Marijuana

Two More Lawsuits Aim to Reverse Marijuana Legalization in Colorado

Property owners sue cannabusinesses under RICO.

|

tripadvisor.com

Michael and Hope Reilly own "105 acres of beautiful rolling pasture" in Rye, Colorado, with "sweeping mountain vistas that include views of Pike's Peak." The Reillys, who do not live on the property but "often visit on weekends with their children to ride horses, hike, and visit with friends," worry that their view will be "marred" by a marijuana cultivation facility that Rocky Mountain Organic plans to open on a neighboring parcel. So today the Reillys joined the anti-pot Safe Streets Alliance in filing a federal lawsuit that seeks to stop Colorado from licensing and regulating marijuana businesses.

In addition to an injunction rescinding Colorado's marijuana licenses and ordering it not to issue any more, the Reillys are seeking triple damages (plus attorneys' fees) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. They are asking for damages not only from Rocky Mountain Organic and its owners but also from the company's insurer, its landlords, and the contractors who are building the cultivation facility and piping water to it. Under RICO, those defendants are joint and severally liable for any damages the Reillys can prove. The lawsuit also names Gov. John Hickenlooper, Department of Revenue Executive Director Barbara Brohl, and Louis Koski, who runs the department's Marijuana Enforcement Division. Hickenlooper et al. are accused, along with the Pueblo County Commission and the Pueblo County Liquor and Marijuana Licensing Board, of facilitating a racketeering conspiracy by licensing and regulating Rocky Mountain Organic.

All this over a spoiled view? Well, not quite. The Reillys say their aesthetic injury is compounded by "the building's purpose," since "they are reminded of the racketeering enterprise next door every time they look to the west." They also anticipate that the new business will bring "undesirable visitors," heavier traffic, increased criminal activity, and "pungent, foul odors," all of which will depress the value of their property, as will general knowledge of what their new neighbors are doing inside that building.

Another RICO lawsuit filed today by the Safe Streets Alliance likewise hinges on the assumption that the mere proximity of marijuana businesses is injurious because people do not like them. Adam and Slawek Pietraszek, brothers who own the Holiday Inn in Frisco, Colorado, argue that Summit Marijuana, a store that will be located "less than 75 yards" from their hotel, is already hurting their business by deterring high school ski teams from booking rooms. And because "many people perceive recreational marijuana businesses as unseemly establishments that are only found in dangerous neighborhoods," the Pietraszeks anticipate further difficulty in attracting guests. At a Frisco Town Council meeting last month, Adam Pietraszek also complained that the pot shop would sully the Holiday Inn brand.

Under RICO, neither the Reillys nor the Pietraszeks can prevail unless they can show that their property or business was "injured…by reason of" a racketeering violation (in this case, production and distribution of marijuana). As University of Denver law professor Sam Kamin told The Denver Post, "Displeasure is not good enough." Yet that is pretty much all the Reillys have suffered, and the nuisances they anticipate are both speculative and unrelated to marijuana's status under federal law. On the face of it, the Pietraszeks have a stronger case, although their losses are largely speculative and arguably unrelated to "racketeering" per se. If an adult book store had opened near their hotel, for example, they might have had the same complaint, even though such businesses do not violate federal law.

The Reillys' lawsuit names state and local officials as defendants because the marijuana cultivation facility that offends them would not be opening without government approval. More generally, the plaintiffs argue that Colorado officials are "purporting to authorize violations of the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]." Hence their request for an injunction that would nullify Colorado's marijuana regulations, based on the Supremacy Clause, which makes valid acts of Congress "the supreme law of the land."

The Reilly lawsuit, like the case that Oklahoma and Nebraska are pursuing against Colorado, does not target marijuana legalization per se. Instead the plaintiffs object to what they see as Colorado's involvement in promoting the cannabis industry by licensing and regulating it. They argue that issuing marijuana licenses directly conflicts with the CSA and undermines its goal of suppressing cannabis commerce. But they do not argue that Colorado is obligated to recriminalize the production, possession, and distribution of marijuana, because well-established principles of federalism say otherwise. The implication is that the Safe Streets Alliance and its co-plaintiffs prefer legalization without conditions to the restrictions that Colorado has decided to impose, which is not a position you'd expect anti-pot activists to endorse. As Kamin observes, getting rid of the licensing system "leaves them in a much worse place than under the status quo."

[I have revised this post to clarify that only one of the lawsuits names state and local officials as defendants, that the plaintiffs are not seeking RICO damages from those officials, and that their injunction request is based on the Supremacy Clause.]

NEXT: If ISIS Isn't Islamic, Were Crusaders Christian?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nebraska and Oklahoma are also suing Colorado on the theory that legalization violates the Supremacy Clause, a suit that will more likely succeed that RICO.

    1. If only Sullum had mentioned that suit. Say, in the last paragraph of his post.

      1. You’re a funny guy, expecting me to read articles and stuff.

    2. Where’d you get the “more likely to succeed” idea from?

      1. Because the injuries that the plaintiffs in the civil RICO suits are claiming are weak and the courts have frowned on using RICO as a damages-enhancer, which is what the Riellys appear to be doing.

        Framing the argument against legalization as a violation of the Supremacy Clause via the Controlled Substances Act is a safer roll of the dice and one that would be easier to sell to TEAM RED/BLUE (States threatening to take power from FedGov? Fuck outta here with that!)

    3. I also heard that a couple that owns 102 acres of land is suing under RICO.

    4. Neither seems all that likely to succeed, though. I think it is pretty well established that the supremacy clause can’t be used to make a state pass specific laws or enforce federal laws. The fact that the state regulates and apparently condones the industry complicates things a bit, but even then it seems like the most they could do would be to demand that the state stop regulating and taxing it. They can’t make states arrest people for it. I hope.

      1. In theory, the feds could force the states to pass and enforce state criminal laws against marijuana. Just attach the mandate to 5% of federal highway grants (like they do with minimum age drinking laws) or something.

        Though SCOTUS seems to have started frowning on that practice with the Medicaid expansion…

        1. Yeah, there is always that approach, which has plenty of precedent. But that has to happen by act of congress, not some idiotic lawsuit. And it isn’t technically, exactly forcing them, though the effect is about the same as we can see with 21 drinking age.

          1. SCOTUS hasn’t called it forcing; they defined forcing as not “only” 5%….though that’s apparently sufficient to get every state to change their laws.

  2. The implication is that the Safe Streets Alliance and its co-plaintiffs prefer legalization without conditions to the restrictions that Colorado has decided to impose

    If only.

  3. Uh. What? This is publicity-seeking idiocy that should be thrown out of court and the defendants awarded fees. The business owners should then sue the plaintiffs for malicious prosecution.

    As the article pointed out, using RICO in a civil lawsuit is incredibly difficult and federal courts generally frown upon the practice. There needs to be actual reasonably-foreseeable damages proximately caused by the defendants’ unlawful actions. The plaintiffs simply cannot meet that standard.

    1. Kinda like many medical malpractice lawsuits: fling, then check to see what sticks.

      1. At least there’s an actual INJURY in (most) med-mal cases. Whether there’s actually malpractice is another matter…

  4. As Kamin observes, getting rid of the licensing system “leaves them in a much worse place than under the status quo.”

    That would be fucking hilarious. Legalization without the regulation and taxes. Shouldn’t we be cheering on this stupid, idiotic lawsuit?

    1. Since it’s harming business owners only trying to comply with the law, no.

    2. If that were a likely outcome, yes. I very much doubt that would happen. Though it seems to have sort of happened that way in DC.

  5. Yo, fuck these people suing.

    Almanian out

  6. They also anticipate that the new business will bring “…pungent, foul odors a sweet, lovely, fruity dank smell, with hints of pine and citrus “

    Fixed that for them.

  7. [Lights the Bo Signal]

    Where’s that pedantic little shit when we need him?

    1. If I didn’t exist you’d have to invent me.

      1. You do exist. That’s the sad part. There’s somebody in the universe that wakes up as you everyday.

        1. Your mom seems thankful.

          Or maybe more like grateful.

          1. Mom jokes don’t really work when you’re a virgin.

            1. Haha, of course. I don’t have to go by ‘playa’ to compensate for anything my friend

            2. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
              AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              Holy shit, what a fucking moron. Jesus Christ, that was funny.

              1. Oh look who else is here. Obsess much Warty?

              2. Bo Knows Spanish!

                Oh, wait…

                1. Shhhhhhhhh, just, enjoy it.

              3. Warty, I expected better of you. I think that, in lieu of laughter or insults, urging treatment in the private sector could go a long way. He’ll be better off and you’ll feel better about helping a fellow human.

                More info.

                1. Poes law in action here.

            3. Playa, what does playa mean in spanish again?

              1. Playa means beach. A beach where I fuck women because I’m not a virgin.

                1. Women made of sand count?

                  1. No, not for you. Inflatable doll, or better..

                    1. You’re far too kind, for a PATHOGEN.

                    2. Hey! He’s on a college budget! Inflatable sock!

            4. I always thought that Pl?ya meant beach.

          2. Now it thinks we’re conservative.

        2. How can a virgin make “I banged your mom jokes”?

          1. I see dumb conservatives think alike

          2. It’s not really a joke if the speaker doesn’t get it.

            1. Very true, Mad Scientist.

    2. I really, really wish people would stop picking on him. It’s a condition, he can’t really help it. If we, in a spirit of caring, just urge him to seek treatment, he may be able to lead a more normal life.

      This should help you be a more understanding person.

      1. OCD, another sign

      2. You are a better human being than I, Old Man.

        Wait – you are a human being, are you not?

      3. He had an out earlier. Eddie said some awful, vile things today and was ready to be the lightning rod. Really awful things, BTW.

        All Bo had to do was not be an asshole. But nope.

        1. I’m betting your take on whatever happened with Eddie is more your projection than anything else.

          1. He wants to make no-fault divorce and second marriages illegal.

            Is that my projection?

            1. NUH UH YOU ARE

              1. It’s amazing. Dozens of people telling him to quit being an asshole, and it’s all a conspiracy. He may as well be my mother in law.

                1. Never mind. My mother in law isn’t a virgin. Quite the opposite, in fact.

                2. Gee, I go on a political discussion board and disagree with a group of people and the same people I regularly disagree with say I’m a jerk. Well, Lordy, of course the only logical explanation is I’m a jerk.

                  I mean, if our charming Playa or Warty went on HuffPo or heck BHL and said the things you say here I’m sure they’d just get polite disagreement.

                  You can’t really be this insular (then recalls the guy is talking about meet ups on this political discussion board)…,

                  1. For the hundredth time, I can’t think of an idea of yours that I disagree with.

                    READ IT AGAIN.

                    For the hundredth time, I can’t think of an idea of yours that I disagree with.

                    I can’t stand that you are an asshole. You have a pathological need to feel like the smartest guy in the room. You’re not. You’re not in the top 90%. Deal with it. Don’t force your personality deficiencies on the rest of us here.

                    1. Come on, playa, I can actually recall when you started in on me, when you got so upset that I said that I had no more trust in the Israeli government’s accounts than I do the PA or Hamas. You were so upset over this, it was ‘so crazy it must mean you’re being dishonest or trolling or an anti-Semite’ was your rant. Of course, it was my general distrust of any government, but you were upset.

                      I don’t see you as part of the conservative group that gets riled up by my posting, more of the backslapping clique that doesn’t like it when you or one of the group is questioned in your bloviating about something, feeling duty bound (or bound by sentiment? which strikes me as even more sad given we’re talking about a virtual clique).

                  2. I’ve been reading the comments here far longer than I have been commenting. I sometimes found your posts relevant and even interesting sometimes. More times though, I would wonder why and how you could take pedantics to such an extreme. The credentialing thing was just bonkers, however.

            2. Notorious G.K.C.|2.19.15 @ 3:35PM|#|

              SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be. Because marriage and the family precede the government and the government has no business either redefining marriage *or denying it recognition.*

              My objections aren’t confined to SSM laws, but extend also to “no-fault” divorce, the promotion of single motherhood, and legalizing adultery under the name of “remarriage.”

              Oh you were talking about this?

            3. That’s called saying something you disagree with, which as I know given your fragile ego you find to be ‘saying some awful, vile things,’

              1. Said to playa

          2. Notorious G.K.C.|2.19.15 @ 1:05PM|#|

            Suppose you’re *photographing* the wedding – would you take a picture of the happy neo-Nazi couple saluting a picture of Der Fuhrer?

            Would you put your photo on their wedding web site, proudly signed with your signature?

            Notorious G.K.C.|2.19.15 @ 12:50PM|#|

            I mean, if the Aryan Nations compound were celebrating a wedding, in a ceremony where the officiant said, “go bear lots of male children who can go kill Jews and queers,” would you not have a slight pang of conscience about making their cake?

            I dunno, I’m pretty sure making a tacit comparison between a gay wedding and “go kill Jews and queers” is tacky as all get-out and an obnoxious argument tactic, but I don’t think James is projecting much to see it as awful.

            1. Obviously I think those are awful analogies and arguments, but I’ve heard just as bad from others here ‘in the clique’ that get nary a raised eyebrow.

              1. Oh, great, Bo is defending me!

                What further horrors do I have in store?

                1. Come on, I started by saying your arguments and analogues were obviously awful, what more do you want?

                  1. “Come on, I started by saying your arguments and analogues were obviously awful, what more do you want?”

                    I want you to give yourself an enema and thereby reduce yourself to the size of a walnut.

                    1. I want you to give yourself an enema and thereby reduce yourself to the size of a walnut.

                      ZING

                    2. I want you to give yourself an enema and thereby reduce yourself to the size of a walnut.

                      That was good.

                      You still disgust me, but that was good.

                    3. “I want you to give yourself an enema”

                      I always thought there were some weird things going on under all that Catholic repression, but sheesh.

                2. Come on, everyone knows Nicole is the worst.

                  GKC you can’t just take away the crown by snapping your fingers!

                  1. He came very close today.

                3. Warty’s right behind you.

              2. Obviously I think those are awful analogies and arguments, but I’ve heard just as bad from others here ‘in the clique’ that get nary a raised eyebrow.

                I don’t really know how to respond to that without knowing what you mean by ‘in the clique’. There are many commenters who have been coming here for years and in spite of difference of opinion over fairly large issues get along well, and there are certainly loose coalitions of people who agree on constellations of issues more strongly than others do such as your Hit-n-Republicans or Cosmotarians.

                Generally if someone makes a bad argument, SOMEBODY will call them out on it.

                1. jesse, if I were teh geh, I’d suck your cock.

                  no homo.

                  1. You doth protest too loudly, Almanian.

                    1. Playa, you just jealous

                2. There are many commenters who have been coming here for years and in spite of difference of opinion over fairly large issues get along well, and there are certainly loose coalitions of people who agree on constellations of issues more strongly than others do such as your Hit-n-Republicans or Cosmotarians.

                  I mean, we even accept someone like John.

                  [ducks]

                3. Yes, there’s two groups that seem to be so upset by my posts, only one is political. The other is different. Think of the dynamic that goes on at many a bar.

                  At the bar, there will be some groups where the people try to one up themselves in showing how wild n’ crazy they are, and in a political setting that can involve the person making the more crazy, extreme comments. ‘That guy is sick!’ ‘That guy is crazy, he just doesn’t care!’ is the reward they’re looking for. Combining that with some fragile egos and angry frustration can lead to some really nasty reactions and bandwagon circling among these people’s ‘admirers.’

                  I’ll confess I tend to find that kind of thing silly at best, and at times when I see the equivalent here I will say that I think someone’s ‘crazy brave’ comments strike me as simplistic or wrong. It provokes the response I just described.

                  1. Look Bo, while I don’t have an issue with you, I think you’re missing the broad arc of how things ended up the way they are.

                    To toy with your metaphor, when you started commenting here you walked into a biker bar and started belting out some Celine Dion karaoke, when people pointed out that it wasn’t that type of bar you said “well all I do is sing Celine and I’m too busy with lawschool to do anything else”* and continued belting Canadian power ballads.

                    A lot of the static you’ve gotten from what you perceive to the be the in-crowd is because you didn’t really take time to conform to expected social norms, it isn’t because you’re that much of an outsider on the intellectual norms.

                    You’ve compounded this by playing the martyr when people have found it annoying that you were too lazy to format things for ease of the reader and expected them to figure out where a quote stopped and your thoughts began, and from there has been a cycle of martyrdom and increased dislike ever since.

                    *I believe Tonio encouraged you to start using very basic HTML to note when you were quoting someone else and when you were speaking and you said something similar to “I don’t have time to learn HTML I’m in laws school”

            2. jesse,

              My whole *point* with these comparisons was to rebut your (and John’s) contention that you’re not endorsing a ceremony by providing catering services like cakes or photos or whatever.

              My counterexample was…follow me closely…*intended* to be offensive. Yes, I went Godwin to show a clear example of offensiveness. I see that I succeeded even more than I had intended.

              My point was that a reasonable person who objected to my hypothetical ceremonies could legitimately have scruples about helping those ceremonies in *any* way.

              First Amendment disputes routinely get jacked up to questions about Commies, Illinois Nazis, and the like.

              Was I comparing gays to Nazis? The idea hadn’t actually occurred to me.

              But if you find my examples offensive, I can give you an example of a country club holding a ceremony in honor of “100 years of exclusively white members!” That shouldn’t be quite as provocative.

