Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Sunday Morning News

Posted by on Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Gun Accidentally Discharges at Kitsap Mall: I feel like every - single - time I look at the Kitsap Sun I see a headline to this effect. What is it about the safety lock concept Kitsapians aren't getting?

Scientists Try to Predict Earthquakes: Turns out rats are better at it.

Obama Looking to Lose Every Confirmation Battle: Reuters reports that Obama looks likely to nominate Republican Chuck Hagel, in a move that may anger Ds and Rs alike.

Mercer Island Apartment Building Forcing Tenants to Sign No-Pot Agreement: I sense a lawsuit.

Bigfoot Burglar Arrested in Monroe: According to the Everett Daily Herald, a man suspected of burglary was arrested, in large part due to his giant feet and the Canadian coins jangling in his pockets.

I'll Have a Double Soy McSteamy, Please: After winning the bid for Tully's, Patrick Dempsey's company Global Baristas LLC tweeted, "We met the green monster, looked her in the eye, and...SHE BLINKED! We got it! Thank you Seattle!" But actually a bankruptcy court will rule who wins the bid.

Millionaires Reach Agreement With Other Millionaires, Everyone Decides to Get Paid a Slightly Different Allocation of Millions: That's my understanding of the tentative deal the NHL made with the players union.

It's Game Day: You can watch the highly anticipated wildcard game Seattle vs. the other Washington at 1:30 PT. They say the Redskins' strategy will involve hitting our quarterback a lot. Also apparently you're supposed to tweet something.

 

Comments (57) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
biju 1
Good morning!
Posted by biju on January 6, 2013 at 9:07 AM · Report this
2
From the Mercer Island pot thing:
According to the agreement, the ownership can take legal action if the agreement is not signed.


Clearly an iron-clad legal tactic.
Posted by doceb on January 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM · Report this
Gern Blanston 3
Go Hawks!!!
Posted by Gern Blanston on January 6, 2013 at 9:13 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 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.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 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.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on January 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 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.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 6, 2013 at 9:27 AM · Report this
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!
Posted by SuperSteve on January 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM · Report this
imbecile 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?
Posted by imbecile on January 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM · Report this
rob! 9
You've been doing a great job on the Morning News, Chelsea.

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...

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.
No comment.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 6, 2013 at 9:36 AM · Report this
internet_jen 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?
Posted by internet_jen on January 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM · Report this
NotSean 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.

Posted by NotSean on January 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM · Report this
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).
Posted by westello on January 6, 2013 at 10:04 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 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!
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 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.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 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.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM · Report this
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.
Posted by Guest Author on January 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 18
why can't kitsap gun owners stop making kitsap gun owners look bad?
Posted by Max Solomon on January 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM · Report this
MacCrocodile 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.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on January 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM · Report this
emor 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.
Posted by emor on January 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM · Report this
MrBaker 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.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on January 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM · Report this
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.
Posted by Linda J on January 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM · Report this
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.
Posted by WestSeven on January 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 27
@17,
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.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 28
@20 - I was referencing Cascadian Bacon, and his knowledge of all things FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

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…
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 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.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM · Report this
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.
Posted by d.p. on January 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM · Report this
Bauhaus I 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?
Posted by Bauhaus I on January 6, 2013 at 12:05 PM · Report this
Eastpike 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).
Posted by Eastpike on January 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 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.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 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.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM · Report this
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?????
Posted by sgt_doom on January 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 38
@36: Precisely.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 6, 2013 at 12:51 PM · Report this
NotSean 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.
Posted by NotSean on January 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM · Report this
JonnoN 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.
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on January 6, 2013 at 1:05 PM · Report this
dirac 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?
Posted by dirac on January 6, 2013 at 1:09 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 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.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 6, 2013 at 1:09 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 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.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on January 6, 2013 at 1:13 PM · Report this
Griffin 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.
Posted by Griffin on January 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 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.
Posted by Bauhaus I on January 6, 2013 at 1:56 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 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.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 6, 2013 at 2:06 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 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.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM · Report this
imbecile 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.
Posted by imbecile on January 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM · Report this
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.
Posted by Charlie Mas on January 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM · Report this
imbecile 54
@40 "pets can damage the property" is absolutely correct. The rest of your comment is dense.
Posted by imbecile on January 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM · Report this
dirac 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?
Posted by dirac on January 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM · Report this
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.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on January 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM · Report this
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.
Posted by sarah70 on January 6, 2013 at 6:41 PM · Report this
NotSean 58
@54 ...Oh. Actually, agreed.
Posted by NotSean on January 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 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.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 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?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 6, 2013 at 7:35 PM · Report this
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.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on January 6, 2013 at 8:46 PM · Report this
fletc3her 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.
Posted by fletc3her on January 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 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.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM · Report this
NotSean 64
@60 Mostly agreed. Mostly, @40 is high. That guy should pay more attention.
Posted by NotSean on January 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM · Report this
imbecile 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?
Posted by imbecile on January 6, 2013 at 9:33 PM · Report this
Lissa 67
@66: But who controls the "dolphins"?
Posted by Lissa on January 7, 2013 at 8:20 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 68
One of my favorite parts about Slog is when Bailo whines about being a victim because meanies mock him over the internet.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on January 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy