(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   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

01 Jan 2013 10:55 PM   |   19532 clicks   |   Kansas City
Showing 1-50 of 122 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
BarkingUnicorn     
The first rule of Recreational Marijuana Club is...

01 Jan 2013 05:02 PM
maxalt    [TotalFark]  
"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."

01 Jan 2013 05:22 PM
HotWingAgenda    [TotalFark]  
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.

01 Jan 2013 05:55 PM
ZAZ    [TotalFark]  
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.

01 Jan 2013 05:59 PM
ToxicMunkee     

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.

01 Jan 2013 06:22 PM
ZAZ    [TotalFark]  

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.

01 Jan 2013 06:41 PM
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.



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

01 Jan 2013 06:50 PM
maxalt    [TotalFark]  

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

01 Jan 2013 06:55 PM
Amos Quito     

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

01 Jan 2013 07:00 PM
maxalt    [TotalFark]  

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.


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


Finally a breath of fresh air. Money equals power and ALL the government wants is more power. Thanks for the info.

01 Jan 2013 07:07 PM
GAT_00     

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.

01 Jan 2013 07:11 PM
LordOfThePings     
Is Dave there?

01 Jan 2013 07:34 PM
JerkyMeat    [TotalFark]  
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.

01 Jan 2013 07:35 PM
Amos Quito     

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.

01 Jan 2013 07:45 PM
cretinbob     
reading, how does it work?

01 Jan 2013 07:48 PM
BSABSVR     
There's still Club 64.

01 Jan 2013 07:54 PM
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  

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?

01 Jan 2013 08:25 PM
shanrick    [TotalFark]  

LordOfThePings: Is Dave there?


No.

01 Jan 2013 08:26 PM
violentsalvation    [TotalFark]  

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.

01 Jan 2013 08:26 PM
Amos Quito     

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.orgView Full Size

The "RAVE Act". Meet its babydaddy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducin g_Americans%27_Vulnerability_to_ Ec stasy_Act

01 Jan 2013 08:44 PM
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?"

01 Jan 2013 10:23 PM
ShawnDoc     

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.

01 Jan 2013 10:32 PM
Amos Quito     

ShawnDoc: 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.



Aye.

And if you're renting an apartment, and your landlord smells the "craziness", what is (s)he to do?

Risk losing the property to "forfeiture"?

01 Jan 2013 10:47 PM
lantawa    [TotalFark]  
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.

01 Jan 2013 11:02 PM
89 Stick-Up Kid     

GAT_00: 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.


Someone isn't in real estate, I assume? Thanks for the hurr durr.

01 Jan 2013 11:02 PM
phrawgh     
www1.cuny.eduView Full Size

DUDE!

01 Jan 2013 11:03 PM
Thanks for the Meme-ries    [TotalFark]  
i291.photobucket.comView Full Size


OPEN THE F'n GATE!!

/watch out for the semi-conscious Gloria

01 Jan 2013 11:08 PM
Gyrfalcon    [TotalFark]  

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...

01 Jan 2013 11:08 PM
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.

01 Jan 2013 11:09 PM
Phillip Ondiz     
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.

01 Jan 2013 11:12 PM
89 Stick-Up Kid     

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.

01 Jan 2013 11:13 PM
JohnAnnArbor    [TotalFark]  
Dogbert could help them.

dilbert.comView Full Size

01 Jan 2013 11:15 PM
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"

01 Jan 2013 11:16 PM
Amos Quito     

Gyrfalcon: 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...



Those are not misspellings.

They're Herbonics.

01 Jan 2013 11:17 PM
Captain Steroid    [TotalFark]  
DAMN YOU, LANDLORDS!!!
i56.photobucket.comView Full Size

01 Jan 2013 11:17 PM
Hector Remarkable     
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.

01 Jan 2013 11:18 PM
Phillip Ondiz     
I just watched another story about this. I spelled Rob Corry incorectly, and he is the "general council" for the club.

I'm high. Sue me.

01 Jan 2013 11:21 PM
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

01 Jan 2013 11:21 PM
MrHelpful     
Stoners - is there anything they CAN do?

01 Jan 2013 11:22 PM
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?

01 Jan 2013 11:26 PM
Gyrfalcon    [TotalFark]  

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.

01 Jan 2013 11:28 PM
davidphogan     

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.

01 Jan 2013 11:29 PM
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.

01 Jan 2013 11:29 PM
BronyMedic     

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


You just went full retard. Not tropic thunder full retard, but SkinnyHead during election season retard. That takes skill, man.

01 Jan 2013 11:33 PM
Uranus Is Huge!     
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with pot, is a good guy with pot.

01 Jan 2013 11:33 PM
moothemagiccow     

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.

01 Jan 2013 11:34 PM
BronyMedic     

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.

01 Jan 2013 11:34 PM
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.

01 Jan 2013 11:35 PM
moothemagiccow     

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


I really don't. You didn't care about the steady escalation of every airline passenger from innocent citizen to suspected criminal, why should I give a fark about something I never wanted?

01 Jan 2013 11:36 PM
Markoff_Cheney     

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.

01 Jan 2013 11:36 PM
Showing 1-50 of 122 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined