Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Drug War at Home


Sounds like their assholes. If they were smart they would be super nice to absolutely everybody so everybody would not be tempted to turn them in to the cops.

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.

Posted by Jake of | July 24, 2007 10:34 AM

Call them out to the cops for harrassing and threatening their neighbors. Since when was chasing a kid down the street while holding a butcher knife and hurling racial slurs at neighbors totally acceptable? Seems like you're leaning towards getting them on a technicality because you lack the guts to get them for the more specific, legitimate reasons.

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

Posted by Gomez | July 24, 2007 10:37 AM

"...and last week they chased a child of eleven down the alley shirtless with a butcher knife for teasing their cat."

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?

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 24, 2007 10:37 AM

Jesus, is it homophone confusion day today?

there = not here
their = belonging to them
they're = they are

Posted by Ben | July 24, 2007 10:37 AM

You know Dan, this is the first time I aggree with you.

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.

Posted by ecce homo | July 24, 2007 10:39 AM

I am with Gomez. Call the cops with a noise complant the next time they keep you up at night, or with harassment next time they harass a neighbor. Keep it up until they stop being assholes or get busted. Either way problem solved and you didnt narc.

Posted by Rachel | July 24, 2007 10:39 AM

See, she can call the cops on them for so much else, particularly the chasing the child down the block with a butcher knife. Threatening children with knives is illegal. Additionally, she can go to King County's parcel viewer and find out if they're the actual owners. If so, call the County and get them for building code violations. If not, contact the landlord and let them know what's happening at their house so they can be evicted. If their TV is too damn loud, call the cops for noise violations. You can harass them endlessly and make their lives hell, and if you and all your neighbors are persistent, they'll eventually leave.

Posted by Gitai | July 24, 2007 10:39 AM

Yep, totally a false choice. There are more than two options here.

Posted by longball | July 24, 2007 10:44 AM

Like so many others have said, nail the bastards for what they're doing that you, and your community, don't support. The harassment of neighbors, the late night noise, the old toilet in the yard, and the big one... chasing a child with a butcher knife. Those things are all illegal too.

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

Posted by Phelix | July 24, 2007 10:44 AM

Yes, kick them out! They sound crazy, the pot thing isn't the issue, and it sounds like they are bringing the trouble on themselves.

Posted by kick them out | July 24, 2007 10:46 AM

There are so many issues in that letter besides the pot growing - notably that really this person wants the place next door for his/her sister - that I'm actually not sure that I believe everything the writer says. I think the writer may be rationalizing a call to the cops on the pot growing, in order to get a preferable neighbor. Very undestandable, but not what the writer purports the issue to be.

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.

Posted by genevieve | July 24, 2007 10:46 AM

Whatever you get them for (there are about a dozen options here)... just get em. You shouldn't have to put up with that. And if they didn't want to get busted, they should have learned how to socialize as decent human beings. Assholes don't garner good will in any situation.

Posted by lymerae | July 24, 2007 10:49 AM

Fuck them. I'm all for weed & weed growers but if they had two brain cells they'd realize you have to be extremely low-key and courteous to your neighbors to not get busted. Call the cops already.

Posted by JessB | July 24, 2007 10:49 AM

On the other hand, the cops are more likely to respond forcefully for a pot bust than for a general nuisance.

Posted by MHD | July 24, 2007 10:50 AM

This isn't a war on drugs issue, it's a war on assholes issue. Call the cops, suffering in silence is bullshit. Yes, they threatened children..but how are you going to prove that after the fact? Getting them on housing code violations? Harrassing them endlessly with minor complaints? Seems like a waste of time. Go for the pot tip, police will love that and it'll for sure get them dealt with. Growing bud doens't mean you get to be a dick and be excused for it. I love pot, but if this was next door to me...fuck that shit.

Posted by Sally Struthers Lawnchair | July 24, 2007 10:50 AM

Call the cops because of the violence, not the weed. If the cops smell the weed growing, so be it. But try to swipe some plants before you turn them in...and grab some for me too.

Posted by elswinger | July 24, 2007 10:55 AM

Look, if it is wrong, on principle, to turn people in to the cops for growing weed, then it's wrong whether or not said growers are assholes.

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.

Posted by ol'jb | July 24, 2007 10:56 AM

Oh sweet Jesus... I didn't think it was possible, but I find myself agreeing with ecce homo.

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

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | July 24, 2007 11:08 AM

Once again, if weed were legal we could get it at Starbucks and there would be no need to interact with thug dealers or listen to your dealers demo tape while getting him high on your dime.

Posted by elswinger | July 24, 2007 11:09 AM

I agree with all the people who said the violence is the problem, not the green activities.

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

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

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 24, 2007 11:10 AM

God knows I love pot, but why is it that all the growers I've met are cut from the same cloth as NATDW's neighbors? I've changed dealers twice because their source growers were incredibly skeezy people--and right now I don't even know exactly where the pot I buy comes from, which isn't great either.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | July 24, 2007 11:13 AM

As others above have elequently stated:

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...

Posted by Endless War | July 24, 2007 11:17 AM

Fuck it.
Use the law for your own purposes.
Who cares if you're a hypocrite? It solves your problem.

