Slog Comments
Sunday Morning News
2
From the Mercer Island pot thing:
Clearly an iron-clad legal tactic.
According to the agreement, the ownership can take legal action if the agreement is not signed.
Clearly an iron-clad legal tactic.
4
You sense a lawsuit? Funny, I don't. They have every right to do that. I'll bet if it was cigarettes they were banning and not pot, you'd think it was a great idea.
Both are legal. Landlords have the right to ban both of them.
Both are legal. Landlords have the right to ban both of them.
5
@4, I agree in part. Landlords can probably have a no smoking policy for pot, the same as cigarettes. Or have a smoking deposit. Mostly because it can cause the same kind of smoke damage and extra cleaning after a tenant moves out. Or because the smell bothers other tenants.
However, they probably can't prevent you from, say, baking pot brownies, or consuming pot in some other way besides smoking it. In other words, they can probably ban activities that potentially cause property damage or tenant problems (smoking), but not the pot itself.
They can't make the tenants sign a no-alcohol policy. And they can't make the tenants sign a no-pot policy.
However, they probably can't prevent you from, say, baking pot brownies, or consuming pot in some other way besides smoking it. In other words, they can probably ban activities that potentially cause property damage or tenant problems (smoking), but not the pot itself.
They can't make the tenants sign a no-alcohol policy. And they can't make the tenants sign a no-pot policy.
6
"Even a few minutes' warning would be enough for people to move away from walls or ceilings that might collapse or for nuclear plants and other critical facilities to be shut down safely in advance of the temblor."
Funny how we go right ahead and put nuclear plants all over the world, and all the while we continue hunting around for some way to predict earthquakes. Rats maybe? Rock electricity? Spiders! No? OK... Look to the ionosphere, gents!
Something, maybe. We'll keep looking. Everybody sit tight while we try to come up with ideas. Cross your fingers if you're by a nuclear plant.
Nate Silver's book analyzes why all this earthquake prediction keeps failing.
Funny how we go right ahead and put nuclear plants all over the world, and all the while we continue hunting around for some way to predict earthquakes. Rats maybe? Rock electricity? Spiders! No? OK... Look to the ionosphere, gents!
Something, maybe. We'll keep looking. Everybody sit tight while we try to come up with ideas. Cross your fingers if you're by a nuclear plant.
Nate Silver's book analyzes why all this earthquake prediction keeps failing.
7
They actually use shotguns to loosen lug-nuts over in Kitsap County:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/nov/1…
That place is just one big gun accident waiting to happen!
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/nov/1…
That place is just one big gun accident waiting to happen!
8
@5, I tend to agree. However, what if the property receives federal funding (i.e. HUD)? Since it is still illegal at the fed level, couldn't there be some issues developing?
9
You've been doing a great job on the Morning News, Chelsea.
Re: the accidental gun discharge,
Re: the accidental gun discharge,
Witnesses said there were about 35 customers and staff present at the time, and the shot went off in the middle of the store...No comment.
The gun owner, who had a valid concealed weapon permit on him, was not arrested.
“He’s not a threat to anyone. He’s not violent,” [sheriff’s office spokesman] Wilson said.
10
There should be an unregulated militia tumblr w/ any public info about these non-criminal gun incidences. The Nice Guys of Conceal and Carry?
11
Gun-toters: Should having one's gun accidentally discharge (and be witnessed and reported) be cause to lose one's conceal permit for N months.
I say yes. I would think that's already the law.
I say yes. I would think that's already the law.
12
“He’s not a threat to anyone. He’s not violent,”
How about stupid? Moronic? (And he ran out of the store after he damaged merchandise, another loser move.)
I think he's a clear threat to our society but just not an actionable one legally (except for leaving the scene).
How about stupid? Moronic? (And he ran out of the store after he damaged merchandise, another loser move.)
I think he's a clear threat to our society but just not an actionable one legally (except for leaving the scene).
13
Think of how much safer we'd all have been if he'd have been carrying a low grade nuke instead. He's not violent, he's not a threat, he seems like such a nice man and he never bit anyone before.
Freedom! Liberty!
Freedom! Liberty!
14
And we can debate the merits between kilotons and megatons (as well as ground and air bursts) but the fact remains that the second amendment allows both since they're common now. I only explode my nukes on pacific atolls and Nevada deserts and they keep everyone around me safer, so no need to ban my hobby.
15
Soon there will be apartment complexes for cannabis users. It is a really large niche market...,/-D
16
And I can't wait to load them onto my own private (and common, thus protected!) drone! The darkie could-be-robber/rapist walking in my gated community at night won't know what hit 'im.
And even if the neighborhood is vaporized along with him, we'll all die knowing how I protected us all from that horrific scourge.
And even if the neighborhood is vaporized along with him, we'll all die knowing how I protected us all from that horrific scourge.
17
@4 I haven't read the agreement, but the point I'm making is that you can say "no smoking marijuana" but you can't say "marijuana use is not allowed" because they have absolutely no right to regulate whether or not you're consuming edibles or drinking booze in the privacy of your home.
19
@4: You're an ignorant douchebag. Signatures on contracts obtained under duress are unenforceable. End of discussion.
20
@14 - What does "common" have to do with it? What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you? If I can conceive of a way to injure or kill a person with an item, I have a constitutional right--nay, duty--to possess it at all times.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court's ruling on Gideon v. Wainright applies here, too. The state should be required to provide me with an angry baboon. For the sake of a well-organized militia.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court's ruling on Gideon v. Wainright applies here, too. The state should be required to provide me with an angry baboon. For the sake of a well-organized militia.
21
I too snorted at the "he's not a threat to anyone" line. I guess law enforcement in Kitsap does not consider accidental discharge of a firearm in a crowded mall dangerous.
22
@17, I agree, otherwise he's going to have a problem with cancer, Parkinson's, MS,. . . patients, and the AG's office.
It's not just a recreational drug, kids (surprise!)
It's not up to some jerkoff to say which medications a patient can take.
That person can require people to not engage in activity, smoking included, that damages the asset.
As has been noted above, you don't and probably shouldn't burn your pot leaves, for a variety of reasons, least of which is a damage deposit.
It's not just a recreational drug, kids (surprise!)
It's not up to some jerkoff to say which medications a patient can take.
That person can require people to not engage in activity, smoking included, that damages the asset.
As has been noted above, you don't and probably shouldn't burn your pot leaves, for a variety of reasons, least of which is a damage deposit.
23
Comparing a former Purple Star Vet Senator [Hagel] running the Pentagon to Susan Rice's failed UN performances is an interesting gambit by Reuters. Oh, of course, they did get it from an unnamed "Democratic Senate Aide." It's golden then.
25
re:Hagel
in this totally dysfunctional hyper partisan atmosphere it largely goes unnoted but you liberals have to admit that your boy is an incredibly shitty inept excuse for a politician
in this totally dysfunctional hyper partisan atmosphere it largely goes unnoted but you liberals have to admit that your boy is an incredibly shitty inept excuse for a politician
26
@4 pot's not legal under federal law and it is possible the rental agreement already states that residents will not do illegal activities in their rental units. I can understand why a landlord would not want residents doing drugs on their property - in the past the Feds have confiscated property involved in committing drug crimes.
Besides, where do the residents of these apartments work where they are not subject to random drug screening? They all can't work for the Stranger.
Besides, where do the residents of these apartments work where they are not subject to random drug screening? They all can't work for the Stranger.
27
@17,
If the tenants want to eat pot, then they shouldn't sign the lease.
you can't say "marijuana use is not allowed" because they have absolutely no right to regulate whether or not you're consuming edibles or drinking booze in the privacy of your home.Yes they can. If they have a statement in the lease that says "tenant will not consume marijuana" and you sign the lease, then you can't legally consume it.
If the tenants want to eat pot, then they shouldn't sign the lease.
28
@20 - I was referencing Cascadian Bacon, and his knowledge of all things FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
Popularity is constitutionally consistent SCOTUS ruled in Heller Vs. DC that the arms protected 2nd amendment refers to which arms are in "common use" at the time.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
29
@21 - They really should give him a medal for being brave enough to protect us from TYRANNY. Now that bad men (and the government!) knows about his concealed weapon, they'll be doing everything they can to stop him from defending our freedoms and protecting that mall.
30
@27:
...By which you mean the unenforceable agreement which is NOT a lease, which attempts to retroactively modify the terms of a lease, and which EXPLICITLY VIOLATES the existing lease by seeking to bring tenancy to an end unilaterally and prematurely.
...By which you mean the unenforceable agreement which is NOT a lease, which attempts to retroactively modify the terms of a lease, and which EXPLICITLY VIOLATES the existing lease by seeking to bring tenancy to an end unilaterally and prematurely.
31
"the other Washington" is provincial. Washington DC was here first, and it's more important than Washington State, so of course the other Washington is Washington state, not DC.
Funny thing about "Redskins" too. While here in the other, later, Washington, we have a Seattle Times that won't use the word "Redskins" in their several articles on the big game -- doubtless they feel that to utter the word "Redskins" makes one racist somehow -- while of coursse saying whites this blacks that is okay, as is fighting irish, french fries or celts or vikings -- it's all so arbitrary isn't it -- at the same time residents of the other Washington happily continue to deny residents of DC basic voting rights. And happily rule over Puerto Rico too, ensuring another six million souls lack basic democratic voting rights. The residents of the other Washington also allow native american fishing rights to be devalued by letting the environment and the fish degrade. Wow, you know it's almost as if this whole "racist" thing is now more about words than substance. Oh yes, not one person editing the Seattle Times pages that refused to say the word Redskins actually suggests giving back the land we took from the hundreds of peoples here in what became north "america."
and somehow calling people the name of some italian dude who didn't even actually sail over here is deemed somehow less racist than referring to skin color. it's just so arbitrary isn't it, as if it's all desigined to display superior moral virtue -- not to correct remedy or ensure any actual deprivations of rights!
Funny thing about "Redskins" too. While here in the other, later, Washington, we have a Seattle Times that won't use the word "Redskins" in their several articles on the big game -- doubtless they feel that to utter the word "Redskins" makes one racist somehow -- while of coursse saying whites this blacks that is okay, as is fighting irish, french fries or celts or vikings -- it's all so arbitrary isn't it -- at the same time residents of the other Washington happily continue to deny residents of DC basic voting rights. And happily rule over Puerto Rico too, ensuring another six million souls lack basic democratic voting rights. The residents of the other Washington also allow native american fishing rights to be devalued by letting the environment and the fish degrade. Wow, you know it's almost as if this whole "racist" thing is now more about words than substance. Oh yes, not one person editing the Seattle Times pages that refused to say the word Redskins actually suggests giving back the land we took from the hundreds of peoples here in what became north "america."
and somehow calling people the name of some italian dude who didn't even actually sail over here is deemed somehow less racist than referring to skin color. it's just so arbitrary isn't it, as if it's all desigined to display superior moral virtue -- not to correct remedy or ensure any actual deprivations of rights!
32
Lawsuit? You bet.
I walk up to you and say, "Here's our agreement, and if you don't agree with it, then I can take action." Nothing has been agreed upon. Something has, however, been proposed. Agreement comes later. You can't force agreements - which denote contractual considerations - on anyone. You can agree to the proposal or not agree.
And if marijuana usage is legal, then the owners cannot ban its use "in any form." I can see where they might be able to ban the smoking part of it, but telling someone they can't have a cookie or brownie or a vaporizer? No.
Only on Mercer Island, right?
I walk up to you and say, "Here's our agreement, and if you don't agree with it, then I can take action." Nothing has been agreed upon. Something has, however, been proposed. Agreement comes later. You can't force agreements - which denote contractual considerations - on anyone. You can agree to the proposal or not agree.
And if marijuana usage is legal, then the owners cannot ban its use "in any form." I can see where they might be able to ban the smoking part of it, but telling someone they can't have a cookie or brownie or a vaporizer? No.
Only on Mercer Island, right?
33
You can sign the agreement, and then just eat as much pot as you want. Unenforceable. They're targeting non-smoke use of m.j. for some strange reason (I'm pretty sure they already have a no-smoking policy in place, which covers pot).
34
@30,
I didn't read the article, but everything you said is correct. No, they definitely can't change the terms of the lease until it's over. Once it IS over though, they can certainly add a line saying tenants can't use marijuana and then the tenants can either sign or tell them to fuck off. Unpaid Intern @17 seemed to think the apartment owners can't do that, but they can.
I didn't read the article, but everything you said is correct. No, they definitely can't change the terms of the lease until it's over. Once it IS over though, they can certainly add a line saying tenants can't use marijuana and then the tenants can either sign or tell them to fuck off. Unpaid Intern @17 seemed to think the apartment owners can't do that, but they can.
35
@32,
They can ban legal stuff if they want. Apartments ban pets all the time. Why can't they ban marijuana? Sure, you can just violate it and eat all the pot you want to, but if they have evidence that you've violated a contract with them, they can take action.
They can ban legal stuff if they want. Apartments ban pets all the time. Why can't they ban marijuana? Sure, you can just violate it and eat all the pot you want to, but if they have evidence that you've violated a contract with them, they can take action.
36
lots of misconceptions today
1. economic duress isn't duress.
2. federally illegal, mean's "it's illegal" not "it's legal"
btw it's federally illegal in brownies, in a pipe, on a train or on a plane or in an apt. duh!
3. check your insurance, and leases they probably already mention illegal stuff. your insurance may be void or not provide coverage if you have illegal pot in your apt. and get robbed. or a fire. maybe the ins. co. as to prove the fire or roberry was due to your pot. but maybe not!
4.. even if brownie pot were legal, landlord can ban legal things. like pets. only limit is discrimination laws, or things conflicting iwth express terms of landlord tenant acts.
5.while "You can't force agreements" in the real world tenants have less bargaining power, it's hard to move, etc. so landlords can in effect force you to sign a antipot clause and if you sign it you're bound by it.
6. "And if marijuana usage is legal" um folks, it's NOT see above.
7. "I can see where they might be able to ban the smoking part of it, but telling someone they can't have a cookie or brownie or a vaporizer? No." Um, yes, see above.
think of it this way. maybe the landlord's insurance says "landlord must take reasonable steps to ensure no illegal acts on premises": and landlord is now afraid if they don't make tenants sign clauses saying no pot not in smoke not in brownies...landlord's insurance will be problematic if there's a fire or break in damaging the door. Insurer lawyers are clever. They will point to fact tenants are all over facebook smoking pot, landlord didn't do anything so aha! maybe tenant pot drew thieves or mayve stoned tenants started a fire. staring into the flames on the gas stove. while you and I may know that's bullshit, the landlord may be sitting their with his dick in his hands after a huge fire started by a tenant accidentally when the landlord's lawyers are trying to wriggle out of paying the landlord the ten million dollars to rebuild the building that burned down. maybe the apt. is on capitol hill, a well known pot loving locale. maybe thelandlord was on notice of lots of pot smoking. maybe pot smoking sometimes leads to ...oh, a fire when a match doesn't go out and the stoned tenant falls asleep and a bit of paper in the ash tray catches fire. maybe an evil insurance company will put up an expert to say that's how the huge fire started. so now, do you see, any good lawyer would tell his landlord clients they better look like they are actively trying to ensure no pot on the premises?
More...
1. economic duress isn't duress.
2. federally illegal, mean's "it's illegal" not "it's legal"
btw it's federally illegal in brownies, in a pipe, on a train or on a plane or in an apt. duh!
3. check your insurance, and leases they probably already mention illegal stuff. your insurance may be void or not provide coverage if you have illegal pot in your apt. and get robbed. or a fire. maybe the ins. co. as to prove the fire or roberry was due to your pot. but maybe not!
4.. even if brownie pot were legal, landlord can ban legal things. like pets. only limit is discrimination laws, or things conflicting iwth express terms of landlord tenant acts.
5.while "You can't force agreements" in the real world tenants have less bargaining power, it's hard to move, etc. so landlords can in effect force you to sign a antipot clause and if you sign it you're bound by it.
6. "And if marijuana usage is legal" um folks, it's NOT see above.
