3 ms·

This sounds like a great way to get murdered.

by hendzen 8y ago

whyonearth 8y ago
Or sued.
- gattilorenz 8y ago
  On what legal basis?
  - whyonearth 8y ago
    I don't think there's much precedent, it's a complex emerging legal question: https://www.wweek.com/cannabis/2016/10/04/why-hemp-and-marijuana-farmers-had-a-messy-breakup-and-what-happens-now/ https://www.wweek.com/cannabis/2016/10/04/why-hemp-and-marij...
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Monsanto!
  - throwaway98434 8y ago
    Trespass to chattels. This is an intentional tort: The stated goal is to impair the property of the neighbor.
i_am_nomad 8y ago
If that's true, then that sounds like a great reason to ban cannabis cultivation.
- beat 8y ago
  Fortunately, it isn't true.
beat 8y ago
These are ordinary legal businesses. They don't murder people, any more than liquor store owners shoot at each other. Not resorting to extra-legal means to settle business disputes is one of the big advantages of decriminalization.
- hendzen 8y ago
  They aren't ordinary legal businesses. It is a fact that they are still illegal under federal law, regardless of whether you or I agree with that. If you have ever spent any time in Humboldt County, you would know that if you don't enjoy being shot at, you should stay away from marijuana grow operations.
  - beat 8y ago
    The federal government is mostly irrelevant here. If they started busting state-level-legal grow operations in a more than symbolic manner, they'd find themselves in uncomfortable conflict with state governments. And with states decriminalizing at a rapid pace, the problem gets even bigger. Eventually, the federal government will throw in the towel. As for Humboldt County grow operations... see what I wrote earlier about the benefits of decriminalization. There's no reason for legal businesses to shoot at anyone. They're supposed to call the cops when they need someone shot, and they do. Shooting trespassers at rural grow operations is an anachronism from the days when that was their only recourse to defend their business.

This sounds like a great way to get murdered.

whyonearth 8y ago

Or sued.

gattilorenz 8y ago
On what legal basis?
- whyonearth 8y ago
  I don't think there's much precedent, it's a complex emerging legal question: https://www.wweek.com/cannabis/2016/10/04/why-hemp-and-marijuana-farmers-had-a-messy-breakup-and-what-happens-now/ https://www.wweek.com/cannabis/2016/10/04/why-hemp-and-marij...
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Monsanto!
- throwaway98434 8y ago
  Trespass to chattels. This is an intentional tort: The stated goal is to impair the property of the neighbor.

i_am_nomad 8y ago

If that's true, then that sounds like a great reason to ban cannabis cultivation.

beat 8y ago
Fortunately, it isn't true.

beat 8y ago

These are ordinary legal businesses. They don't murder people, any more than liquor store owners shoot at each other. Not resorting to extra-legal means to settle business disputes is one of the big advantages of decriminalization.

hendzen 8y ago
They aren't ordinary legal businesses. It is a fact that they are still illegal under federal law, regardless of whether you or I agree with that. If you have ever spent any time in Humboldt County, you would know that if you don't enjoy being shot at, you should stay away from marijuana grow operations.
- beat 8y ago
  The federal government is mostly irrelevant here. If they started busting state-level-legal grow operations in a more than symbolic manner, they'd find themselves in uncomfortable conflict with state governments. And with states decriminalizing at a rapid pace, the problem gets even bigger. Eventually, the federal government will throw in the towel. As for Humboldt County grow operations... see what I wrote earlier about the benefits of decriminalization. There's no reason for legal businesses to shoot at anyone. They're supposed to call the cops when they need someone shot, and they do. Shooting trespassers at rural grow operations is an anachronism from the days when that was their only recourse to defend their business.