Posted by Justinius | July 24, 2007 11:28 AM

doesn't say anywhere that they live in king county, folks.

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.

Posted by scary tyler moore | July 24, 2007 11:28 AM

cops have more important things to do. deal with them yourself, pal.

Posted by get some guts | July 24, 2007 11:34 AM

I voted to call the cops, but not necessarily for the pot. Calling about the pot will certainly result in much quicker action by the police, and they are ultimately breaking the law (no matter how ridiculous) by growing and are monumentally retarded by not keeping a low profile. But you have to face the fact that if you call them on growing, you become part of the problem.

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.

Posted by Tony | July 24, 2007 11:36 AM

Burn their house down and inhale deeply.

Posted by elswinger | July 24, 2007 11:38 AM

Not sure if all the information is not overly dramatized. Chasing a child down while waving a knife? Not too sure I buy it. Otherwise, the slur hurling, lawn neglecting, pot smoking, chicken-fried steak-frying neighbors should be left to bask in their blissful smoky shithouse.

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.

Posted by Miss Stereo | July 24, 2007 11:41 AM

Who the fuck watches a half-naked adult chase an 11-year-old down an alley with a butcher knife and doesn't immediately call 911?

Posted by Darcy | July 24, 2007 11:41 AM

Moral grounds? Was the letter written by a pot smoker or at least an anti-prohibitionist? I can’t tell, but I it looks like "yes".

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.

Posted by Phenics | July 24, 2007 11:43 AM

I guess I think NATDW is full of shit. "Dan, I cringe when I see them with their shirts off smoking cigarettes and yelling." Wow, send them to jail.

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.

Posted by Evan | July 24, 2007 11:55 AM

ITA with jb @17 and Evan @ 31

Posted by genevieve | July 24, 2007 11:59 AM

@25, Get real. Calling a woman a pussy because she doesn't want to physically fight 2 large men is kinda retarded. What are a lady's options in this situation? That ain't one of 'em. She could threaten them with physical violence, to which they could call her bluff and, oh, I don't know, Kill her. Or she could take them the only way that guarantees she won't get injured herself: Sneak up on 'em and shoot 'em. But then she goes to prison or gets hanged for murder. Arson (27) is maybe slightly more reasonable, but she could burn down her own home in the process, and still faces the possibility of getting found out and busted. Most criminals are passably OK at committing crimes; Average law-abiding people suck at it.
No, her only options involve the cops. Although I do agree with other people here implying this letter sounds like exaggerated horseshit from a passive-aggressive loser who wants to self-justify doing something shitty. In which case, well, the outcome is going to suck no matter what.

Posted by christopher | July 24, 2007 12:08 PM

Simple answer.

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.

Posted by Ask Me Anything | July 24, 2007 12:13 PM

I wonder what would happen if his sister just walked up to the front door and made an offer on the house?

Posted by margaret | July 24, 2007 12:15 PM

Smart idea from 35. I'd say it has maybe a 15% chance of working, but it's not a bad starting place because it's low-risk.

Posted by christopher | July 24, 2007 12:19 PM

I'd call a housing inspector, not the cops. There are laws against having a derelict property.

Posted by yo | July 24, 2007 12:25 PM

I agree with the majority of people on here, call them for other things; the cops are likely to smell the pot of their own accord if it smells as bad as the letter says it does.

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.

Posted by Dianna | July 24, 2007 12:33 PM

I'm totally against anti-pot laws but, regardless, it is against the law. If your going to grow pot in your home then you should, atleast, be cool to your neighbors. These guys sound like total jack asses. Maybe an anonomous letter to these jerks might make them see the light (though I doubt it). Maybe complaining to the city about the condition of their house/yard and their crazy behavior. Don't rat them out about their pot growing. Rat them out for being filthy assholes. Regardless of their pot growing. Treat them like you would any obnoxious neighbors.

Posted by Dan | July 24, 2007 12:37 PM

I voted suffer in silence for the weed cuz I love weed and too many growers are getting popped.
Actually sounds like they will prolly get busted soon anyway.
But. . . that biz of chasing an 11 yr old with a knife would have been a good damn good reason to call the cops.

Posted by scooby-doo | July 24, 2007 12:51 PM

It seems we mostly all agree that NATDW should call the cops. This idea I keep seeing of "call the cops for something else, and if they smell weed at the door so be it," though, that's just chickenshit rationalization.

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.

Posted by lostboy | July 24, 2007 1:03 PM

The poll is a false division, there are many more options between "narc" and "nothing".

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.

Posted by treacle | July 24, 2007 1:16 PM

I'd like to reiterate that calling the cops is not without risks. If these neighbors get busted for growing, they are going to be in a lot of shit. It will basically disrupt all aspects of their lives, and they probably won't feel like they have much left to lose. They sound unpredictable and unstable enough to begin with, so if they have any reason to think that the writer is responsible (or that some other unfortunate 3rd party is responsible), things could get really ugly. This isn't something to deal with flippantly.

Posted by ol'jb | July 24, 2007 1:19 PM

Leave a note on their door that says "I know you grow weed here. You are acting very badly and are pissing off your neighbors. Keep it on the downlow, treat your neighborhood with respect, clean your shit up and act proper or your ass is getting busted."

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.

Posted by NaFun | July 24, 2007 1:24 PM

I tend to agree with both Evan @31 and NaFun @44. Either of those solutions is probably ethical. NaFun's is certainly more humane. No one should face our current drug laws as a result of being trashy neighbors, and having these people busted for their cannabis gardening would be horribly selfish.

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.

Posted by Phil M | July 24, 2007 1:33 PM

41. I think you're projecting, lostboy. If anything, calling the cops about the pot, which isn't really the big problem NATDW has with them, to get them evicted is chickenshit rationalization.

Posted by Gomez | July 24, 2007 2:29 PM

I've never been able to tolerate drug ABUSE, even fat hairy pot-growing, pot-smoking hetero males, are not on my list of must-keep neighbors. Endangering kids' lives, is definitely where I would draw the line. Call the police, get them out. I've had to do it several times in the course of my life, not because I am a nosey bitch, but because, those living conditions were intolerable, especially because it affected the lives of my own kids, or the kids in the neighborhood. Nothing wrong with protecting kids, right? Nothing wrong for wanting peace in the neighborhoods in which we live.

Posted by Susan | July 24, 2007 3:16 PM

Has it occured to anyone on this thread that this is the actual reason we have drug laws?

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.

Posted by David Wright | July 24, 2007 3:43 PM

The virtue of selfishness? Do the means justify the ends, or the ends the means? This is hysterical.

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.

Posted by Tank | July 24, 2007 4:03 PM

Gomez @46, you're assertion might be an argument against calling the cops at all, but that's not the question I was talking about.

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.

Posted by lostboy | July 24, 2007 5:06 PM

None of this is to say that NATDW is not clearly a person with issues. Besides points already made by others, who would want their sister to move in to a "falling apart" house that sounds like a major clean-up and restoration project? O.o?

Posted by lostboy | July 24, 2007 5:12 PM

If you really are against the war on pot, you can't call the cops on them for anything less than you would other neighbours. It would be like knowing that your neighbour was a homo back in the bad old days, and calling the gestapo to come and get them if they pissed you off.
If you believe that growing pot is fine, you can't dangle your knowledge of their growing over their heads like some guillotine waiting to drop should they cross you.
If their non-growing activities cause you to fear for yourself or your community, yes call the cops.

Posted by ams | July 24, 2007 6:12 PM

Na Fun (@44) is completely right. An additional bonus is the psychological torture (anxiety of getting busted) you are able to inflict on them, and thus get revenge.

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.

Posted by kevin | July 24, 2007 8:05 PM

I wish folks, male and female, would take on learning to deal with conflicts, with grace is nice.. kudos to 44, and others who called for human, not police action. If we don's want police state, then figure out a human way to deal w/ conflict

Posted by acuteally | July 24, 2007 8:28 PM

I wrote:

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.

Posted by Phil M | July 24, 2007 9:02 PM

I'm with 44 and 54.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | July 24, 2007 9:04 PM

I guess I'm the only one who thinks the little brat got a nice good scare for fucking with someone's pet.

Posted by stupid kids | July 24, 2007 9:37 PM

if they are the owner, NADW could call a real estate agent, and start the process of selling their home. It is interesting what a real estate agent will do to maximize their potential profit, so let them call the fire department et cetera. Then once the nuisance has been abated, decide to not sell the house, or sell the home once its value skyrockets after the nastiness is removed.

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.

Posted by r | July 24, 2007 9:37 PM

Phil M @55 responded to my criticism by writing (in part):

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...
[emphasis mine]

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.

Posted by lostboy | July 24, 2007 9:44 PM

I voted call the cops because I do not believe in suffering in silence.........
they are noisy, lousy neighbours and they ran after a child with a knife! (the child probably deserved it.....)
if you talk to them (always should be the first thing to do) and it does not work, then, as a last resource use the cops -which are more vile than straight pot growers with knifes......... police should be a last resource, it's usually bad news, specially in the US where they can go and shoot someone, and it will be your fault because you called the cops and the stupid cops freaked out when they saw your shirtless straight neighbour and shot the neighbour to a pulp... no neighbour, no problem, and your sister can move to the house where the idiot pot grower was killed.

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!!!!

Posted by girl in spain | July 25, 2007 1:56 AM

I'm wondering about the knife thing, too. Either the writer of the question is a chickenshit immoral little turd who won't call the police when a child is threatened, or the incident is being played up by him/her to make their cause sound a little less petty. Like, say, hairy pothead stepped out their kitchen door with a kitchen knife and yelled at the kid as opposed to actual chasing, or was doing it to make the kid drop the cat.

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.

Posted by Kerlyssa | July 25, 2007 7:46 AM

How about a third option?


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.

Posted by Third Eye | July 25, 2007 8:36 AM

These people are bad for the neighborhood for reasons entirely incidental to their drug use. If they didn't grow weed, would you have hesitated for a microsecond to turn them in for being a menace to children and for keeping an unsightly property? Don't confuse the issue.

Posted by Paul | July 25, 2007 9:09 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).