Posted on 03/17/2006 2:13:06 AM PST by freepatriot32
WINSTED, Conn. - Having marijuana in your house is illegal, but having marijuana images on your house is not, according to town officials.
Five months after Christopher Seekins was arrested and charged with cultivating marijuana in his home, neighbors have complained about the giant marijuana leaves he has spray-painted on the outside of his home on High Street.
"There's no reason anybody should have a problem with it," Seekins said Wednesday.
Town officials said the marijuana paintings apparently do not conflict with local laws.
"There's nothing in the property maintenance code that deals with writing on your house," Joe Beadle, chief code enforcement officer, said.
Seekins says the large leaves are in support of the cause of the legalization of marijuana. He believes firmly in the usefulness of hemp, the coarse fiber of the cannabis plant, from textiles to paper products.
"People have the wrong impression about it," Seekins said.
In October, police said they found 100 plants inside Seekins' house, along with grow lights, fertilizers and portable heaters.
Police charged Seekins, 26, with cultivating marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Free on $10,000 bond, his court case is pending.
___
Information from: Republican-American, http://www.rep-am.com
It doesn't breach the peace? Oh, c'mon! The neighbors are offended and up in arms -- even the Associated Press is involved, making this a nation-wide story!
And yes, this is classic passive-aggressive behavior. He did it only after he was arrested as an in-your-face symbol of defiance. I'm betting a neighbor dropped a dime on him and he's all pi$$ed off about it.
So, for the second time, you're saying behavior that breaches the peace, is offensive to others, and is passive-aggressive is acceptable?
A first amendment right to breach the peace, offend others in the community, and engage in passive-aggressive behavior that is disturbing to others?
Gee, mugs99, now that you point that out, maybe you're right. I mean, no one was harmed. And he really didn't use force or fraud on another person. Hmmmm.
So, you're saying that even though an individual engages in behavior that results in a breach of the peace, offends others in the community, and engages in passive-aggressive behavior that is disturbing to others, that behavior should be allowed, nay protected, as a first amendment right to free expression?
Are you sure about that? "Cause I got a surprise ....
Either ignore me or respond to my posts in an intelligent manner.
In your case, I suggest the former since you're incapable of the latter.
Duh.
If he had been 100 meters away showing himself to an old woman it would be different. Since he was in close proximity on the subway and it was a teenage girl, yes, it makes a difference. But that's why some of us get paid to exercise judgement and discretion and you get encouragement to go out and meet living women, it is because you don't understand why what happened is criminal and not just offensive.
So you're saying that if this pervert flashed your mother, that would be fine with you. Golly, you're fun to watch.
"it is because you don't understand why what happened is criminal and not just offensive."
Oh, I find his behavior to be criminal. I just don't understand why you do.
And I'm beginning to think that muggs99 might even say that flashing is a protected first amendment right to free expresssion. Though I could be wrong.
Oh, I believe you. But I do note that you didn't say "The exceptionally intelligent woman at the party last night was quite impressed."
That's not what I said, and you are proving yourself to be a second class liar.
Oh, I find his behavior to be criminal. I just don't understand why you do.
Is that why you argue with me everytime I explain it?
So far you've done an ideal job of proving Forrest Gump's mother correct.
Actually this could be entertaining since my mother carries a Sig and has qualified expert or proficient on many handguns, rifles, and shotguns.
That's because talking to exceptionally intelligent women is the norm and so much of a given that it is assumed and taken for granted.
At least in the circles that TD and I run in.
Funny that you should have to mention what we take for granted.
Maybe that's because in your dating life you have to rely on pictures and cams to see your dates and you can't even be sure that they are, indeed, women.
The cop in the video was sure a horses behind. Given a choice as to who to have in my neighborhood, I'll take the pot guy.
I'm really big on property rights. I'd say the town made a good call. With that said, this was handled at the proper level of government, and if the town decided to ban pot paintings on houses, it wouldn't faze me all that much.
It's incredibly immature, and in the parlance of my beloved New England, it's "gay," but he's not breaking any laws here (though this here pothead would be pissed off if he were my neighbor). I hate those damn pink flamingo statues and the Mary-in-a-bathtub statues people put out, too.
ROTFL you statists are so funny.
True.
If the person is a flasher, that is.
Heh. Yeah, I'm guessing most people's flirting doesn't involve discussions of international finance and the efficient market hypothesis.
Have your cell phone camera ready.
They are offended. That's not a breach of the peace, nor is it a violation of their rights. How they react to that offense is their choice. "Up in arms"? Really? They're within their rights to bear them, certainly, but if they point them at their neighbor, it would constitute a threat.
And yes, this is classic passive-aggressive behavior.
Look up passive-aggressive.
Indeed. Why people don't just shut the **** up and get in the back of the bus is beyond me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.