that he'd lose his property - not because HE committed any crime, but because the Feds have become a muscle racket.

The War On Drugs is about money and POWER, and the Feds aren't going to let this shiat stand.

/Prad 2 b 'Mericun
 
2013-01-01 07:07:45 PM

Amos Quito: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.


Oh, this IS sweet.

From you link:

QUOTE

The DEA set the U.S. attorney into motion. It has a special agent here in Boston who seeks out targets for forfeiture.

Civil Forfeiture

"As he describes his job, he looks through the newspapers and looks at the Internet, looking for news stories of properties that might be forfeitable and brings them to the attention of the U.S. attorney," Caswell's attorney, Larry Salzman, said.

According to the agent's sworn testimony, he then goes to the Registry of Deeds to determine the value of the targeted property. The DEA rejects anything with less than $50,000 equity.

In the case of the Caswell, the agent saw its worth close to $1.5 million with no mortgage. That made it a fat target for the U.S. attorney, says another of Caswell's lawyers, Scott Bullock.

END QUOTE

They're looking for any excuse to seize property under the guise of the Drug War, and they don't give a shiat whether the property owners are guilty or not. They just want to steal property (but only if it's valuable enough to make it worth their trouble).

If anyone EVER wondered whether the War On Drugs, the DEA (and the farking Federal Government in general) have the "best interests" of the People of the US at heart, read that farking article.


/Ready to give up your guns, yet?
//Land of the Free
///Pukes


Finally a breath of fresh air. Money equals power and ALL the government wants is more power. Thanks for the info.
 
2013-01-01 07:11:31 PM

HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.


They opened their business before the lease took effect.  That's not legal.
 
2013-01-01 07:34:57 PM
Is Dave there?
 
2013-01-01 07:35:04 PM
Subby, it seems that this situation has nothing to do with a pot head being a bad business person as much as it has to do with the landlord being, most likely, a right wing cocksucker.
 
2013-01-01 07:45:38 PM

JerkyMeat: Subby, it seems that this situation has nothing to do with a pot head being a bad business person as much as it has to do with the landlord being, most likely, a right wing cocksucker.



More likely he was (rightfully) scared shiatless that US Marshalls dressed in SWAT gear would bust down the doors, seize the property and sell it off for profit.
 
2013-01-01 07:48:05 PM
reading, how does it work?
 
2013-01-01 07:54:00 PM
There's still Club 64.
 
2013-01-01 08:25:41 PM

Amos Quito: According to the agent's sworn testimony, he then goes to the Registry of Deeds to determine the value of the targeted property. The DEA rejects anything with less than $50,000 equity.


And after that they have the nerve to say:

U.S. Attorney Ortiz said through a spokeswoman last week that the government wanted to send a message by going after the motel.

If you were just trying to "send a message" why the $50K limit?
 
2013-01-01 08:26:02 PM

LordOfThePings: Is Dave there?


No.
 
2013-01-01 08:26:16 PM

JerkyMeat: Subby, it seems that this situation has nothing to do with a pot head being a bad business person as much as it has to do with the landlord being, most likely, a right wing cocksucker.


Or someone who voted for Obama twice.
 
2013-01-01 08:44:35 PM

ZAZ: See also RAVE act.


The RAVE act?

Thanks. Wow.

Check out the language this Federal Law.

Excerpt:

"
SEC. 3. OFFENSES.(a) IN GENERAL- Section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking 'open or maintain any place' and inserting 'open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily,'; and (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: '(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.'. (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The heading to section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856) is amended to read as follows: 'SEC. 416. MAINTAINING DRUG-INVOLVED PREMISES.'. (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents to title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970 is amended by striking the item relating to section 416 and inserting the following: 'Sec. 416. Maintaining drug-involved premises.'.

END QUOTE

Weed is still a "controlled substance" at the Federal level, and they could easily (and quite profitably) make the lives of private citizens very miserable as these states struggle to come to grips with the logistics of their insurrection. All they have to do is start seizing property from anyone who is in any way involved in the distribution OR use.

From above: "unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.  Under this language, if the landlord knew that such activity might take place and leased the property, HE would be found in violation of the RAVE act, and would be subject to any and all punishments and/or forfeitures spelled out by the law.

CO and WA just "legalized" the ganja, but can they prevent the Feds from enforcing Federal law?

Could the Feds actually do this? Do they have the money and the resources?

Well, given the amount of valuable real estate and property that would be confiscated and sold under the law, they could hire thousands of additional personnel and still turn a tidy profit.

Looks like the Feds have a rabbit or two in their hats, should they decide to stomp out this "legalized weed" nonsense and put those uppity States and their insolent People back in their place.

But would the current administration actually ENFORCE such draconian measures to stomp out this disrespectful insurrection?

Would they actually DO such things?

upload.wikimedia.org
The "RAVE Act". Meet its babydaddy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_Americans%27_Vulnerability_to_ Ec stasy_Act
 
2013-01-01 10:23:03 PM

maxalt: ZAZ: According to the Denver Post article
Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.

Wow you wouldn't have the address there or anything, I mean like I'm not going there I just want to know how to avoid the place or maybe just a phone number cause like really I'm trying to AVOID the place. Man what a bumper they stopped making twinkies I'm so bumped up. Is Star Trek on tonight? Oh yea I got some petetions for the November 2012 elections to turn in, later dud


Why do you keep saying "bumper"? Don't you mean "bummer?"
 
2013-01-01 10:32:18 PM

ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.


That's how they're shutting down the dispensaries in California.  Threatening to confiscate an entire complex under drug forfeiture laws, if a single unit is rented out to a dispensary.
 
2013-01-01 10:47:49 PM

ShawnDoc: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

That's how they're shutting down the dispensaries in California.  Threatening to confiscate an entire complex under drug forfeiture laws, if a single unit is rented out to a dispensary.



Aye.

And if you're renting an apartment, and your landlord smells the "craziness", what is (s)he to do?

Risk losing the property to "forfeiture"?
 
2013-01-01 11:02:17 PM
The club will be fine. The location of the club will change. The pay to play charges will still most likely continue to be $29.99, bring your own. Pioneering in the legalized pot biz; Not a bad way to try to earn a legal buck.
 
2013-01-01 11:02:48 PM

GAT_00: HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

They opened their business before the lease took effect.  That's not legal.


Someone isn't in real estate, I assume? Thanks for the hurr durr.
 
2013-01-01 11:03:03 PM
www1.cuny.edu
DUDE!
 
2013-01-01 11:08:25 PM
i291.photobucket.com

OPEN THE F'n GATE!!

/watch out for the semi-conscious Gloria
 
2013-01-01 11:08:48 PM

Coco LaFemme: maxalt: ZAZ: According to the Denver Post article
Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.

Wow you wouldn't have the address there or anything, I mean like I'm not going there I just want to know how to avoid the place or maybe just a phone number cause like really I'm trying to AVOID the place. Man what a bumper they stopped making twinkies I'm so bumped up. Is Star Trek on tonight? Oh yea I got some petetions for the November 2012 elections to turn in, later dud

Why do you keep saying "bumper"? Don't you mean "bummer?"


I'm not saying potheads are bad at spelling, but...
 
2013-01-01 11:09:13 PM
For all anyone knows the landlord might have language written in the lease regarding drugs, or at least what actions can cancel a lease. But it didn't help the renter's cause that he opened the place before the lease took effect.
 
2013-01-01 11:12:19 PM
There was a story on one of the Denver local news shows about this place opening during its 10pm broadcast. One of the people they interviewed was Rob Correy, one of the more prolific activist ganja lawers here in town. I think he has been working alot on CA as well for what its worth. Anyways, during the interview he was speaking about the 'club' and it sounded like he had a vested intererest in it. Sounded like maybe he was an investor, or maybe just part of the 'team' as a big lawyer with a hefty retainer.

Looking at it now, he wins either way. They let the place roll on and he wins. They shut the place down and he wins. Check-mate.
 
2013-01-01 11:13:16 PM

skinink: For all anyone knows the landlord might have language written in the lease regarding drugs, or at least what actions can cancel a lease. But it didn't help the renter's cause that he opened the place before the lease took effect.


You can have early occupancy and be up and running immediately. Lease commencement doesn't have anything to do with this.
 
2013-01-01 11:15:13 PM
Dogbert could help them.

dilbert.com
 
2013-01-01 11:16:28 PM
They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"
 
2013-01-01 11:17:27 PM

Gyrfalcon: Coco LaFemme: maxalt: ZAZ: According to the Denver Post article
Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.

Wow you wouldn't have the address there or anything, I mean like I'm not going there I just want to know how to avoid the place or maybe just a phone number cause like really I'm trying to AVOID the place. Man what a bumper they stopped making twinkies I'm so bumped up. Is Star Trek on tonight? Oh yea I got some petetions for the November 2012 elections to turn in, later dud

Why do you keep saying "bumper"? Don't you mean "bummer?"

I'm not saying potheads are bad at spelling, but...



Those are not misspellings.

They're Herbonics.
 
2013-01-01 11:17:57 PM
DAMN YOU, LANDLORDS!!! i56.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-01 11:18:51 PM
Lovato said that when his landlord saw the publicity about the club, he canceled the lease before it took effect.

I applaud the author's use of the one 'l' "canceled". People who use the two 'l' "cancelled" are getting far to prevalent and we simply don't have the funds in this economy to stamp them out for good.

Also, Breakfast at Tiffany's starring Mary Tyler Moore in 1966 closed after only 4 previews and never even made it to opening night.
 
2013-01-01 11:21:16 PM
I just watched another story about this. I spelled Rob Corry incorectly, and he is the "general council" for the club.

I'm high. Sue me.
 
2013-01-01 11:21:43 PM
But I'm sure gun regulations will be very reasonable, right gun grabbers? Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't even care, it's more "neener neener neener you can't have guns anymore" than anything else; you're after political points, not safety
 
2013-01-01 11:22:52 PM
Stoners - is there anything they CAN do?
 
2013-01-01 11:26:05 PM

Hector Remarkable: Breakfast at Tiffany's starring Mary Tyler Moore in 1966 closed after only 4 previews and never even made it to opening night.


Wut?

Gdalescrboz:
But I'm sure gun regulations will be very reasonable, right gun grabbers? Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't even care, it's more "neener neener neener you can't have guns anymore" than anything else; you're after political points, not safety

Wut?
 
2013-01-01 11:28:49 PM

jaytkay: Hector Remarkable: Breakfast at Tiffany's starring Mary Tyler Moore in 1966 closed after only 4 previews and never even made it to opening night.

Wut?

Gdalescrboz: But I'm sure gun regulations will be very reasonable, right gun grabbers? Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't even care, it's more "neener neener neener you can't have guns anymore" than anything else; you're after political points, not safety

Wut?


I'm not saying potheads can't keep their minds on one topic for very long but the Steelers aren't going to the Superbowl this year.
 
2013-01-01 11:29:37 PM

boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"


The lessons there are to use a library, pay phone, and a bus.
 
2013-01-01 11:29:42 PM

HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.


Why do you dislike potheads? Not saying I like them, but would rather meet a pothead on the road, then a drunk...

Came here to say sounds like they might have legal recourse. See that you covered it.
 
2013-01-01 11:33:13 PM

Gdalescrboz: But I'm sure gun regulations will be very reasonable, right gun grabbers? Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't even care, it's more "neener neener neener you can't have guns anymore" than anything else; you're after political points, not safety


You just went full retard. Not tropic thunder full retard, but SkinnyHead during election season retard. That takes skill, man.
 
2013-01-01 11:33:45 PM
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with pot, is a good guy with pot.
 
2013-01-01 11:34:36 PM

Amos Quito: /Ready to give up your guns, yet?
//Land of the Free
///Pukes


If there was a revolution it should've started a solid 12 years ago when SCOTUS elected the President or a few years later when that same guy decided to kill a half million people for no reason.

Going after pot landlords is chump change.
 
2013-01-01 11:34:53 PM

JerkyMeat: Subby, it seems that this situation has nothing to do with a pot head being a bad business person as much as it has to do with the landlord being, most likely, a right wing cocksucker.


Or it could be the fact that the feds could seize his land for running a drug operation off it with his full knowledge and permission, and that despite state legality, the feds still consider pot the Debil Weed that causes murder, mayhem, and teen pregnancy.
 
2013-01-01 11:35:11 PM

boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"


well that really changed the tone and tempo of the thread...
who pays 100 for a bj?
like... dinner at a decent place would be 45-65.
hell, you can pull one for a movie at 24 bucks, maybe ten more for snacks.
kids these days.
 
2013-01-01 11:36:50 PM

Gdalescrboz: But I'm sure gun regulations will be very reasonable, right gun grabbers? Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't even care, it's more "neener neener neener you can't have guns anymore" than anything else; you're after political points, not safety


I really don't. You didn't care about the steady escalation of every airline passenger from innocent citizen to suspected criminal, why should I give a fark about something I never wanted?
 
2013-01-01 11:36:59 PM

BummerDuck: HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Why do you dislike potheads? Not saying I like them, but would rather meet a pothead on the road, then a drunk...

Came here to say sounds like they might have legal recourse. See that you covered it.


the worst i did driving stoned was... obey all the laws, if not 2 under the speedo.
drunk?
well... lets just say im lucky to be alive.
 
2013-01-01 11:37:02 PM
Why have a "club" in the first place? If its legal to grow six plants, go an hang at your buddies house or your house etc...
seems like the landlord issue would always be there as long as the feds continue thier "war on drugs". SWIM has run under the radar for this long, why not stick with it? My particular state will never legalize overall or for medical.. everybody just needs to chill out, and proceed as before. Trusting govt. Is not the way to go. If you live in co. Or wash. Great, but just keep it low key.
 
2013-01-01 11:37:28 PM

boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"


i229.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-01 11:38:05 PM
well if the landlord had it in the lease that he could do it nothing can be done. Still seems like a rotten deal , and i have to wonder if he knew what the business was going into the space he rented out.
 
2013-01-01 11:38:56 PM

Markoff_Cheney: boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"

well that really changed the tone and tempo of the thread...
who pays 100 for a bj?
like... dinner at a decent place would be 45-65.
hell, you can pull one for a movie at 24 bucks, maybe ten more for snacks.
kids these days.


I call b/s. There's no forfeiture laws that cover a simple prostitution arrest. Either the payment was in blow or the set up was with the FBI agent who made the bust.
 
2013-01-01 11:39:13 PM

Gyrfalcon: jaytkay: Hector Remarkable: Breakfast at Tiffany's starring Mary Tyler Moore in 1966 closed after only 4 previews and never even made it to opening night.

Wut?

Gdalescrboz: But I'm sure gun regulations will be very reasonable, right gun grabbers? Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't even care, it's more "neener neener neener you can't have guns anymore" than anything else; you're after political points, not safety

Wut?

I'm not saying potheads can't keep their minds on one topic for very long but the Steelers aren't going to the Superbowl this year.


But enough about marsupials. Lincoln was fantastic. Daniel Day-Lewis really stole the show as the butcher.
 
2013-01-01 11:40:15 PM

boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"


Either move to Nevada, Istanbul or Amsterdam or lobby the government to change the law.
 
2013-01-01 11:41:14 PM

Gyrfalcon: Markoff_Cheney: boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"

well that really changed the tone and tempo of the thread...
who pays 100 for a bj?
like... dinner at a decent place would be 45-65.
hell, you can pull one for a movie at 24 bucks, maybe ten more for snacks.
kids these days.

I call b/s. There's no forfeiture laws that cover a simple prostitution arrest. Either the payment was in blow or the set up was with the FBI agent who made the bust.


nope, i just paid for dinner, went back to my place and got a beej.
i pulled anal off a fancier dinner. no feds.
 
2013-01-01 11:42:31 PM

thorthor: Why have a "club" in the first place? If its legal to grow six plants, go an hang at your buddies house or your house etc...
seems like the landlord issue would always be there as long as the feds continue thier "war on drugs". SWIM has run under the radar for this long, why not stick with it? My particular state will never legalize overall or for medical.. everybody just needs to chill out, and proceed as before. Trusting govt. Is not the way to go. If you live in co. Or wash. Great, but just keep it low key.


The war on drugs isn't even relevant in this case. Landlords have the right to prohibit smoking cigarettes on their premises, why should pot be any different?
 
2013-01-01 11:44:21 PM

jaytkay: Hector Remarkable: Breakfast at Tiffany's starring Mary Tyler Moore in 1966 closed after only 4 previews and never even made it to opening night.

Wut?


I meant that they shouldn't be discouraged from this one failure. Mary Tyler Moore went on to have a very successful career. Not that she has any particular connection to pot, I was just saying, you know, Chico, don't be discouraged, using some sort of non sequiturical Broadway comparison - don't ask me why - and I apologize deeply for it.
 
2013-01-01 11:44:42 PM

boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"


I bet that left a bad taste in your mouth.
 
2013-01-01 11:45:17 PM

skinink: For all anyone knows the landlord might have language written in the lease regarding drugs, or at least what actions can cancel a lease. But it didn't help the renter's cause that he opened the place before the lease took effect.


Every lease I've ever signed had a provision forbidding any illegal activities, and pot is still illegal under federal law.
 
2013-01-01 11:48:29 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"

I bet that left a bad taste in your mouth.


Nothing a few beers won't take care of.
 
2013-01-01 11:50:50 PM

boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"


Here's an idiot that doesn't know how to use OkCupid or Plenty of Fish for his beejay trolling needs. biatches give it up freely on those sites.

/favorited as idiot that pays for blow jobs, not dinner.
 
2013-01-01 11:51:09 PM
Pheelix:The war on drugs isn't even relevant in this case. Landlords have the right to prohibit smoking cigarettes on their premises, why should pot be any different.

My point exactly, why involve a landlord,club or any other establishment. Smoke in your own property (as long as you own it, and you arent charging admission) they cant do shiat.
 
2013-01-01 11:51:09 PM

thorthor: Why have a "club" in the first place?


Well, making money is the club owner's reason.

Members might join a club because they have reasons not to smoke at home, i. e., kids, SO who won't have it, uptight landlord or neighbors, etc.  And they just may want to socialize like members of any other club do.
 
2013-01-01 11:54:30 PM
They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"

(nelsonlaughing.jpeg)
 
2013-01-01 11:55:30 PM

BarkingUnicorn: thorthor: Why have a "club" in the first place?

Well, making money is the club owner's reason.

Members might join a club because they have reasons not to smoke at home, i. e., kids, SO who won't have it, uptight landlord or neighbors, etc.  And they just may want to socialize like members of any other club do.


Ok I buy that. I guess individual situations are different in each case. Once you leave your club look out for the DUI.
 
2013-01-01 11:57:20 PM

ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.


10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.
 
2013-01-01 11:58:28 PM

thorthor: Pheelix:The war on drugs isn't even relevant in this case. Landlords have the right to prohibit smoking cigarettes on their premises, why should pot be any different.

My point exactly, why involve a landlord,club or any other establishment. Smoke in your own property (as long as you own it, and you arent charging admission) they cant do shiat.


That's certainly the prudent thing to do at this point.  But someone always has to jump the gun and try to be first through a perceived loophole in the law.  Colorado's amendment says you can't smoke "openly and publicly," so that leaves your home and whatever some idiot like this tries to make "non-public."

If you want a club, buy your own building.  Then the feds will take your property instead of your landlord's.
 
2013-01-02 12:00:34 AM

thorthor: Why have a "club" in the first place? If its legal to grow six plants, go an hang at your buddies house or your house etc..


Why are there bars when I can drink at the house?
 
2013-01-02 12:01:36 AM

Baloo Uriza: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.


Colorado might do that if Colorado ran pot clubs.  But Colorado has no obligation to defend its citizens against federal law.
 
2013-01-02 12:01:59 AM
Well yeah, it sucks, but it's all baby steps towards more complete legalization. It will get there eventually. I think.
 
2013-01-02 12:02:12 AM
If you want a club, buy your own building. Then the feds will take your property instead of your landlord's.

Yeah, you are correct. Long way to go on this issue before its all worked out. I heard that certain States didn't remove prohibition till the 60s. And hell there are still dry counties everywhere.
 
2013-01-02 12:04:58 AM
Owner Paul Lovato tells the newspaper that he wanted to be first in the nation to open a marijuana club. He beat a marijuana club in Denver by a few hours.   Lovato says his lease on the building didn't start until Tuesday. Lovato said that when his landlord saw the publicity about the club, he canceled the lease before it took effect.

So, it's true that marijuana use makes you stupid?
 
2013-01-02 12:05:21 AM
Wow, that was a disingenuous headline, subby.

Nothing in TFA about potheads going "oh wow, I'm too high to count money," it was a very likely non-stoned landlord being a total asshole about it.
 
2013-01-02 12:06:21 AM

BummerDuck: HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Why do you dislike potheads? Not saying I like them, but would rather meet a pothead on the road, then a drunk...

Came here to say sounds like they might have legal recourse. See that you covered it.


I just find them annoying.  The ones I have known use it as a social crutch, much like alcoholics do... except there is no socially acceptable way to point out that someone relies to heavily on weed to function.  And, thanks to the prohibition on their drug of choice, a lot of potheads have a serious hate-on for anyone who doesn't despise law enforcement like they do.
 
2013-01-02 12:06:22 AM
That $30 a month model in one of the states seems doomed. It needs to be a commodity that can be purchased freely like booze or tobacco. Lets quit the taboo bullshiat and members only garbage. There's no need to start charging exorbitant fees for an already-overpriced species of flower. And imagine trying to go to different spots for variety? Do you have to pay $30/month there to?

My local shop has 175 varieties of different pot for you to walk in and smell, from $5 a gram decent to $15 amazing stuff. You pay $35 a year for a doctors visitation, so the state of CA knows you still have a need cannabis. If I had to pay that every month for every shop I went to, Id go back to buying pot from the streets.

/Ounce of good is cheaper on the streets than most shops anyway
 
2013-01-02 12:08:42 AM

Amos Quito: ZAZ: See also RAVE act.

The RAVE act?

Thanks. Wow.

Check out the language this Federal Law.

Excerpt:

"
SEC. 3. OFFENSES.(a) IN GENERAL- Section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking 'open or maintain any place' and inserting 'open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily,'; and (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: '(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.'. (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The heading to section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856) is amended to read as follows: 'SEC. 416. MAINTAINING DRUG-INVOLVED PREMISES.'. (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents to title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970 is amended by striking the item relating to section 416 and inserting the following: 'Sec. 416. Maintaining drug-involved premises.'.

END QUOTE

Weed is still a "controlled substance" at the Federal level, and they could easily (and quite profitably) make the lives of private citizens very miserable as these states struggle to come to grips with the logistics of their insurrection. All they have to do is start seizing property from anyone who is in any way involved in the distribution OR use.

From above: "unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.  Under this language, if the landlord knew that such activity might take place and leased the property, HE would be found in violation of the RAVE act, and would be subject to any and all punishments and/or forfeitures spelled out by the law.

CO and WA just "legalized" the ganja, but can t ...


alcohol is technically a controlled substance
 
2013-01-02 12:10:05 AM

HotWingAgenda: BummerDuck: HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Why do you dislike potheads? Not saying I like them, but would rather meet a pothead on the road, then a drunk...

Came here to say sounds like they might have legal recourse. See that you covered it.

I just find them annoying.  The ones I have known use it as a social crutch, much like alcoholics do... except there is no socially acceptable way to point out that someone relies to heavily on weed to function.  And, thanks to the prohibition on their drug of choice, a lot of potheads have a serious hate-on for anyone who doesn't despise law enforcement like they do.


There are stoners I like and stoners I find irritating. Ditto for drinkers... hell, ditto for health nuts. The only group I universally loathe? People that paint with broad strokes.
 
2013-01-02 12:11:28 AM

tukatz: Owner Paul Lovato tells the newspaper that he wanted to be first in the nation to open a marijuana club. He beat a marijuana club in Denver by a few hours.   Lovato says his lease on the building didn't start until Tuesday. Lovato said that when his landlord saw the publicity about the club, he canceled the lease before it took effect.

So, it's true that marijuana use makes you stupid?


Or stupidity makes you use marijuana.  Chicken/egg thing.
 
2013-01-02 12:11:49 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Baloo Uriza: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.

Colorado might do that if Colorado ran pot clubs.  But Colorado has no obligation to defend its citizens against federal law.


It doesn't matter who runs the pot club. Murder is still illegal under federal law but Oregon and Washington have successfully defended death with dignity on 10th Amendment grounds.
 
2013-01-02 12:12:01 AM
Excuse me people, but I live in the very town where this happened. I had to google white horse inn to find the place after I saw the story on the news,. I still can't figure out where the building is located. I still don't understand how this guy thinks he can earn anything, most of the smokers here grow their own and smoke whenever they want. My hubs calls it "living the Del Norte Dream".  Most of the property owners are very conservative and I understand their not wanting the publicity of the place.
 
2013-01-02 12:17:17 AM

HotWingAgenda: BummerDuck: HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Why do you dislike potheads? Not saying I like them, but would rather meet a pothead on the road, then a drunk...

Came here to say sounds like they might have legal recourse. See that you covered it.

I just find them annoying.  The ones I have known use it as a social crutch, much like alcoholics do... except there is no socially acceptable way to point out that someone relies to heavily on weed to function.  And, thanks to the prohibition on their drug of choice, a lot of potheads have a serious hate-on for anyone who doesn't despise law enforcement like they do.


Yeah, I used to like women, gays, illegal immigrants, and fat people until they became irreproachable and started hating on anyone who questioned their causes.

And no, Lovato has no legal recourse.
 
2013-01-02 12:19:41 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"

I bet that left a bad taste in your mouth.


Bacon sausage?
 
2013-01-02 12:22:30 AM

Baloo Uriza: BarkingUnicorn: Baloo Uriza: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.

Colorado might do that if Colorado ran pot clubs.  But Colorado has no obligation to defend its citizens against federal law.

It doesn't matter who runs the pot club. Murder is still illegal under federal law but Oregon and Washington have successfully defended death with dignity on 10th Amendment grounds.


I'm not arguing who would win.  I'm saying that Colorado has no obligation to fight.
 
2013-01-02 12:22:54 AM
So do any of the anti-smoking (tobacco) laws come into play with any of this?
 
2013-01-02 12:31:16 AM

BarkingUnicorn: The first rule of Recreational Marijuana Club is...


"Dude, I don't remember either. Here, try this."
 
2013-01-02 12:35:02 AM

mjbok: So do any of the anti-smoking (tobacco) laws come into play with any of this?


Good question.  Colorado's Clean Indoor Air Act deals only with tobacco.
 
2013-01-02 12:37:33 AM
the guy jumped the gun 'cause he wanted to be first. probably could've gotten away with it if he didn't explicitly advertise the place as a pot club.
 
2013-01-02 12:56:09 AM

lantawa: The club will be fine. The location of the club will change. The pay to play charges will still most likely continue to be $29.99, bring your own. Pioneering in the legalized pot biz; Not a bad way to try to earn a legal buck.


Is your TF ultrafark address working?  Mine is not but I have some questions about your biz.
 
2013-01-02 01:21:35 AM

HotWingAgenda: BummerDuck: HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Why do you dislike potheads? Not saying I like them, but would rather meet a pothead on the road, then a drunk...