7. "I can see where they might be able to ban the smoking part of it, but telling someone they can't have a cookie or brownie or a vaporizer? No." Um, yes, see above.
think of it this way. maybe the landlord's insurance says "landlord must take reasonable steps to ensure no illegal acts on premises": and landlord is now afraid if they don't make tenants sign clauses saying no pot not in smoke not in brownies...landlord's insurance will be problematic if there's a fire or break in damaging the door. Insurer lawyers are clever. They will point to fact tenants are all over facebook smoking pot, landlord didn't do anything so aha! maybe tenant pot drew thieves or mayve stoned tenants started a fire. staring into the flames on the gas stove. while you and I may know that's bullshit, the landlord may be sitting their with his dick in his hands after a huge fire started by a tenant accidentally when the landlord's lawyers are trying to wriggle out of paying the landlord the ten million dollars to rebuild the building that burned down. maybe the apt. is on capitol hill, a well known pot loving locale. maybe thelandlord was on notice of lots of pot smoking. maybe pot smoking sometimes leads to ...oh, a fire when a match doesn't go out and the stoned tenant falls asleep and a bit of paper in the ash tray catches fire. maybe an evil insurance company will put up an expert to say that's how the huge fire started. so now, do you see, any good lawyer would tell his landlord clients they better look like they are actively trying to ensure no pot on the premises?
37
"...Reuters reports that Obama looks likely to nominate Republican Chuck Hagel, in a move that may anger Ds and Rs alike."
Of course, the Obama puppet must follow the preordained Wall Street script, after all.
Remember, after Clinton's reelection, he appointed Republicon Senator Cohen to be the SecDef, who in turn appointed Chris Mellon (of the fabulously wealthy Mellon family, perhaps one of you Ameritards have actually heard of the largest depository bank in existence, Bank of New York Mellon???) to a senior-level position at the DIA, and Christopher Mellon, of course, would "leak" the "fact" that Iran was only a year or so away from having fullscale nuke capabilities (this was back around 2001/2002, 'natch).
Sound familiar?????
Of course, the Obama puppet must follow the preordained Wall Street script, after all.
Remember, after Clinton's reelection, he appointed Republicon Senator Cohen to be the SecDef, who in turn appointed Chris Mellon (of the fabulously wealthy Mellon family, perhaps one of you Ameritards have actually heard of the largest depository bank in existence, Bank of New York Mellon???) to a senior-level position at the DIA, and Christopher Mellon, of course, would "leak" the "fact" that Iran was only a year or so away from having fullscale nuke capabilities (this was back around 2001/2002, 'natch).
Sound familiar?????
39
Chuck Hagel is a "problem" because the Jewish lobby hates him because he won't let Israel dictate to him like everyone else in Congress has done.
40
@35 Dense today?
Pets can damage the property. That's where the distinction lies.
The owner has rights to put reasonable restrictions in place to protect their property. Beyond that, the owner cannot just create 'laws' for its tenants. I'm not even sure that the owners can enforce 'sound' rules - I think those have to be created and enforced by the city.
Pets can damage the property. That's where the distinction lies.
The owner has rights to put reasonable restrictions in place to protect their property. Beyond that, the owner cannot just create 'laws' for its tenants. I'm not even sure that the owners can enforce 'sound' rules - I think those have to be created and enforced by the city.
41
"[marijuana] can cause the same kind of smoke damage and extra cleaning after a tenant moves out"
I don't agree with that, but I have no evidence.
I don't agree with that, but I have no evidence.
42
@40 any court will say that a landlord seeking to ensure no federally illegal acts is acting reasonably. also, see above. the insurer lawyers trying to stop payment to a landlord on a $3 million fire loss will try to argue the landlord violated the part of the insurance contract saying the landlord must reasonably act to preventillegal acts on the property. if the landlord didn't go around trying to get no pot clauses signed. the no pot clauses reduce risk of fire, risk of stoned tenants being negligent and leaving the gas stove on, and risks of drawing thieves and muggers. remember, pot is largely a cash business. there's plenty of reasonable reasons a landlord should get no pot amendments signed.
this is what a real lawyer will tell you.
this is what a real lawyer will tell you.
43
@36 Leases are governed by state law, which considers possession and use of marijuana legal. Smoke is already covered in most leases.
Yes, that's a conflict as possession is considered a Federal crime, but the argument that it's illegal now is ignoring that conflict.
tl;dr Remember Federalism?
Yes, that's a conflict as possession is considered a Federal crime, but the argument that it's illegal now is ignoring that conflict.
tl;dr Remember Federalism?