              1. Eddie, I find your examples tacky, not offensive, as I’ve said now twice. This is hardly the first time you’ve used examples that are more heinous than the comparison warrants and I think it’s generally an underhanded way of anchoring something you don’t like “gay marriage” to something nobody likes “Nazis”.

                Alternately you might not actually see a distinction between the offensiveness of neo-Nazis celebrating the murder of Jews and the “offensiveness” of gay wedding, which while would make me very concerned about your moral hierarchy.

                1. Look, like I said, I was trying to make the most offensive comparison, *not* to make gays out to be like nazis, but to illustrate why caterers might rationally object to *any* form of cooperation with the ceremony in question.

                  If that’s offensive, I’ll replace my example with the country-club example above.

                  I wasn’t trying to suggest that gay couples are in any relevant way similar to National Socialists. The latter are enemies of the human race, the former are at worst people with a different political perspective than mine.

                  I think gays are regular people with a particular orientation – what they do with that orientation is a subject of dispute, and, yes, if they bring the question of sexuality into politics, don’t be surprised if people take sides.

                  And I know quite well what many governments (including the National Socialist government post-1934) have done to persecute gays. Our difference is whether failure to recognize SSM, or failure to abolish the difference between SSM and opposite-sex marriage, is a human-rights violation on the same level as the treatment of the late Dr. Turing.

                  1. No, Eddie, I get what you’re saying, but I think you’re not getting my point.

                    If I say someone is lame, we understand that I am insulting that person because this thing “lameness” is bad and that the person I’m insulting is bad. Gay, dumb or whatever the insult one uses, it requires the tacit acceptance that A is bad, and I’m calling you A so you are bad like A. It reinforces both the badness of A and the badness of the object of the insult. While you are maintaining that you aren’t intending to be offensive, whenever gays or gay marriage come up you reach for nuclear option comparisons. By comparing A to B, you are effectively linking them by points of comparison.

                    1. Let me take a look at my rhetoric to see how nuclear it is. If need be, I’ll scale it down. I don’t want my points to be obscured by rhetorical exaggeration.

                      I still hold the (apparently offensive) view that marriage and family are institutions which pre-exist the state, and which the state must recognize but has no authority to redefine. Thus I would oppose redefining or “deregulating” marriage even if the idea were to be proposed on Planet Libertopia, with no risk of hurting private businesses.

                      As an additional view, I believe that on planet Earth, as opposed to Planet Libertopia, the movement to redefine marriage is intimately linked with the movement to tell private parties how to organize their businesses, until they are forced to accept a New Order.

                      But I don’t think it *started* with gay people. Gay people are just trying to get in on the Sexual Revolution which was *started by straights* and which brought such results as “no fault” divorce, subsidized single-motherhood, and on and on.

                    2. But to return to my early analogy, if you’re for the freedom of private business to define marriage in their own way, you’re a Girondin – the Jacobins will show you no mercy and will conflate you with…well, with people like me.

                    3. Gay people are just trying to get in on the Sexual Revolution

                      I find your belief that gays are trying to “get in on” the Sexual Revolution by marrying, settling down in the burbs and having kids kind of bizarre.

                      I’m also not sure what you mean by marriage and family predating the state. Heterosexual monogamous marriage on the German barbarian pattern certainly predates English common law, and I suppose you could say the first marriage (Adam and Eve) was heterosexual and monogamous, but it’s also a fairly limited example since there were only those two people available (unless of course you count Lilith).

                      Marriage itself has taken many forms over human history. And laws have changed to reflect those forms.

                      Thus I would oppose redefining or “deregulating” marriage even if the idea were to be proposed on Planet Libertopia, with no risk of hurting private businesses.

                      Here I disagree with you on basic pragmatism. Marriage exists in an awkward limbo that is both the state and the church. A …divorce… of the secular and sacred institutions of marriage would be benefit the church more than anything else.

                      Other than that I appreciate this rephrasing of your points and do understand where you’re coming from even if we won’t agree on this issue.

    3. Is that really necessary? There are plenty of tools available to help you ignore people who annoy you. Or at least wait for him to be a pedantic little shit before attacking him for it.

      1. They can’t help it Zeb.

        Some people treat this site as a conservative support group and some like a big Cheers like hang out spot where they can backslap and out bloviate one another. Both types can’t brook someone breaking that up. Look how upset they get?

        1. The thing is, you are fighting with some folks who are pretty damn far from conservative in any sense I understand it. There certainly are some conservatives and even some pretty Team Red types who post here. But these aren’t them.

          You should do what you want, I guess, but I’d like to suggest being less of a pain in the ass.

          1. That’s why I mentioned the two groups, not just the consevatives.

            As to my being a pain, I realize ‘they started it ‘ is less than impressive, but look at the time stamps on this thread and the exchanges, I don’t see how I’m somehow the one being a pain.

            1. Sometime you have to know when to walk away.

              Don’t be this guy: http://xkcd.com/386/

              1. Zeb FTW 🙂

              2. Fair enough I guess.

  8. What, you expected anti-drug crusaders to MAKE SENSE?!?!

  9. Here’s a bio of the guy in charge of Safe Streets. Long time GOP lawyer and Reagan era drug warrior. Haven’t seen an establishment resume like this since Ted Cruz.

      1. From the Safe Streets site:

        “The U.S. Constitution makes federal law “the supreme law of the land,” thus giving the federal government the power to continue to enforce federal drug laws even when a state’s laws say something to the contrary. But in 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it would not enforce the federal marijuana laws in states that purported to legalize the drug. A multi-billion dollar commercial marijuana industry sprung up almost overnight in Colorado and elsewhere. After five years of federal non-enforcement, the inevitable result has been easy youth access to marijuana, the deterioration of neighborhoods where the marijuana industry openly operates, and the rise of the drug culture everywhere…. Safe Streets is asking the federal courts to do what the Executive Branch should have asked them to do all along: uphold the rule of law and close down the illegal marijuana industry.”

        http://www.safestreetsalliance…..co-lawsuit

        1. You know who else complained about states refusing to enforce Federal law?

      2. He has such a punchable face.

    1. You wouldn’t think a guy like that would be caught dead stroking a Kennedy dick, would you?

      1. But would he be caught stroking a Dead Kennedys dick?

    2. yawn. do a better job of trolling

      1. Yawn? Did your moms cries of joy keep you up again? Sorry bro.

      2. I wonder if it has even seen a real set of tits before.

        1. It’s never seen an accent mark before, that’s for sure. Holy fucking shit, I’m still laughing my ass off here. What an incredibly pig-ignorant little pissant.

          1. I thought virgins with degrees were usually familiar with another language? With all the time on its hands, I figure Spanish would’ve been one.

            1. It’s one thing to be a monoglot. But to not even have the most passing familiarity with orthography? Incredible.

              1. How much ya squat?

                1. Statistically, about 1 in 10 trips to the bathroom..

          2. I think it was Tarran who said yesterday that he’s incapable of understanding what he reads. How many times has my handle been discussed in the last 6 months? 2 dozen maybe? And he still doesn’t get it? It might be more than Asperberger’s.

            1. I don’t think about you nearly as much as you return the favor playa.

          3. Well, playa doesn’t have an accent mark. And Spanish doesn’t use that kind of accent mark.

            Still, while I’m usually OK with Bo, he is being kind of a dink at the moment. So, carry on, I guess.

            1. It doesn’t indeed. But Playa needed to add some kind of (incorrect) accent mark to make sure people wouldn’t think he was the kind of cunt who would call himself a playa’. Didn’t work.

              1. The biggest problem with that plan was that “playa” as in “player” has the accent on the first syllable too. Though I suppose the accent does make it more foreign looking. I thought it was “player” until I remembered that there is a place called Manhattan Beach and noticed that he lives there or near there.

                1. I dunno. I always read it as Manhattan Beach. He used to get people thinking he lives in New York, and he doesn’t seem to anymore, so the accent seems to have done the trick. Well, not always.

              2. So you admit it’s something he thought likely, and when his incorrect accent mark didn’t dispel that foreseeable event it’s just so funny?

                But yeah, it’s me that’s the pedant

        2. According to Warry I must be a virgin because I’m in college.

          Again, I don’t want to know what college he went to to make that connection.

          1. Warty* lolololol

            /pedantBo

            1. Yes Los, your having an orgasm from an accent mark and I’m the pedant here.
              Group think clique in action, made sadder by the fact that it’s a virtual group.

            2. Pedantry is only bad when you do it. When Bo does it, he’s enlightening you with his superior intell…..

              Oh, damn, couldn’t do it with a straight face. Sorry.

              1. Was it trying to say “You’re* having an orgasm from an accent mark..” or “Your having of an orgasm from an accent mark is*…”

                We may never know.

