Change we can believe in

/kidding 
//Well, kinda kidding

crush the weak, smash the sick down and make them pay for needing help! it's what Jesus would have wanted.

Tell her to use her non-existent arm functions to grab hold of her unnecessary bootstraps so she can pull herself up.

Something tells me that the word "chronic" was chosen for the irony.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in response to medical marijuana laws passed in 15 states since 1996, did issue a memorandum in January 2011 saying that while it was still the federal policy not to permit the use of marijuana, medical or otherwise, whether local housing authorities decided to evict someone on the basis of marijuana use was at their discretion. Public housing authorities and owners of houses leased to housing voucher recipients, the memo says, "have the discretion to evict, or refrain from evicting, a current tenant who the PHA or owner determines is illegally using a controlled substance. ... Thus, while PHAs and owners may elect to terminate occupancy based on illegal drug use, they are not required to evict current tenants for such use."

Seems to me like that's a pass, except:

"Our rules don't require the housing authority to terminate assistance, but our rules do provide that the housing authority needs to have a policy that provides for what to do in those sorts of situations," Rodriquez says. Unfortunately for people like Weber, the Longmont Housing Authority settled on a zero-tolerance policy.

It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

they see her rolling, they hatin'

Wow, the "friend" she was riding with sounds like a piece of work. Hope he's currently getting a regular ass pounding in prison.

Evil. Pure evil.

That's because it is illegal.  Why the fuss?

Enjoy your pending Federal Obamacare, proles.

WTF is going on here. When did it become time to fark with all the helpless people.

fark the Feds.

fusillade762: Wow, the "friend" she was riding with sounds like a piece of work. Hope he's currently getting a regular ass pounding in prison.

This. Why don't we talk more about this shiatdick.

fusillade762: Wow, the "friend" she was riding with sounds like a piece of work. Hope he's currently getting a regular ass pounding in prison.

I'm assuming not or they probably would have mentioned him being jailed.

Personally I hope he died of gangrene of the penis.

upndn: WTF is going on here. When did it become time to fark with all the helpless people.

Unlike politicians, they are always in season.

It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

The job-creating private sector is striving to give this woman comfort and safety.

Jack-booted government bureaucrats are blindfolding her for the death-panel firing squad.

/ According to FOX

lenfromak: Evil. Pure evil.

The writing is more horrible than the subject matter.

It's time to amend the Controlled Substances Act

That's because it is illegal. Why the fuss?

Fark accepts all, even bootlickers.

I thought Lord Black was going to legalize weed and provide healthcare for everyone. This is the opposite of that!

How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

Woohoo! Freedom!

One fine day, hopefully in my lifetime, the great American ban on cannabis will be lifted. I wonder what the history book will say was the cause of it.

DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

Where's the hero tag for somebody finally upholding the law, subby? Won't somebody think of the bureaucrats?

where's the husband, did I miss that in the article. And the child support from husband.

redTiburon: Enjoy your pending Federal Obamacare, proles.

This had been a HUD regulation long, long before Obama. In fact, in 2002, the US Supreme Court held in HUD v. Rucker that any drug related activity by the tenant or their guest, whether the tenant knew or not their guest had drugs, is subject to an eviction under the HUD regulation. The court specifically said that there is no innocent tenant defense. HUD argued in favor of that strict interpretation and the court agreed. Unanimously. In 2002. HUD is a cabinet position under the executive branch.

Damn, who in the hell was president in 2002?

Lsherm: "Our rules don't require the housing authority to terminate assistance, but our rules do provide that the housing authority needs to have a policy that provides for what to do in those sorts of situations," Rodriquez says. Unfortunately for people like Weber, the Longmont Housing Authority settled on a zero-tolerance policy.

It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

Zero tolerance policies are great when you don't trust anyone to apply reason or logic to a situation or in cases where you suspect they may not actually have those capacities in the first place. Unfortunately the one and only absolute guarantee zero tolerance policies provide is that they will eventually make you look like a total dickbag.

Other than allowing for the employment of dimwits and making yourself look bad, they aren't good for much else.

TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

I support the government enforcing laws as they are written therefore giving credence to those laws. If a law results in an unintended circumstance that corcumstance then provides force to rewrite or change that law. This is an unfortunate incident but as a practice I prefer laws to be executed equally to all citizens within jurisdiction of said law. It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

And I'm hearing Jebus has a hand in this too.

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority

Yes, that is true. However, HUD could very easily carve out an exception in their regulation that precludes eviction for tenants who have a valid medical marijuana prescription. For some reason, they don't.

I'd empty her colostomy bag.

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

Yeah, technically, but no. They made it clear their funding is HUD and they are superboned if HUD finds out they are assisting a known druggie. They are right to be worried and anal about this, they could lose funding for hundreds of people if they're found in violation.

The problem is not the locals following the rules, it is not even HUD, it is the leadership in the federal government, who knows that smoking a few joints is not that bad and yet refuses to stop the bullshiat.

We'll have to reschedule.

It wouldn't surprise me to see private landlords forbid MJ use because it's against federal law.

No, it's not an ADA case; it's not about your disability, it's about the legality of your treatment choice. Asking a landlord to permit illegal activity is not a reasonable accommodation.

DubtodaIll: TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

I support the government enforcing laws as they are written therefore giving credence to those laws. If a law results in an unintended circumstance that corcumstance then provides force to rewrite or change that law. This is an unfortunate incident but as a practice I prefer laws to be executed equally to all citizens within jurisdiction of said law. It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.

Oh, you're a lawyer! Good job being part of the problem dude.

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

Why let facts get in the way of bashing Obamacare and marijuana laws?

ShannonKW: One fine day, hopefully in my lifetime, the great American ban on cannabis will be lifted. I wonder what the history book will say was the cause of it.

Old white people and corporate interests.

But I repeat myself.

Pray 4 Mojo: I'd empty her colostomy bag.

I'd fill it...

Bacontastesgood: Yeah, technically, but no. They made it clear their funding is HUD and they are superboned if HUD finds out they are assisting a known druggie. They are right to be worried and anal about this, they could lose funding for hundreds of people if they're found in violation.

On top of that, they have reason to be concerned about subjecting their agency to a civil rights suit if they forgo evictions on some and not others. The minute you start treating some people differently, someone is going to say it is for illegal reasons--whether or not the claim has merit. The regulation really needs to be overhauled.

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

facepalm.jpg

the_chief: We'll have to reschedule.

Then all the lives lost in the drug war would be in vain!

TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

I support the government enforcing laws as they are written therefore giving credence to those laws. If a law results in an unintended circumstance that corcumstance then provides force to rewrite or change that law. This is an unfortunate incident but as a practice I prefer laws to be executed equally to all citizens within jurisdiction of said law. It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.

Oh, you're a lawyer! Good job being part of the problem dude.

Problem?

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Pray 4 Mojo: I'd empty her colostomy bag.

I'd fill it...

Just don't go CBTM.

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

.
Just what the fark do you think her local housing authority is?

The Green Intern: It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.
It's actually not the federal government, it's her local housing authority.

Let me tell you how this works.

If you ignore it, or even try to regulate it on a local level, the Federal government can charge YOU, the local government official under the drug laws because you are engaging in an enterprise 'handling' drugs.

So of course, it is the local jurisdiction doing this, because if they didn't, well it would be a real shame if anything happened to your funding.

TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: TheJoe03: DubtodaIll: How dare the government enforce the law regardless of circumstance!

You support this?

I support the government enforcing laws as they are written therefore giving credence to those laws. If a law results in an unintended circumstance that corcumstance then provides force to rewrite or change that law. This is an unfortunate incident but as a practice I prefer laws to be executed equally to all citizens within jurisdiction of said law. It is inefficient and unjust to allow the a law to apply to some and not others.

Oh, you're a lawyer! Good job being part of the problem dude.

So you're seriously suggesting that laws should only apply to some of the people, some of the time and only in certain situations? How does that make any sense at all to you?

Not that this line of discussion makes any sense at all in the context of this article, but hey, whatever. I like tangents.

And then we wonder why we have people shooting up places...

WhyteRaven74: And then we wonder why we have people shooting up places...

This is about weed, not heroin