City sues

[Tony]

The first line of the article says they were unlicensed. That tells me they didn't have a license, so they were operating illegally, selling an illegal substance. Maybe they need to drag the landlord into this, as he allowed an unlicensed business to rent a location and open an illegal business.

So, according to the first line saying they were unlicensed, does that mean the City did NOT give them a business license?

Just asking - I have no idea whether or not they did or not.

Oh, and by the way, Southy - the law is pretty black and white. It's either illegal or it's not. If you received a speeding ticket for going 120 on the Coquihalla when the speed limit was 110, and then they raised the limit to 120, you are still guilty of speeding when the limit was 110 and you were going 120, regardless of what the speed limit was the next day. Until it's legal, it's still illegal. I will admit there's lots of grey, but if they were told to close and didn't they used up the grey area. You can't keep offering a do over. Nobody learns from that.

[southy]

The first line of the article says they were unlicensed. That tells me they didn't have a license, so they were operating illegally, selling an illegal substance. Maybe they need to drag the landlord into this, as he allowed an unlicensed business to rent a location and open an illegal business.

So, according to the first line saying they were unlicensed, does that mean the City did NOT give them a business license?

Just asking - I have no idea whether or not they did or not.

Oh, and by the way, Southy - the law is pretty black and white. It's either illegal or it's not. If you received a speeding ticket for going 120 on the Coquihalla when the speed limit was 110, and then they raised the limit to 120, you are still guilty of speeding when the limit was 110 and you were going 120, regardless of what the speed limit was the next day. Until it's legal, it's still illegal. I will admit there's lots of grey, but if they were told to close and didn't they used up the grey area. You can't keep offering a do over. Nobody learns from that.

So the law is pretty black and white aye Tony ... ok. So if its illegal which you say it is then why in the hell did the City of Penticton issue business licenses in the first place. Medical M as Fluffy says - but they knew the reality. So ain't buying it. Yes, it is a very grey area and not so black and white as you like to think. Go back and read the original posts or stories on this issue.

[fluffy]

So, with the original question of this thread in mind, you feel that the City should not be suing Jukka Laurio?

[southy]

So, with the original question of this thread in mind, you feel that the City should not be suing Jukka Laurio?

With that question Fluffy I can only assume you have a response. So let's hear it. And we'll see if we agree

[fluffy]

I'm just wondering if you have an actual stance on the "council sues" development, or is this thread yet another vehicle for council bashing?

[southy]

Yup here I go again taking a shot at those in the big white building on Main. Read this story today:

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#195431

I'm sure someone can put some clarity on this situation for me. So the city has decided to sue this business, The question I have is why?? Sales of marijuana is going to be legalized within a year and JT said today the Lib's have a plan for those charged now that will remove said charges from their record. So why is our city spending valuable time and money (oops think I read they are going after the business owner for legal fees) to proceed with this. I don't get it. There are bigger issues happening and coming our way, yet, city folk find it necessary to bring this issue to light. Wait a sec ... isn't this exactly the same ploy that goof to the south is using. Unbelievable. And yes, you got it right I do not like this mayor, council and the rest of their ilk in upper management. Just my opinion though.

Fluffy I will question this mayor and council at every opportunity until the next election. Don't like it! Deal with it. My question is ... why has the city decided to sue??? I'm asking for clarity because as I sit hear and from what I've read I'm really not seeing it. In my opinion it's nothing more than a power move. "How dare you not abide". The bully stance! We'll show you. Politics 101 Fluffy. The guy is closing his business and moving on ... perhaps it's time for the city to do the same thing.
By the way I'm really curious Fluffy - why are you so pro-mayor and council??? Just a simple question.

[XT225]

The city could have stopped him long ago. There are ways. Shut the power and water off to the building; he would have moved on rather quickly. I think the city should just back off now and let him go on his way; why waste more taxpayer dollars on law suits.

[fluffy]

By the way I'm really curious Fluffy - why are you so pro-mayor and council??? Just a simple question.

Not so much pro-council as anti-whiner. You constantly harangue about every little thing council does to the point where you will take an insignificant little issue and try to turn it into a capital offense. Negativity breeds negativity and this town already has an excess of whiners, people who see the dark side of everything.

My question to you with regard to Mr. Laurio is "Why wouldn't you sue him?" He is a scofflaw engaged in a criminal activity who has been told to stop and ignored the order. What sort of message does letting him walk away send?

[southy]

Nice try Fluffy. Like I said before ... Don't like it - deal with it. I'll be damned if I'm going to let you play judge of what I can or can't say. Of course I mean that in the nicest possible way. Now you go have yourself a nice day!

[fluffy]

Nice try Fluffy. Like I said before ... Don't like it - deal with it. I'll be damned if I'm going to let you play judge of what I can or can't say. Of course I mean that in the nicest possible way. Now you go have yourself a nice day!

Of course you're entitled to say what you like, but bear in mind that constant wailing over nothing does affect your credibility over time. You know, the "never cry wolf" thing? People eventually get tired of listening, and then when there is something worth crying about you have no audience. Just sayin...

[southy]

[fluffy]

So, back to the first topic, why wouldn't you sue Mr. Laurio?

[twobits]

Was there not a lot of legal consultation on the part of the City before granting the dispensaries licenses in the beginning? Let's not forget that the dispensing of medicinal marijauna is not illegal, the issue arose out of the looseness of the system, or lack of a system, to ensure that there was a legitimate medical condition that justified marijuana use. Did they not reconsider that position in light of situations that arose in other cities where the "business" of dealing pot was booming?

Sorry fluff, but you have been confused like most folks. While you are correct in saying that the dispensing of medical marijuana is not illegal, it is also a fact that the two weed stores that have been granted business licenses to store front retail weed are not doing so legally. They are not approved medical marijuana suppliers under current Federal Regulation. In all of Canada, there are only 26 businesses that are allowed to legally do so and all or them are producers that supply Health Canada approved product that comes with strict requirements of a doctors supervision. There are many requirements placed on both the patient and the prescribing physician to obtain legal weed. One of which is a patient doctor relationship of at least one year. That in itself takes care of the 5 min consult with a physician that is sympathetic and writes a script. That script would not allow the patient to order from one of the 26 approved suppliers.

So knowing this now.......do you think the City really got some good legal advice before cherry picking two retailers to grant licenses or do you think they granted licenses to two businesses to sell a product illegally? And on top of that, granted licenses to only two to sell illegal product when all seven applicants met all City requirements drafted as to location, age, etc?

The only undeniable truth here is that the City in some half baked effort created a bylaw for the licensing permission to conduct an illegal activity and it is morally reprehensible for the City to waste tax dollars go after a man that is only pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the City's own rules even if he is an idiot. If the City was looking for legal advice, they should have hired the lawyer the City of Abbottsford used.

[Drip_Torch]

The only undeniable truth here is that the City in some half baked effort created a bylaw for the licensing permission to conduct an illegal activity and it is morally reprehensible for the City to waste tax dollars go after a man that is only pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the City's own rules even if he is an idiot. If the City was looking for legal advice, they should have hired the lawyer the City of Abbottsford used.

But did they create a bylaw? IMHO, after reading the Abbotsford decision, that seems key to it all.

From another story out of Kelowna today...

At a public hearing Tuesday night, council voted unanimously to give second and third reading to a bylaw that closes a city loophole.
Previously, city bylaws did not specifically prohibit the storefront sale of marijuana,

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/19 ... ot-message

[Alexa1994]

I dont think so that there is any law to control this. Seriously gov should keep an eye on this issue.