44
@40, someone's sure as hell dense, but it isn't Urgutha. You remind me of Will in Seattle, babbling on about things you know nothing about. And BTW, calling people "dense" isn't going to make you any more correct.
45
Ho-hum! In the mean time the planet continues to heat up at an alarming rate, putting in peril hundreds of millions of people.
46
I have no dog in the fight of the legal status of MJ in Washington (I don't live there, and I don't use it), but I have an honest question: I am very badly allergic to weed, like developing blisters on my skin and anaphylaxis if I inhale it. Is it safe for me to travel in/around Seattle? There are a couple conferences that I'd like to attend, but not if the air/hotel furnishings/sidewalks are going to kill me.
47
"He's not violent, he's not a threat, he seems like such a nice man and he never bit anyone before.
SLOG 101:
Gun accidentally discharges in mall in Kitsap?
Outrage!
Black man walks into club in Bellevue and starts shooting and killing?
Meeeh….
SLOG 101:
Gun accidentally discharges in mall in Kitsap?
Outrage!
Black man walks into club in Bellevue and starts shooting and killing?
Meeeh….
48
@36: Ok, Counselor. Let's see you argue against the people who claim they need marijuana for medical reasons. Let see you argue that a landlord has the right to ban aspirin, or inhalers, or cough syrup.
The only argument I see that holds water is the argument that it is still a Federal crime and that property could be seized if marijuana use is allowed on the premises.
The only argument I see that holds water is the argument that it is still a Federal crime and that property could be seized if marijuana use is allowed on the premises.
49
@46
The main sidewalk threat is bicyclists. And you're not going to find much of anything to eat at 2 AM. AND there's two completely different coffee drinks around here that go by the name "Americano". One is very much like French Press, the other is much more bitter, with sort of this thick, chunky coffee scum on top. These are the things that are killing me.
The main sidewalk threat is bicyclists. And you're not going to find much of anything to eat at 2 AM. AND there's two completely different coffee drinks around here that go by the name "Americano". One is very much like French Press, the other is much more bitter, with sort of this thick, chunky coffee scum on top. These are the things that are killing me.
50
@48 -- don't aim at me, I wish all drugs were legal.
if you need mj for medical reasons, yes, you'd have a GREAT argument under state law that the landlord can't stop you. because in that case you fall under the discrimination exception to general freedom of contract in this area; the landlord can't discriminate against you based on disability and must accommodate you. that said, you still are at risk because it is still illegal under federal law and i couldn't advise you without say ten hours of research, no ez answer. . again, think of it this way. the landlord has a big old building worth say $3 million. he has a insurance policy that says likely he must take reasonable steps to ban illegal acts. if he doesn't try to ban pot explicitly he risks one day finding himself in court against an evil insurance company lawyer who will argue thelandlord let there be pot smoking...didn't ban it....there was a fire ....the $3 million building is destroyed... they pay some expert whore $40K to testify aha! the fire was caused by someone smoking pot and being stoned...therefore poof! no insurance coverage. now landlod broke, insurer need not pay, insurer lawyers goes home and somehow sleeps soundly on his gold lined feather bed. the world sucks doesn't it?
now try to imagine how landlords lenders, and insurers all deal with this BEFORE that fire happens ...can you not see that they have all decided fuck, we better take steps to specifically ban pot? btw pls. realize the "poit's legal!" view fails to consider oh the history of the states rights approach to federalism issues and our history in about 1860 to 1866 ... this notion that somehow state law creates this fuzzy never never land area of legality even when that said area is still illegal under federal law. it's a stoned and silly view.
you're on the side jeff davis took. do you realize that dude? see any problems there? no? you must have great weed.
