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 51
    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»



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


Archived thread
2013-01-01 06:50:00 PM
8 votes:

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 11:21:43 PM
5 votes:
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 08:44:35 PM
5 votes:

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 11:34:36 PM
4 votes:

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 07:45:38 PM
4 votes:

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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-01 05:59:08 PM
4 votes:
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.
2013-01-02 12:10:05 AM
3 votes:

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.
2013-01-01 11:34:53 PM
3 votes:

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 10:32:18 PM
3 votes:

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 05:55:19 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-01-02 01:31:11 AM
2 votes:

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.

2013-01-01 11:38:56 PM
2 votes:

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 11:29:37 PM
2 votes:

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 11:18:51 PM
2 votes:
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 11:16:28 PM
2 votes:
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 11:13:16 PM
2 votes:

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 10:23:03 PM
2 votes:

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 08:25:41 PM
2 votes:

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 07:54:00 PM
2 votes:
There's still Club 64.
2013-01-01 07:11:31 PM
2 votes:

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 06:22:16 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-02 10:40:12 AM
1 votes:

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 04:58:35 AM
1 votes:
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 02:50:56 AM
1 votes:

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 01:21:35 AM
1 votes:

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 12:12:01 AM
1 votes:
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 12:06:22 AM
1 votes:
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 12:05:21 AM
1 votes:
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 12:02:12 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-01 11:51:09 PM
1 votes:

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 11:44:21 PM
1 votes:

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 11:40:15 PM
1 votes:

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 11:39:13 PM
1 votes:

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 11:38:05 PM
1 votes:
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 11:37:02 PM
1 votes:
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 11:36:59 PM
1 votes:

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 11:33:45 PM
1 votes:
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with pot, is a good guy with pot.
2013-01-01 11:29:42 PM
1 votes:

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 11:26:05 PM
1 votes:

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 11:15:13 PM
1 votes:
Dogbert could help them.

dilbert.com
2013-01-01 11:12:19 PM
1 votes:
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 11:09:13 PM
1 votes:
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 11:08:48 PM
1 votes:

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 11:02:17 PM
1 votes:
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 08:26:16 PM
1 votes:

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 08:26:02 PM
1 votes:

LordOfThePings: Is Dave there?


No.
2013-01-01 07:35:04 PM
1 votes:
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 07:00:22 PM
1 votes:

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
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-01 06:41:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:22:48 PM
1 votes:
"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 05:02:35 PM
1 votes:
The first rule of Recreational Marijuana Club is...
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report