PDA

View Full Version : Innocent victim of War on Drugs


crazytom
Mar 23, 2004, 10:05 PM
Link link. (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/032004/03232004/1305627)

briankonar
Mar 23, 2004, 10:24 PM
well it always helps to actually CLOSE the deal on the house, before you begin investing time and money into it. maybe this guy learned a lesson for the future. My favorite part of the article is how they describe it as high grade BC bud...everyone knows California has the crop!!! :D

(BCsters, typically, are far too "outdoorsy" for my tastes)

crazytom
Mar 23, 2004, 10:38 PM
I have to say that my favorite part is the street value of the drugs. Dividing 13 pounds ($600,000) down to 1/4 ounces gives you $721 per 1/4 ounce!

My second favorite is the house was seized because it MAY HAVE been used for growing/storing/distributing pot....what kind of BS is that?!?!?!

Makosuke
Mar 24, 2004, 04:39 AM
Driving around with 13 pounds of pot in the trunk of a BMW with no sticker is just asking for trouble. I can't say I'm against the legalization of marijuana, but I have trouble feeling sorry for people who gut their houses to grow vast amounts of the stuff--a plant or two in your backyard is one thing, but a large scale completely illegal commercial operation is something else entirely.

Not to mention once you cross the line from "I grow a bit to smoke" to "I have 13 pounds of bud in my trunk to sell", you're a lot more likely to be actively pushing people to use it--same as Tobacco companies on a much smaller and less legal scale.

Then again, I'd like to know where somebody thinks they're going to get $3000 an ounce for pot--I don't even smoke the stuff and I know that's an order of magnitude more than it sells for in the US.

Really got to feel sorry for the guy buying the house--seems like the Government might've given him a bit of heads up beforehand, or maybe not confiscated a cleaned-out house because it "might've" been used for drug production?

Sun Baked
Mar 24, 2004, 04:55 AM
Now this should be an interesting case if the guy decides to pursure the money he lost in the failed home purchase (earnest money + non-recoverable closing costs) -- since the buyer didn't default on the purchase and the seller lost the clear title to the home.

But it sounds like the buyer has pretty much given up on the money, since it'll take forever to recover/release the funds from the DEA and/or govt.

And slapping a lis pendens on the home would probably just irritate the govt, and get him a visit from the long fingered proctologist.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 24, 2004, 07:09 AM
Now this should be an interesting case if the guy decides to pursure the money he lost in the failed home purchase (earnest money + non-recoverable closing costs) -- since the buyer didn't default on the purchase and the seller lost the clear title to the home.

But it sounds like the buyer has pretty much given up on the money, since it'll take forever to recover/release the funds from the DEA and/or govt.

And slapping a lis pendens on the home would probably just irritate the govt, and get him a visit from the long fingered proctologist.

He could take it up with the seller. I think she was obligated to disclose the prior drug raid which led to the seizure. Governments are immune for official actions.

The best thing would have been if the sale had completed as intended except the proceeds go to the state.

crazytom
Mar 24, 2004, 10:25 AM
The house should have never been taken. There was no evidence and no arrests from their prior search of the house: case closed. The house isn't even an asset of the offender.

Put it this way: what if the government came to you and said "Open your wallet!" and then proceeded to pull out $20 bills saying "These were used in prior drug transactions, you can't have them." (This has actually been done (http://www.sumeria.net/politics/forfiet.html) , too.) That's exactly what they're doing to the buyer and seller.

a plant or two in your backyard is one thing, but a large scale completely illegal commercial operation is something else entirely

Not in the government eyes. They'll take it all if a plant or plants are found on your property. It's been done and, even when the owners were found innocent, the law enforcement agency extorted money out of them so they could get their property back.

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 12:57 PM
The house should have never been taken. There was no evidence and no arrests from their prior search of the house: case closed. The house isn't even an asset of the offender.

Put it this way: what if the government came to you and said "Open your wallet!" and then proceeded to pull out $20 bills saying "These were used in prior drug transactions, you can't have them." (This has actually been done (http://www.sumeria.net/politics/forfiet.html) , too.) That's exactly what they're doing to the buyer and seller.



