• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In marijuana policy, the confusing smoke signals continue to burn

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I have no problem with it. It is no secret that selling pot is a federal offense so there is no playing ignorant on this one. If you want to change the law, then fine. Until then, however, California is going to have to sleep in the bed of federal autocracy that they so often help expand in other areas. Karma is a Be-autch
 

James D Hill

DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
6,984
Reaction score
1,034
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I have no problem with it. It is no secret that selling pot is a federal offense so there is no playing ignorant on this one. If you want to change the law, then fine. Until then, however, California is going to have to sleep in the bed of federal autocracy that they so often help expand in other areas. Karma is a Be-autch
The pot laws are screwed. Taking ones property over drug laws are even more screwed. There is no excuse for this to happen in the good old USA. Don't defend bad law Fisher for any reason even if you hate drugs.
 

James D Hill

DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
6,984
Reaction score
1,034
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I have no problem with it. It is no secret that selling pot is a federal offense so there is no playing ignorant on this one. If you want to change the law, then fine. Until then, however, California is going to have to sleep in the bed of federal autocracy that they so often help expand in other areas. Karma is a Be-autch
Don't be a moron by acting like this is OK. You know as well as I do this **** is just plain wrong.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The pot laws are screwed. Taking ones property over drug laws are even more screwed. There is no excuse for this to happen in the good old USA. Don't defend bad law Fisher for any reason even if you hate drugs.
Don't be a moron by acting like this is OK. You know as well as I do this **** is just plain wrong.

Sorry I am a "moron" for thinking that people smart enough to own a commercial building are smart enough to know that pot is still illegal in the US under federal law. Now since the landlord knew it was a pot dispensary, I have no pity for him. If the landlord had thought this was a massage parlor and it turned out they were selling pot and the government moved on the building, then that would be a different case altogether. I do not consider this "just plain wrong" under the circumstances.
 

SMTA

Ketsu no anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
32,629
Reaction score
7,741
Location
OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have no problem with it. It is no secret that selling pot is a federal offense so there is no playing ignorant on this one. If you want to change the law, then fine. Until then, however, California is going to have to sleep in the bed of federal autocracy that they so often help expand in other areas. Karma is a Be-autch
Yes, it is.

Ignorance, no matter how prevalent, just does not buy a pass on Federal laws.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
KEY OPERATIVE WORDS:
seize his two-story commercial building, which is worth about $1.5 million.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have no problem with it. It is no secret that selling pot is a federal offense so there is no playing ignorant on this one. If you want to change the law, then fine. Until then, however, California is going to have to sleep in the bed of federal autocracy that they so often help expand in other areas. Karma is a Be-autch
I can't disagree. On the one hand I vehemently disagree with the laws as they stand now, but... I have a hard time using his ignorance of the law as it stands now as an excuse.

I was actually disappointed when I read the article. I was all set to get all worked up, then I was presented with ignorance. I do believe it was ignorance, in the pure sense of the word, but that still doesn't excuse it.
 

vesper

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
22,276
Reaction score
18,577
Location
Midwest
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The most revealing part of the story wasn't the Fed involvement but
That's right. Anaheim is home to a gigantic annual pot emporium, with more smoke in the air than you get from the average California wildfire.

Last month's extravaganza featured a "Hot Kush Girl Contest" and awards for the "best strains" in Southern California. Festival attendees were informed they couldn't sample the goods without marijuana recommendations from doctors, but no worries.

"Doctors will be on site!"
Hot Cush girl contest? Best California strain contest? and yet you can't sample the goods unless you have a marijuana recommendation? (prescription?) But not to worry doctor's on site?
Damn what a forking scam. Pushing the legalization of marijuana under the guise that it is for medical purposes... My Arse! The special interests groups have been pouring into my state to push for the legalization of so called "medical marijuana". The more I read about this crap the more I am convinced I don't want any part of this in my state and it is time to get involved and fight back. Thanks for the link Radcen.
 
Last edited:

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,374
Reaction score
27,502
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have no problem with it. It is no secret that selling pot is a federal offense so there is no playing ignorant on this one. If you want to change the law, then fine. Until then, however, California is going to have to sleep in the bed of federal autocracy that they so often help expand in other areas. Karma is a Be-autch
Not sure what to think about this.
What I think neither of you seem to realize is, even if he had no idea the people he was renting to were going to sell pot out of it, his building would've been seized anyway. The feds don't care if you knew or not, it's their building now.

The fact that you guys would condone nabbing someone's property for not doing anything illegal is rather sad. The most you could argue is aiding and abetting a criminal, which is a pretty weak case anyway.

In America the person who commits the crime and then is convicted by a jury of his peers is guilty. Currently, they don't even need to charge you or put you on trial to seize your property permanently. Just because they want to, they can. It's absolutely unacceptable and completely incompatible with a freedom loving society.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure what to think about this.
It is a part of the laws that allow seizure of property acquired through profits from illegal drug sales i would imagine. It is one of the great weapons of our drug war where they can take all of your **** without giving it back even if it had nothing to so with the crime, or even if you never get convicted. The government does not want to give this up. Legalization would destroy this. I did assume the rental contact would have protected him, but I guess that would be wrong. this seems like a way the fed uses to bully the local store owners who would possibly rent to a business.

this is why it should all just be legal and we could end all of this.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
What I think neither of you seem to realize is, even if he had no idea the people he was renting to were going to sell pot out of it, his building would've been seized anyway. The feds don't care if you knew or not, it's their building now.

The fact that you guys would condone nabbing someone's property for not doing anything illegal is rather sad. The most you could argue is aiding and abetting a criminal, which is a pretty weak case anyway.

In America the person who commits the crime and then is convicted by a jury of his peers is guilty. Currently, they don't even need to charge you or put you on trial to seize your property permanently. Just because they want to, they can. It's absolutely unacceptable and completely incompatible with a freedom loving society.
You think incorrectly. How you twisted your conclusion out of that short sentence of mine is beyond me. Especially when I expanded my thoughts later in the thread. I do not condone anything of the sort, and stated so pretty clearly, but you didn't mention that at all.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,374
Reaction score
27,502
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You think incorrectly. How you twisted your conclusion out of that short sentence of mine is beyond me. Especially when I expanded my thoughts later in the thread. I do not condone anything of the sort, and stated so pretty clearly, but you didn't mention that at all.
Your argument is that ignorance isn't an excuse. I was stating that is most certainly is an excuse. Very few Americans actually realize that the government can seize all of their property at any moment, for any reason, without a trial or arrests. Most people think you have to do something illegal and be convicted for something like this to happen. If people did realize what the government was doing to people, we (hopefully) would stand up to the government as a group.

This guy followed state law, and in reality didn't even break federal law. He didn't sell pot, he rented to some people who decided to sell pot. This war is between the states and the federal government, so attacking individuals like this and ruining their lives just for being in the same proximity as someone breaking federal law is not an obvious thing.

He got his property seized for the actions of someone else. That is distinctly anti-freedom and anti-American. Shrugging and saying "Well, he should've known better", isn't a good response.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Your argument is that ignorance isn't an excuse. I was stating that is most certainly is an excuse. Very few Americans actually realize that the government can seize all of their property at any moment, for any reason, without a trial or arrests. Most people think you have to do something illegal and be convicted for something like this to happen. If people did realize what the government was doing to people, we (hopefully) would stand up to the government as a group.

This guy followed state law, and in reality didn't even break federal law. He didn't sell pot, he rented to some people who decided to sell pot. This war is between the states and the federal government, so attacking individuals like this and ruining their lives just for being in the same proximity as someone breaking federal law is not an obvious thing.

He got his property seized for the actions of someone else. That is distinctly anti-freedom and anti-American. Shrugging and saying "Well, he should've known better", isn't a good response.
Ignorance, in and of itself, isn't an excuse. We wouldn't make that allowance for murder or molestation or even speeding, so we shouldn't be cherry-picking here.

I also vehemently disagree with the laws as they stand and the actions of the Feds, and stated so clearly. If on a jury, I would use nullification to deny the taking of the property and/or any conviction. We also know that federal and state laws often contradict and, for right or for wrong, it's usually the feds who get their way. Sorry, it just is. If a person wants to navigate successfully in the world, they need to be aware of this crap.

The story made it sound like he wanted to stay within the law (even if he disagreed with it). If so, he should have known the law and potential ramifications. People who assume consistency and right for right sake are naive.

Your conclusion was that this means I condone the fed actions. You could not be more incorrect if you purposely tried.
 
Top Bottom