More...
if you need mj for medical reasons, yes, you'd have a GREAT argument under state law that the landlord can't stop you. because in that case you fall under the discrimination exception to general freedom of contract in this area; the landlord can't discriminate against you based on disability and must accommodate you. that said, you still are at risk because it is still illegal under federal law and i couldn't advise you without say ten hours of research, no ez answer. . again, think of it this way. the landlord has a big old building worth say $3 million. he has a insurance policy that says likely he must take reasonable steps to ban illegal acts. if he doesn't try to ban pot explicitly he risks one day finding himself in court against an evil insurance company lawyer who will argue thelandlord let there be pot smoking...didn't ban it....there was a fire ....the $3 million building is destroyed... they pay some expert whore $40K to testify aha! the fire was caused by someone smoking pot and being stoned...therefore poof! no insurance coverage. now landlod broke, insurer need not pay, insurer lawyers goes home and somehow sleeps soundly on his gold lined feather bed. the world sucks doesn't it?
now try to imagine how landlords lenders, and insurers all deal with this BEFORE that fire happens ...can you not see that they have all decided fuck, we better take steps to specifically ban pot? btw pls. realize the "poit's legal!" view fails to consider oh the history of the states rights approach to federalism issues and our history in about 1860 to 1866 ... this notion that somehow state law creates this fuzzy never never land area of legality even when that said area is still illegal under federal law. it's a stoned and silly view.
you're on the side jeff davis took. do you realize that dude? see any problems there? no? you must have great weed.
51
I don't think 10 hours of research would help you out very much, because that's completely unlitigated at this point. Nope, you'd just need to wait the five years, spend about $60-$70,000 (including appeals) on attorneys' fees, and see what happens. No guarantees.
52
@36, 42, 50 (I think) YES, yes, yes
It is illegal at the federal level.
Propery owners and property management companies have to cover their fat asses. Any federal rent subsidies could cease. Kiss those Section 8 rent checks goodby! Any HUD rehab loans? Not anymore.
Of course the anti pot amendments are virtually unenforceable (unless they are coupled with anti smoking provisions), but they have to have that signed piece of paper on hand for the next Section 8 inspection or whatever federal bureaucracy they are involved with.
It is illegal at the federal level.
Propery owners and property management companies have to cover their fat asses. Any federal rent subsidies could cease. Kiss those Section 8 rent checks goodby! Any HUD rehab loans? Not anymore.
Of course the anti pot amendments are virtually unenforceable (unless they are coupled with anti smoking provisions), but they have to have that signed piece of paper on hand for the next Section 8 inspection or whatever federal bureaucracy they are involved with.
53
Is a lawsuit coming? Who knows or cares? If the people living there have been using dope then they will continue just as discretely as they have done before. If the people living there have not been using dope then they will continue not to use it.
The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
If the lease agreement already prohibits illegal drug use and if marijuana use continues to be illegal (federally), then it is already prohibited by the lease and no change in the lease agreement is necessary to prohibit it.
If the lease agreement does not already prohibit illegal drug use (or other illegal activity) then it seems odd to single out this specific activity, but it still doesn't matter since it is completely unenforceable. As has been noted, people can consume weed any number of ways other than smoking it and that consumption would be undetectable.
The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
If the lease agreement already prohibits illegal drug use and if marijuana use continues to be illegal (federally), then it is already prohibited by the lease and no change in the lease agreement is necessary to prohibit it.
If the lease agreement does not already prohibit illegal drug use (or other illegal activity) then it seems odd to single out this specific activity, but it still doesn't matter since it is completely unenforceable. As has been noted, people can consume weed any number of ways other than smoking it and that consumption would be undetectable.
55
@50 Nice condescension you've got there but I'm not a stoner and neither are the many other lawyers who advocate just exactly the statewide approach to challenging federal law. Also, I thought lawyers were smart, but then you start using argument by association (re: "whoa, you sound like a confederate!"). Forget logic 101 as well?
56
A ban on pot in apartments...how quaint.
I've been smelling meth fumes for the last 3 years down in Kent East and no one seems to know what to be able to do about it. And the place is packed with families with kids.
Guess that is Washington State Libs for you...whine and cry about taxes for the poor, but forget about them and spend it all on infrastructure for billionerds.
I've been smelling meth fumes for the last 3 years down in Kent East and no one seems to know what to be able to do about it. And the place is packed with families with kids.
Guess that is Washington State Libs for you...whine and cry about taxes for the poor, but forget about them and spend it all on infrastructure for billionerds.
57
An owner of a property can refuse to rent to anyone who isn't a member of a protected class, and the owner can stipulate in the lease that a particular activity cannot be engaged in in the unit. No one has an inherent civil right to rent a property. But no, they can't change a lease once it's signed by both parties. In a month-to-month deal, though, the owner can say "From now on, you can't do such-and-such in the property" and if the tenant doesn't agree, the owner can give the tenant notice.