Not in the government eyes. They'll take it all if a plant or plants are found on your property. It's been done and, even when the owners were found innocent, the law enforcement agency extorted money out of them so they could get their property back.


Funny how the government does so much to prosecute such <sarcasm>horrible acts of criminal behavior such as having a particular plant on your property</sarcasm> but does so little to, say, promote child welfare and education, or improve inner city living conditions, or....

Franky, I'm not a big fan of smoking anything. But I couldn't care less what people decide to smoke in private, with the one exception that smoking increases health issues and I end up paying higher premiums as a result (but I'm not sure what to do with that aside from - god forbid - make grass legal and tax it).

It's funny how we demonize things in this country and cause great pain to a lot of people for things that really aren't so bad. Yes, I think drug dealers are typically scum and do terrible things. But that's because they're criminals, not because their product is so terrible - in some cases (of course, you're just plain stupid to do other drugs, but many are pretty harmless). Drug users are, in many cases, just plain people who contribute a lot more than they take.

Funny how alcohol is exempt from all this, isn't it?

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 01:03 PM
I'm not endorsing drug use, and I don't use drugs, but that's mainly because I personally don't care to.

I just think it's wrong to devote such law enforcement effort and cause such pain to innocent or nearly innocent (i.e., not truly "bad" or "harmful" people) for such little return on investment.

I agree that someone who distributes marijuana by the pound is likely a common criminal and likely will be doing other bad things. But...lots of people are adversely affected by drug laws that, as far as I can tell, do no good whatsoever.

I worry that someone could plant weed on my property, call the cops, and cause me to lose my house. I've got a few acres, I don't walk the property (mostly woods) on a daily basis, so it seems like an easy way to get back at someone. Seems like there's no need to prove guilt or criminal behavior - just that something illegal was on your property. Seems wrong to me.

Seems wrong for this guy to lose the house, too.

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 01:04 PM
I'm not endorsing drug use, and I don't use drugs, but that's mainly because I personally don't care to.

I just think it's wrong to devote such law enforcement effort and cause such pain to innocent or nearly innocent (i.e., not truly "bad" or "harmful" people) for such little return on investment.

I agree that someone who distributes marijuana by the pound is likely a common criminal and likely will be doing other bad things. But...lots of people are adversely affected by drug laws that, as far as I can tell, do no good whatsoever.

I worry that someone could plant weed on my property, call the cops, and cause me to lose my house. I've got a few acres, I don't walk the property (mostly woods) on a daily basis, so it seems like an easy way to get back at someone. Seems like there's no need to prove guilt or criminal behavior - just that something illegal was on your property. Seems wrong to me.

Seems wrong for this guy to lose the house, too. Another victim. No winners except the government.

Dippo
Mar 24, 2004, 01:53 PM
Look at the bright side...

If he's lucky, he can buy the house at auction for cheaper than what he would have paid for it :)

g30ffr3y
Mar 24, 2004, 02:31 PM
i wasnt going to post... but i just have to...

i dont smoke weed... i dont care if others do... but that
article is cracked... they are trying to say that 13 pounds of
weed is worth 600,000 ??? on what planet is this???

so im doing a little math...

how about an 1/8 ounce for... say... $50... i say thats about reasonable
for something pretty decent...

50 x 8 = 400 <-- per ounce
400 x 16 = 6400 <-- per pound
6400 x 13 = 83,200 <-- for the whole lot of it... selling it by the friggin 1/8

how the hell do they come up with 600,000 ???
just to put some pot dealer in jail for a long long time
so that our taxes can support his sorry ass... looks to
me that he was supporting himself pretty well on the
outside...

f-that...

briankonar
Mar 24, 2004, 10:01 PM
they are trying to say that 13 pounds of
weed is worth 600,000 ??? on what planet is this???

so im doing a little math...

how about an 1/8 ounce for... say... $50... i say thats about reasonable
for something pretty decent...

50 x 8 = 400 <-- per ounce
400 x 16 = 6400 <-- per pound
6400 x 13 = 83,200 <-- for the whole lot of it... selling it by the friggin 1/8

f-that...

exactly what i'm thinking...and if this guy is such a big dealer...i doubt he'd sell it by the 1/8...he'd have people walking in and out 24 hours a day.