Chasing a child of eleven down the alley shirtless with a butcher knife is not something a mellow pot grower should do if they don't want garner attention to their gardening.

If the cops pay a visit and decide to punish them for growing pot... well, call that incidental.

Why the fuck didn't she call the police then?

"I already know it is okay for me to like and fuck whoever I want as long as there is mutual consent."

Where the fuck did that come from?

Way to tip the typical NIMBY attitude of permissive seattle trotsky-ites on thier ears.

I would hope, if they are at all sane, they would vote to turn the dirtbags in. For all the reasons above, plus bringing down property values and being a general nuisance.

In addition, if these people are so unable to lives by certain social standards, there is reason to think there is other, even more nefarious, behavior going on behind closed doors. The arrest and detention of these people will do our community good.

The idiots shouldn't be doing any of that if they want to run their growing operation, but that just makes them stupid.

If everything in the letter is true, however, I agree that the writer has enough valid reasons to call the cops on the asshole neighbors without bringing up the pot.

That said, I used to live in the apartment above a menacing drug dealer, a white guy who had "THUG LIFE" tattooed across his lower torso. This bastard was always complaining because he could hear me and my roomate walking around on the creaky wooden floors. He would make threatening references to his arsenal whenever he expressed his displeasure about our presence above him. He would also have a steady stream of visitors who I felt very uncomfortable having in the vicinity due to the potential for these druggies to rob me if they didn't have sufficient coin.
The only reason I didn't turn this guy in was because I feared retribution. While I find nothing wrong with growing pot, it's a sad reality that the bulk of drug dealers who deal with strangers as clientele become paranoid, aggressive and unpredictable. (This is one good reason to legalize and regulate the sale of drugs... get rid of menacing drug dealers).
It sounds like the neighbors in this letter are probably a threat to the safety of the letter writer due to the fact that they deal on location, and seem to be loose cannons. NOT because they are fat, hairy, yell and cook chicken-fried steak. Those are absolute bullshit reasons for turning someone in. So the writer should know that while it's ok to turn them in, two things should be clear. First, that there is some risk associated with narc-ing, especially if they dislike the writer to begin with and would have reason to suspect he or she might have done it. Second, that her personal dislike for these people can have no role in the decision to turn them in, or the writer is a disgraceful human being.

And I can't be sure, but I think Satan just hit me with a snowball

Face it, you're really looking for an excuse, a chance to overreact yourself.

It's human, but it's the dark side.

This is fallout from the sham "War on Drugs".

Normal people would behave in normal ways in making and using weed, were this idiotic prohibitionist repression finally ended.

Now that something this benign is criminalized, a lot of people in the business are the reprehensible types that this poor person is dealing with. Almost as bad as having the US Attorney General next door...

i do vote for calling the cops on 'em for scaring the little girl. if said dealers open the door, the fuzz will smell the pot and bust 'em. i hope.

Also, there's some revealing points to your letter. I've lived next to fat, disgusting assholes too, but I've never tried to have any of them evicted. If they really did chase a kid with a butcher knife, you should have called the cops right then and there. Hell, you could have gotten them on code violations a long time ago from the sound of it.

But one thing I don't think you've considered is your sister's safety. Once she moves in, there's still going to be people coming by for weed for some time, and she'll be the one having to send them away.

Anyway, my vote is to call the cops next time there's any other illegal incident and leave it to them to enforce their ridiculous drug laws. But don't call them for anything you wouldn't call a thin, sexy, non-growing neighbor for.

Broken down cars and a commode in the yard? Throw in two fatties in greasy t-shirts and it does not get more American than that.

The neighbors are face value assholes. The moral dilemma is of “Hypocrisy”. If the writer is motivated not to get rid of pot growers, but to get rid of “bad elements” than so be it; growers know all the angles for the risks to "bad elements" in their profession (and society).