Came here to say sounds like they might have legal recourse. See that you covered it.

I just find them annoying.  The ones I have known use it as a social crutch, much like alcoholics do... except there is no socially acceptable way to point out that someone relies to heavily on weed to function.  And, thanks to the prohibition on their drug of choice, a lot of potheads have a serious hate-on for anyone who doesn't despise law enforcement like they do.


So what you hate is idiots and addicts. People who use marijuana occasionally are no different from anyone else.
 
2013-01-02 01:31:11 AM

Amos Quito: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

They're looking for any excuse to seize property under the guise of the Drug War, and they don't give a shiat whether the property owners are guilty or not. They just want to steal property (but only if it's valuable enough to make it worth their trouble).

If anyone EVER wondered whether the War On Drugs, the DEA (and the farking Federal Government in general) have the "best interests" of the People of the US at heart, read that farking article.


And I'd wager that once they snap it up at fire sale prices, they will turn around and sell it for cheap to a multinational hotel chain. Also consider that government agencies are consistently looking for revenue streams due to budget cuts. Forfeiture is just one of these streams.

 
2013-01-02 01:37:28 AM
Well, there goes that Fark tailgate party.....
 
2013-01-02 01:51:29 AM

Gyrfalcon: HotWingAgenda: BummerDuck: HotWingAgenda: As much as I dislike potheads, it sounds like they were properly organized and on the legal up and up.  They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Why do you dislike potheads? Not saying I like them, but would rather meet a pothead on the road, then a drunk...

Came here to say sounds like they might have legal recourse. See that you covered it.

I just find them annoying.  The ones I have known use it as a social crutch, much like alcoholics do... except there is no socially acceptable way to point out that someone relies to heavily on weed to function.  And, thanks to the prohibition on their drug of choice, a lot of potheads have a serious hate-on for anyone who doesn't despise law enforcement like they do.

So what you hate is idiots and addicts. People who use marijuana occasionally are no different from anyone else.


Like he said:  "potheads."
 
2013-01-02 01:58:59 AM
There should be a pot party at the homes of the government lawyers involved in civil forfeiture. The only reason for this is that they're stealing property. Without the stealing, people wouldn't be there smoking pot, so the property owner has facilitated a "drug crime" and his assets should be seized.
 
2013-01-02 02:50:56 AM

CourtroomWolf: There should be a pot party at the homes of the government lawyers involved in civil forfeiture.


You think there aren't pot parties at the homes of government lawyers?
 
2013-01-02 03:11:32 AM
In CA, the business model for medical mj is evolving to be a delivery model, like ordering out for pizza. It's cash only also. The dispensary has your 215 info. It's hard to imagine a federal law enforcement operation netting a new glorified pizza delivery dudes could be much to brag about.
 
2013-01-02 03:34:29 AM
CourtroomWolf:
"There should be a pot party at the homes of the government lawyers involved in civil forfeiture. The only reason for this is that they're stealing property. Without the stealing, people wouldn't be there smoking pot, so the property owner has facilitated a "drug crime" and his assets should be seized."

Whoah man. You just like, totally blew my mind.
 
2013-01-02 04:58:35 AM
I have an idea. Allow the sellers to ply their trade from state property with armed state police on guard. Let the feds try to seize state property from armed state troopers. That ought to bring this nonsense to a head real quick, one way or the other. Then we'll see how far the federal government is willing to go in order to ignore the will of the people.
 
2013-01-02 05:59:37 AM

Amos Quito: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.


Oh, this IS sweet.

From you link:

QUOTE

The DEA set the U.S. attorney into motion. It has a special agent here in Boston who seeks out targets for forfeiture.

Civil Forfeiture

"As he describes his job, he looks through the newspapers and looks at the Internet, looking for news stories of properties that might be forfeitable and brings them to the attention of the U.S. attorney," Caswell's attorney, Larry Salzman, said.

According to the agent's sworn testimony, he then goes to the Registry of Deeds to determine the value of the targeted property. The DEA rejects anything with less than $50,000 equity.

In the case of the Caswell, the agent saw its worth close to $1.5 million with no mortgage. That made it a fat target for the U.S. attorney, says another of Caswell's lawyers, Scott Bullock.

END QUOTE

They're looking for any excuse to seize property under the guise of the Drug War, and they don't give a shiat whether the property owners are guilty or not. They just want to steal property (but only if it's valuable enough to make it worth their trouble).

If anyone EVER wondered whether the War On Drugs, the DEA (and the farking Federal Government in general) have the "best interests" of the People of the US at heart, read that farking article.


/Ready to give up your guns, yet?
//Land of the Free
///Pukes


Yeah, and they're probably building detention centers with sniper towers for the gun owners on that seized property.
 
2013-01-02 08:14:39 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: The only thing that will stop a bad guy with pot, is a good guy with better pot.

 
2013-01-02 08:22:49 AM

Amos Quito: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.


Oh, this IS sweet.

From you link:

QUOTE

The DEA set the U.S. attorney into motion. It has a special agent here in Boston who seeks out targets for forfeiture.

Civil Forfeiture

"As he describes his job, he looks through the newspapers and looks at the Internet, looking for news stories of properties that might be forfeitable and brings them to the attention of the U.S. attorney," Caswell's attorney, Larry Salzman, said.

According to the agent's sworn testimony, he then goes to the Registry of Deeds to determine the value of the targeted property. The DEA rejects anything with less than $50,000 equity.

In the case of the Caswell, the agent saw its worth close to $1.5 million with no mortgage. That made it a fat target for the U.S. attorney, says another of Caswell's lawyers, Scott Bullock.

END QUOTE

They're looking for any excuse to seize property under the guise of the Drug War, and they don't give a shiat whether the property owners are guilty or not. They just want to steal property (but only if it's valuable enough to make it worth their trouble).

If anyone EVER wondered whether the War On Drugs, the DEA (and the farking Federal Government in general) have the "best interests" of the People of the US at heart, read that farking article.


/Ready to give up your guns, yet?
//Land of the Free
///Pukes


I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to implement a "2nd amendment solution", but it seems the only right you actually care about is the righ to own guns. And when someone does use a gun to kill people, you always distance yourselves from them.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-02 08:28:34 AM
Murder is still illegal under federal law but Oregon and Washington have successfully defended death with dignity on 10th Amendment grounds.

Most murder is not illegal under federal law. The federal murder statute requires a federal interest, e.g. the murder was on federal property or the victim was a federally protected person (e.g. FBI agent in the course of duty). If two people get into a fight and one stabs the other to death, that is not ordinarily a federal crime.

Federal drug crimes are much broader in scope than murder. Congress has determined that any use of marijuana has a detrimental effect on interstate commerce.
 
2013-01-02 08:35:18 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Baloo Uriza: BarkingUnicorn: Baloo Uriza: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.

Colorado might do that if Colorado ran pot clubs.  But Colorado has no obligation to defend its citizens against federal law.

It doesn't matter who runs the pot club. Murder is still illegal under federal law but Oregon and Washington have successfully defended death with dignity on 10th Amendment grounds.

I'm not arguing who would win.  I'm saying that Colorado has no obligation to fight.


They do have an obligation to defend their own laws if they don't want to lose their constituency.
 
2013-01-02 08:55:24 AM

Baloo Uriza: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.


No. No, it doesn't. That's nullification, an issue settled permanently by USA v. CSA, 1861-65. Federal law supersedes state law in all cases. The only way Colorado could tell the Feds to fark off would be to sue them and have the Supreme Court rule in the state's favor. Which ain't gonna happen because drugs r bad, mmmkay?
 
2013-01-02 08:59:34 AM

BarkingUnicorn: CourtroomWolf: There should be a pot party at the homes of the government lawyers involved in civil forfeiture.

You think there aren't pot parties at the homes of government lawyers?


Actually, no, I don't think government lawyers have pot parties. They're required to pee into cups on a regular basis, so while lots of them used to smoke, nearly all of them eschew the herb whilst in federal employment.

/Brother is a former pothead and a lawyer but didn't smoke when he was a fed
 
2013-01-02 09:12:13 AM

mbillips: Baloo Uriza: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.

No. No, it doesn't. That's nullification, an issue settled permanently by USA v. CSA, 1861-65. Federal law supersedes state law in all cases. The only way Colorado could tell the Feds to fark off would be to sue them and have the Supreme Court rule in the state's favor. Which ain't gonna happen because drugs r bad, mmmkay?


You'd like to think that, but murder is worse and the precedent for states opting out of federal law has already been set by the northwestern states. Essentially, Oregon got that case overturned.
 
2013-01-02 09:24:35 AM

Baloo Uriza: mbillips: Baloo Uriza: ZAZ: They should be able to sue the landlord for screwing them over.

Landlord wins by citing federal law saying he can't let his property be used for illegal drugs. He can legitimately say he risks losing his property by renting it out for drug sales or use. In my area the feds are trying to seize a motel because it was the local place to go for drugs. (story) See also RAVE act.

10th Amendment says Colorado can tell the Fed to fark off.

No. No, it doesn't. That's nullification, an issue settled permanently by USA v. CSA, 1861-65. Federal law supersedes state law in all cases. The only way Colorado could tell the Feds to fark off would be to sue them and have the Supreme Court rule in the state's favor. Which ain't gonna happen because drugs r bad, mmmkay?

You'd like to think that, but murder is worse and the precedent for states opting out of federal law has already been set by the northwestern states. Essentially, Oregon got that case overturned.


They didn't opt out. They sued, and won, a historically common occurrence. Which they wouldn't do in a drug case. Look at any drug case that this court has decided; they ALWAYS back the feds/War on Drugz.
 
2013-01-02 09:43:32 AM

mbillips: Which they wouldn't do in a drug case. Look at any drug case that this court has decided; they ALWAYS back the feds/War on Drugz.


Death with Dignity was also a drug case, given the preferred method. So, yeah, keep thinking what you're thinking; state's rights are not negotiable.
 
2013-01-02 10:28:35 AM

Baloo Uriza: mbillips: Which they wouldn't do in a drug case. Look at any drug case that this court has decided; they ALWAYS back the feds/War on Drugz.

Death with Dignity was also a drug case, given the preferred method. So, yeah, keep thinking what you're thinking; state's rights are not negotiable.


You really don't have any idea how the government works, do you?
 
2013-01-02 10:33:57 AM

Coco LaFemme: maxalt: ZAZ: According to the Denver Post article
Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.

Wow you wouldn't have the address there or anything, I mean like I'm not going there I just want to know how to avoid the place or maybe just a phone number cause like really I'm trying to AVOID the place. Man what a bumper they stopped making twinkies I'm so bumped up. Is Star Trek on tonight? Oh yea I got some petetions for the November 2012 elections to turn in, later dud

Why do you keep saying "bumper"? Don't you mean "bummer?"


 As Ed McMann said to Johnny Carson, "You are correct sir".  But in the 60's we said bumper instead of bummer to make fun of ourselves.
 
2013-01-02 10:38:59 AM

fusillade762: If you were just trying to "send a message" why the $50K limit?


Have you seen the rates for individual text messages without a plan?
 
2013-01-02 10:40:12 AM

Amos Quito: Looks like the Feds have a rabbit or two in their hats, should they decide to stomp out this "legalized weed" nonsense and put those uppity States and their insolent People back in their place.

But would the current administration actually ENFORCE such draconian measures to stomp out this disrespectful insurrection?


Actually state law trumps federal law.
 
2013-01-02 10:44:24 AM

boozerman: They can and will pretty much take anything they want from you. I got picked up on solicitation a few years ago. They took my computer (used it to find the ad), my cell phone (used it to call and set up an appointment), and took my car (drove it to the hotel). All for a $100 bj. Fark the hell out of them stealing your property for "crimes"


Girl down the street loves giving bjs. We have a mutually beneficial agreement. She has a college education and is really freaking cute. Also a number of friends. The crazy is there but it's manageable crazy--she loves giving bjs, it's kind of a direct obsession. Like the kind of text-you-out-of-nowhere-hey-you-wanna-come-over crazy, and if you're busy there's another guy further down her contacts list who needs to blow a nut.

You might know her. It's the girl who still knows all her guy friends from high school.
 
2013-01-02 10:49:26 AM

maxalt: Coco LaFemme: maxalt: ZAZ: According to the Denver Post article
Lovato's business model called for having a storefront where customers could buy coffee, T-shirts and other items and then a private building next door where they could smoke free samples of marijuana.Giving samples is distribution, which is illegal. Letting people use your building for illegal drugs is also illegal. Giving somebody directions to his club might even be illegal, aiding and abetting a drug crime.

Wow you wouldn't have the address there or anything, I mean like I'm not going there I just want to know how to avoid the place or maybe just a phone number cause like really I'm trying to AVOID the place. Man what a bumper they stopped making twinkies I'm so bumped up. Is Star Trek on tonight? Oh yea I got some petetions for the November 2012 elections to turn in, later dud

Why do you keep saying "bumper"? Don't you mean "bummer?"

 As Ed McMann said to Johnny Carson, "You are correct sir".  But in the 60's we said bumper instead of bummer to make fun of ourselves.


Crazy hippies getting all potted up.
 
2013-01-02 11:26:15 AM
Del Norte? I drive through there all the time. It's a town of like 20 people.
 
2013-01-02 11:49:30 AM
Actually, there are about 1200-1500 people here in Del Norte. I have asked all over where this place is located, but still can't find it.
 
2013-01-02 02:27:26 PM

bluefoxicy: Actually state law trumps federal law


You need to go back to law school, and demand a refund from that correspondence course.

Federal law is only trumped by state law if it is something specifically delegated to the states, if the states have a broader or stricter implementation of the law than the federal government, or if it is a law that does not exist on the federal books.

Drug crime? yeah. The feds will trump the states every time. All state legalization/decriminalization does is prevent beat cops and detectives from arresting you.
 
2013-01-02 03:01:57 PM

BronyMedic: bluefoxicy: Actually state law trumps federal law

You need to go back to law school, and demand a refund from that correspondence course.

Federal law is only trumped by state law if it is something specifically delegated to the states, if the states have a broader or stricter implementation of the law than the federal government, or if it is a law that does not exist on the federal books.

Drug crime? yeah. The feds will trump the states every time. All state legalization/decriminalization does is prevent beat cops and detectives from arresting you.



Constitutionally, he is correct: The Federal government is prohibited from acting beyond the powers specifically spelled out to it under the Constitution (see Amendment 10). That is why (for example) alcohol prohibition required constitutional amendments to be both enacted and repealed.

For practical purposes, you are correct. Why? Because we started allowing the Feds to do anything they damn well please - constitution or none - under the "clauses".

/Big mistake, that
 
2013-01-02 05:14:05 PM

mbillips: Baloo Uriza: mbillips: Which they wouldn't do in a drug case. Look at any drug case that this court has decided; they ALWAYS back the feds/War on Drugz.

Death with Dignity was also a drug case, given the preferred method. So, yeah, keep thinking what you're thinking; state's rights are not negotiable.

You really don't have any idea how the government works, do you?


I do, actually. It's not my fault California couldn't defend it's 10th Amendment rights properly. Maybe they should talk to Oregon and Washington for some tips.
 
2013-01-03 12:20:24 AM

mbillips: Baloo Uriza: mbillips: Which they wouldn't do in a drug case. Look at any drug case that this court has decided; they ALWAYS back the feds/War on Drugz.

Death with Dignity was also a drug case, given the preferred method. So, yeah, keep thinking what you're thinking; state's rights are not negotiable.

You really don't have any idea how the government works, do you?


Neither of you seems to understand what Gonzales v Oregon was about.

"The (SCOTUS) majority opinion did not dispute the power of the federal government to regulate drugs, but disagreed that the statute in place empowered the U.S. Attorney General to overrule state laws determining what constituted the appropriate use of medications that were not themselves prohibited."

Congress could pass a law that preempts States' death-with-dignity laws.
 
2013-01-03 12:33:46 AM

mbillips: BarkingUnicorn: CourtroomWolf: There should be a pot party at the homes of the government lawyers involved in civil forfeiture.

You think there aren't pot parties at the homes of government lawyers?

Actually, no, I don't think government lawyers have pot parties. They're required to pee into cups on a regular basis, so while lots of them used to smoke, nearly all of them eschew the herb whilst in federal employment.

/Brother is a former pothead and a lawyer but didn't smoke when he was a fed


Are their spouses and children required to pee into cups regularly?

We've seen a number of stories about district, county, and city attorneys busted for pot.  The feds are not the only government lawyers.
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report