59
@56: METH fumes? tell me again how the suburbs are the future...
@46: you'll only smell weed once or twice on an average day, so i doubt it will kill you.
@46: you'll only smell weed once or twice on an average day, so i doubt it will kill you.
60
Landlords can "ban" whatever the fuck they want by putting it in the lease.
If the lease says "tenant not allowed to use cough syrup" and the tenant signs that lease, then guess what? The tenant can't fucking use cough syrup without violating the terms of the lease.
@40, Have you ever heard of a contract before? A lease is a contract. The lease writer can write any fucking "laws" they want into the lease. Don't like it? Then don't sign it. But if a tenant signs it, THEN THEY HAVE SIGNED A CONTRACT AND MUST ABIDE BY IT.
How is this hard for people to understand?
If the lease says "tenant not allowed to use cough syrup" and the tenant signs that lease, then guess what? The tenant can't fucking use cough syrup without violating the terms of the lease.
@40, Have you ever heard of a contract before? A lease is a contract. The lease writer can write any fucking "laws" they want into the lease. Don't like it? Then don't sign it. But if a tenant signs it, THEN THEY HAVE SIGNED A CONTRACT AND MUST ABIDE BY IT.
How is this hard for people to understand?
61
@59
Is there some word for a person who chooses to ignore the main subject of a statement, and somehow focus on what, in the case at hand, is its most trivial aspect, and then take a pot shot at the author. For example, for any sane or right-minded person, they would focus on children inhaling meth fumes. But no. Not in this case (and not in many cases when it comes to Democrat controlled blogs such as this). In each and every instance some tangential point is made.
It's like the case where say a Republican rushes into a theater, which is actually on fire, and shouts "Fire" and then the Democrat says "oh, but weren't you the one that cut revenue for those new firefighter foam hose nozzles (the ones that my dad's factory makes, by the way)". It really borders into a kind of psychopathy, to read this idiocy night and day. My only hope is that someone, somewhere sifts through this dreck and sends out the butterfly nets for you people.
Is there some word for a person who chooses to ignore the main subject of a statement, and somehow focus on what, in the case at hand, is its most trivial aspect, and then take a pot shot at the author. For example, for any sane or right-minded person, they would focus on children inhaling meth fumes. But no. Not in this case (and not in many cases when it comes to Democrat controlled blogs such as this). In each and every instance some tangential point is made.
It's like the case where say a Republican rushes into a theater, which is actually on fire, and shouts "Fire" and then the Democrat says "oh, but weren't you the one that cut revenue for those new firefighter foam hose nozzles (the ones that my dad's factory makes, by the way)". It really borders into a kind of psychopathy, to read this idiocy night and day. My only hope is that someone, somewhere sifts through this dreck and sends out the butterfly nets for you people.
62
Lease terms to do have to be "reasonable" to be enforceable. Evicting someone for taking cough syrup, whether it is banned in the lease or not, is not likely to be taken seriously by a judge. Banning marijuana use in a lease may be considered reasonable, but I wonder how the court would weigh the need for medical marijuana against such a lease.
63
@62,
Agreed. The courts decide, and pointless or questionable lease violations will often be thrown out or at least the penalty will be negligible.
Still, people need to read legal stuff before they sign it, because sometimes even silly things will be enforced by judges simply because the person was dumb enough to sign it.
Agreed. The courts decide, and pointless or questionable lease violations will often be thrown out or at least the penalty will be negligible.
Still, people need to read legal stuff before they sign it, because sometimes even silly things will be enforced by judges simply because the person was dumb enough to sign it.
65
@ 61: "It really borders into a kind of psychopathy, to read this idiocy night and day. "
61 comments into the thread, so you read all preceding 60 comments, amiright? So what was that about psychopathy?
61 comments into the thread, so you read all preceding 60 comments, amiright? So what was that about psychopathy?
66
#61, the "progressives" of the Slog are nutcases, but we keep them in check with things like I-1185 and Republican control of the state senate.
68
One of my favorite parts about Slog is when Bailo whines about being a victim because meanies mock him over the internet.
Comments (68) RSS