Pissing off neighbors is a risk they are taking, by growing pot and for being all around assholes who grow pot. For the writer, it comes down to how/if the call is made… is this person open to the idea of getting reward money for turning them in? In WA that call could mean a $5000 check from law enforcement. If they cashed it, they would be a hypocritical dick/bitch in the pot friendly crowd.

Let's look at the bulk of NATDW's complaints:

1) They often do not wear shirts
2) They eat chicken-fried steak
3) They are fat
4) They are hairy
5) They leave their windows open all night
6) They have a bad yard
7) They do not have expensive cars
8) They do not have a nice house
9) They smoke cigarettes
10) They grow pot
11) They are straight
12) They are not NATDW's sister

In addition to which, there are a few actual complaints:

1) They are apparently racist
2) They threatened a kid who messed with their cat
3) They frequently yell

I guess I think that if these people were a real problem, NATDW would have focused on the racism and the child-threatening more than the cigarettes and the chicken-fried steak and any number of things that are none of NATDW's goddamn business.

Why the fuck did they not call the police when the dude was chasing a child with a knife?

I could never in clear consience rat out my neighbor's grow op for my own devices. I'm just old fashioned like that.

I would however, have no fucking problem running tose assholes stright off the block for abusing children.

Rat 'em out for the chasing-kid-with-knife incident. Problem solved.

But this really drives home the point I've been trying to make to friends. We don't grow, but we do smoke a lot, and I try to keep it out of the view/smell of neighbors, because if they decide they don't like us for something else, then they can call the cops/landlord for weed and we're out of here. A neighbor once called on my next door neighbor for smoking weed (which he never does) because he was being loud with his friends. The neigbor knew the cops wouldn't care about a noise complaint, but man, they came running when he said they had weed.

So I couldn't call about the pot, I'd feel like a hypocrite.

If you can make the judgement that the assholes need police attention, and you know that any call will result in a pot bust, then make the call that will get prompt police action.

It's not as if letting a social boil like this fester will do anything to convince the powers that be that pot growing is benign.

Yes, its morally reprehensible to call on Big Brother to do your dirty work when you are against Big Brother's "drug" "war".

Perhaps leave the Narsty Neighbors an anonymous tip that the cops are on to their operation (a lie), give them time to clean up their plants, then get the State involved on their asses because they are slovely, dangerous people.

Once the plants are gone, reguarly registering complaints for actions such as: violating noise ordinances; chasing children with knives; unsafe habitation; etc., would focus the attention the actual problem. Perhaps even organize with neighbors to start complaining as well, so that all the complaints aren't coming from one person only.

If Narsty Neighbors get busted for pot anyway, that's their own fault, not yours since you tipped them off and didn't call in the Drug Czar's Elite Forces.

Another option would be to organize with some neighbors, go over to the Narsty house as a group, and lay it on the line. Tell the Narsty's that you are well aware that they are growing/dealing and that they are fat slobs (use your own terms here), and that you want them to know how much attention they have attracted to themselves. Don't threaten them with a pot bust, don't even imply it, but make clear that they are walking around with their underwear flapping about in a dangerous way and that you are concerned.

Or, just suffer in silence, they'll probably get fucked up eventually anyway.

It's what I do when I catch the crackheads smoking up in a van parked in the street in front of my house, and it's worked every time.

Let's look at this from a different angle: Suppose the neighbors happened to be homosexual, and NATDW lived in a state where sodomy was illegal. Would it be appropriate to call the police to complain about sodomy -- even though it's illegal and they've been none-too-careful about keeping it on the down-low? Of course not.

Sure, there are a few prissy jerks who are convinced that marajuana is, like, ungodly, and the government needs to step in and save us from sin. But most voting adults have smoked weed and certainly don't have a problem with others smoking it. That is, if the smokers are upstanding corporate-lawyer types. But the fact is that a disproportionately large fraction of the mebers of the ganja community are smelly, jobless, socially disfunctional bums who don't keep their yards clean and attract other unsavory elements to the neighborhood. Drug laws are a convenient lever with which to dislodge them.

This has precious little to do with this person's opinions about the war on drugs. Oh, and a moral dilemma? C'mon. At least you didn't write ethical dilemma. But surely there's no better way to resolve a moral dilemma than with a vote, because if there's one thing we all know, the majority knows best.

This person wants its sister to move in next door. The other reasons may or may not play a more central role in the desire for the current occupants to leave. Does what they do harm this individual beyond mere annoyance? No. In this case, does the pursuit of this individual's self interest prohibit these people from persuing theirs? Yes. Some would conclude from this that this person doesn't have a right to turn these slobs in. If the roles were reversed, would this person like them to do what it's contemplating doing? Probably not, but this last one goes nowhere.

If this person were to turn them in, would its actions entail that it believes that antidrug policies are right? No, but this person does believe that its self interest is more important than the rightness or wrongess of anti-drug policies, and therefore neither supports nor believes either way, but in its own self interest.

Now let's justify it. Self interest neither justifies or entails anyone doing anything from a strictly moral perspective (you need to add something to it--a judgment). So how about utilitarianism? If this person were to follow self interest, get these people removed and processed through the criminal justice system, its interest could be realized. However, it would impact two people worse than it would benefit two others. But property values might increase in the area beenfiting many more than just these two, and the undesirables wouldn't do harm to other residents, either through those they attract, or on their own. And, the potential for such harm would at least decrease with them gone. So go for it.

Phil M @45, you're analogy is flawed. If, like in NATDW's case, the problem with our hypothetical "none-too-careful" sodomizing neighbors is that they are terrorizing the neighborhood and letting their property go derelict, then there is no reason we would want to make a sodomy complaint because our honest and legitimate complaints would bring the police faster.

Your analogy depends on us wanting the neighbors busted specifically for sodomy either because we have no legitimate complaint or because it's the sodomy that really bothers us, but that's the opposite of the situation being discussed here, which is wanting the neighbors busted but not for the pot.

Your analogy draws its force from a sodomy complaint being a discriminatory act--people are born gay--but that strength is another failure point. However much sympathy we may have marijuana users, I don't think anyone even here would argue that it's not an action of choice.

This incident shows why unjust laws can have good consequences. By making something that is widespread and innocuous illegal you give people an incentive to refrain from doing really bad things.

Suppose the neighbors happened to be homosexual, and NATDW lived in a state where sodomy was illegal. Would it be appropriate to call the police to complain about sodomy -- even though it's illegal and they've been none-too-careful about keeping it on the down-low? Of course not.

Lostboy responded:

[Your] analogy is flawed. If, like in NATDW's case, the problem with our hypothetical "none-too-careful" sodomizing neighbors is that they are terrorizing the neighborhood and letting their property go derelict, then there is no reason we would want to make a sodomy complaint because our honest and legitimate complaints would bring the police faster.

Well, no, that depends on the attitudes of the local police. I'm sure there are places where sodomy is illegal and the police would be very excited about the possibility of bustin' a coupla ho-mo-sexuls. But even if I'm mistaken, let's add that and just a little more detail to the setup for my hypothetical situation:

Suppose the neighbors happened to be homosexual, and that NATDW lived in a place where sodomy was illegal, and in a place where folks don't take kindly to faggotry. Let's also assume that in this hypothetical place, the punishment for sodomy is similar to that for growing cannabis in the United States (it's a stretch, I know, but work with me). Would it be appropriate for NATDW to call the police to complain about sodomy knowing that this complaint was likely to result in severe punishment for behavior NATDW generally condones -- since that behavior is illegal and the dumbass neighbors have been none-too-careful about keeping their behavior on the down-low? Of course it wouldn't. The law and resultant punishment would be unjust, NATDW would know it, and NATDW would be an absolute piece of shit to leverage that unjust state of the criminal justice system to achieve his no-overweight-chicken-fried-steak-cooking-toilet-in-the-lawn-having people next door dream world.