                1. I suppose an accent mark is at least something other than your hand. So, you’re already doing better than Bo.

                2. The double down from Doyers

              2. Did you not get my comment was about his double standards or did you think yours is a logical response to that? Either way, wow.

          2. Hey Warty, do you think Bo is a virgin because he’s in college, or because he’s an annoying little fuck-weasle that no woman would have?

            I forget which one you said.

            1. Hm, let me try to remember…oh, yes, the latter. Insufferability + stubbornness + a barely-concealed sadistic streak that he’s unfortunately not very good at acting on + being 12 years old = likely virgin. You can’t argue with math.

            2. http://youtu.be/YvY8vzsTE98

              It’s in Spanish, though. It might not understand it.

            3. He literally said ‘you’re in college? So you’re a virgin?!’

              Maybe he just spent too much time at the school gym doing donkey calf raises with Episarch to do what most people do in college?

              1. Children with Asperger’s syndrome may:

                Be unable to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others’ speech. So your child may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally. And his or her speech may be flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent.

                1. Frankie wants a cracker?

                2. I wonder how many people would need to tell him he’s an asshole before he’d stop attempting to lay the blame at the feet of others?

                  Ya think there is a number that could penetrate his denial?

                  1. The best predictor of future performance is past performance, so…unlikely.

                  2. If everyone he’s ever talked to up ’til now haven’t gotten through, it could be a while yet.

                  3. Francis. I’ve only ever heard that on political sites where people disagree with me or when I break up some cliques backslapping.

                    If you went on HuffPo for a while they’d be giving you the same treatment you’re giving me pretty quick.

                    Warty started this full court press on me after I made fun of his post listing his ‘personal best.’ He was stung, fragile ego, which might explain why he would have so much invested in an anonymous national discussion board as a social outlet.

                    1. Perhaps, this full court press resulted from people finally having enough of your abrasive mannerisms.

                      But that couldn’t be it, could it Bo?

                    2. Nah. We just can’t appreciate his genius. Nobody can.

                    3. I like how you didn’t even address my point.

                      Francis, you’re a case in point. You’ve got a very, very nasty temper. I’ve seen you, whether it’s me, John, or anyone, if they disagree with you on something you think is important you are quick to curse and insult them. And then what really raises your ire is when they don’t back down. You accuse them of having to prove how smart or right they are without ever thinking that it might be you that’s doing that.

                      If you’re not the loudmouth at the bar whose trying to impress those around him by doubling down on how brave, extreme and absolutely certain he is, I’d be quite surprised.

                    4. Bo, can you name two people here that value your presence here?

                    5. Do Jesus and Moroni count?

  10. I’m back from cleaning the fridge and that usually puts me in a very cynical mood.

    Two More Lawsuits Aim to Reverse Marijuana Legalization in Colorado

    FAIL!

    Just go kill yourselves now, drug warriors. You’ve lost. I’m serious, go jump off a bridge, stand in the middle of a major interstate, jump into the lion den at the zoo. However you want to do it, just do it, kill yourselves now. Clean the gene pool. It’s over, luddites.

    1. You don’t just casually say something like that! What was in your fridge?!?

      1. I’m with Playa here.. the fridge.. what about the fridge??

        1. I’ll help him out here. It starts with:
          “My curvy Brazilian wife was cooking in nothing but an apron….”

          1. It required a biohazard sticker.

    2. What’s in the box??? I mean, fridge???

  11. Bravo! (Or should that be barfo?)

    If this is the best the moral ninnies can muster, then the game is truly over. I second Hyperion – time for those who can’t handle this world to leave it.

  12. I live in Colorado, and this will be promptly dismissed. Anyone who lives in or has been to Golden, CO knows the whole town smells like malt o meal and the brewery is a monstrosity of a building overlooming the town. Im sure this bothers some puritans, or recovering alcoholics, why dont they sue? And anyone who has been to Ft COllins can say the same about Budweiser, or why cant neighboring towns sue Greeley for smelling like cow manure?
    /theres always someone

    1. Jesus, man, don’t give them any ideas!

  13. My best hope is that this case could give the courts an opportunity to strike down RICO, or at least parts of it. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s much chance of that happening.

  14. Can I sue the IRS under RICO because they take money from the cannabusinesses in the form of taxes? It’s super illegal but don’t forget the tax man, MAN!

  15. Maybe a RICO specialist can educate me…I thought the U.S. Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote no less (even Ginsberg was in the majority), rejected the use of RICO suits in political controversies:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02…..-case.html

    1. Wow, Ted Olson argued for the clinics in that case???

  16. Notice how Obama’s chicken shit strategy does nothing but create ambiguity in the status of the CSA and leads to more conflict. The laws are still on the books so OK & NE feel justified and may have a legal case in going after CO. A real political leader would have mustered a coalition to end sections of CSA pertaining to marijuana rather than just saying his justice department won’t enforce them–what a cop out, and a destructive cop out, too. At the beginning of his 1st term, he likely would gotten these changes to the CSA through the US legislature.

    Pretty chicken shit, this guy Obama. Guess we knew that, though.

    1. Can you give us a little warning before you ignite the PBP signal, please?

    2. You have to love how to one side Obama is hopelessly derelict in enforcing the law and fostering legalization and the spread of drug friendly culture while on the other side Obama is the worst thing to happen for drug tights Evah !

      1. “Drug tights”? I honestly am not sure what that is supposed to be. “Rights”?

        I just think Obama is a giant, hypocritical asshole who jokes about his youthful good times smoking weed and snorting coke, but will laugh at the very idea that maybe we shouldn’t be locking people up and murdering them for doing the exact same things he did.

        1. Rights.

          Obama’s no bastion of liberty, and his motivations are likely terrible, but his relative inaction here had given this movement a real chance at a foothold in legitimacy

          1. I’ll agree that his relative inactivity on this issue has been a good thing.

            1. I’d say it has allowed a good thing, one of the more significant things for liberty in a while, to happen. It could be as big as Heller.

    3. ughhh. You sound like the wackos on Red State. I for one will give credit where it’s due and say this is one area where he’s done alright*

      *acknowledging that the bar is pathetically low here

    4. Obama was to busy pissing away the dem super-majority, and political capital on forcing a shitty healthcare insurance money giveaway that nobody wanted.. down our throats, to be bothered with fulfilling campaign promises..

  17. The “natural allies of libertarianism”. Let’s give them a hand, folks!

    1. Shhh, Stormy, you’ll upset the support group!

    2. Who? Westerners? Republicans? Rednecks? I don’t get who the crappy alleged allies are supposed to be.

      1. I know nothing, nothing!

        Let me tell ya how much I preacher curl! I preacher curl two baptist ministers, southern chubby ones!

        1. Speaking of chubby…

          1. Gyms are scary, Playa. They’re full of large men who might try and steal its lunch money.

      2. The Brits, the French, the US, aaaaand….Belgium.

        The Allies.

        Right?

        1. Oh. Well, fuck them.

    3. Coloradoans? Coloreds?

      Regardless, all of us hate these fucks, don’t worry.

      1. Oh, plus Canuckians, Australians and New Zedlanders as cannon fodder.

        G’day, mate, eh?

  18. Apparently the folks in Frisco didn’t read the story about marijuana tourism…

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/2…..index.html

    1. While Adam and Slawek Pietraszek own a hotel in Frisco (as they do in many other cities in Colorado), they live in Colorado Springs.

      If you know anything about Colorado Spings Republicans, do the math.

      1. Just look at the guy’s bio who is leading the organization handling the suit Stormy. Can’t get more GOP establishment than that guy.

  19. Come on, you guys – release the Botard….back to his crib.

    1. He shouldn’t be criticized so much, if for no other reason than it ruins the thread.

      1. This.

        It feel as if I walked into a virtual family reunion. Everyone’s watching the cousins fight over what someone said at Bob’s wedding, and they’re blocking the dessert table.

  20. Never buy a place for the view unless you can afford to buy the view. Things every 5 year old knows.

  21. OT: Back below zero here in the Great Frozen Lakes State.

    MotherFUCKER, it is cold! February’s acting all January. That first ride on the old moorsickles when it finally warms up (August, maybe?) is gonna be swayt!

    1. Supposed to get to -10 tonight here. If it was a mistake for me to not replace my battery this winter, I’ll find out in the morning.

      1. Yeah – I haven’t tried the old Jeep in a couple weeks. It gets a new Optima in the summer – the old battery then goes in the beater Cherokee.

        Thank God I have company cars for my daily drivers 🙂 Brand new, they always run.

      2. My last winter in Cleveland was 2012 – I rode my Kawasaki to work 5-6 times in both January and February that year! I’d take the winter EVERY year….although it fucked up all the crops that summer.

  22. Rocky Mountain Organic should file to seize Reilly’s property under eminent domain saying they plan on expanding and their industry will bring more revenue to the state than unused acreage.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.