Lostboy continued:

Your analogy depends on us wanting the neighbors busted specifically for sodomy either because we have no legitimate complaint or because it's the sodomy that really bothers us.

No, I don't think the people I tried to reach with the analogy wanted NATDW's neighbors busted specifically for growing the forbidden plant 1) because there was no legitimate complaint (most everyone here, including those whom I targeted with the analogy, seems to think there's a legitimate complaint) or 2) because they are really bothered by the growing of the cannabis plant next door to NATDW. I suspect those people just think it's reasonable for NATDW to want the neighbors gone because of all the other problems and that turning the neighbors in for an unrelated but serious-in-the-eyes-of-the-current-law crime would be an efficient route to that removal.

Lostboy continued:

Your analogy draws its force from a sodomy complaint being a discriminatory act--people are born gay--but that strength is another failure point. However much sympathy we may have marijuana users, I don't think anyone even here would argue that it's not an action of choice.

Yes, I agree with all of that. BUT, I didn't intend for the discriminatory nature of the act to be the focus of the comparison. I was pointing out another absolutely bullshit law that results in completely unjust punishment, but one which deals with behavior that has been somewhat "un-demonized". Many people around here can still rationalize turning in their crappy neighbors for being drug dealers (even if the particular drug at issue is just little 'ole mary jane) because growing it is illegal. Fuck that. These neighbors have done something wrong, and NATDW should do something about it. But no one deserves a circa-2007-in-the-United-States drug conviction for growing a cannabis plant any more than anyone deserves any punishment for takin' it in the butt. If they really run around shirtless with knives and have three shitty cars and a toilet in their yard, NATDW should tell that to a judge, not turn them in for something NATDW really doesn't believe is wrong (but is currently dealt with as if it were extremely wrong) for which it will be easier to obtain a conviction.

That said, I've shifted my position to absolute support of the warning tactic advocated by NaFun. NATDW should -- either anonymously or as a group with all his/her neighbors -- let the neighbors know that they need to get their act together or else the next complaint will not be a neighborly "Hey we don't want to land you in prison but we're really fed up with your un-neighborly behavior" notice but a complaint to someone who might end up sniffing around the neighbors' front door.

The interesting thing is that simply by being a neighbor, NADW is at risk of facing retribution whether they are the source of a complaint or not. The assumption will be that they are somehow involved. These neighbors don't exactly seem to attached to things like logic.

That's the fun of living next to people like this, it doesn't matter what you do, if they are busted due to an anonymous complaint that spurs the police to drive by and see the lights and whatnot through the windows, NADW is in danger.

It's not so much an ethical dilemma, because NADW is in a bad situation whether action is taken against the neighbors or not.

No, I don't think the people I tried to reach with the analogy wanted NATDW's neighbors busted specifically for growing the forbidden plant 1) because there was no legitimate complaint (most everyone here, including those whom I targeted with the analogy, seems to think there's a legitimate complaint) or 2) because they are really bothered by the growing of the cannabis plant next door to NATDW. I suspect those people just think it's reasonable for NATDW to want the neighbors gone because of all the other problems...

Yes, that would be my point. The sodomy analogy and the NATDW issue are opposed on these two crucial points, so the analogy is not valid.

oh, btw, and do not call the cops on your neighbours growing pot because you want your sister to move next door. man, grow up!!!!

Assuming that story is true, and the customers are quite skeazy, I don't see a problem with reporting. Just because it's bad law doesn't mean the writer should have to live in fear. Though it sounds more like he/she is living in fear of secondhand cholesterol. Chicken fried steak? Please.

Blackmail.

Cash or Bud plus they clean up their act. Otherwise the man is getting a phone call.

I hate this only two option grind, it's bullshit Dan.