In a recent call to the Sheriff's Department, we were advised that eviction for selling drugs was an option only if the resident went to jail. So, if the sheriff doesn't take action, we can't. The person we talked to also indicated it would be considered "vigilante" behavior for which the sheriff would take action against the landlord. The DEA says we could lose our property for failure to act; the sheriff penalizes if we act. The result is we are governed by two authorities with diametrically opposed views. If this went to court, landlords would expend private funds for defense in what appears to be an interagency dispute.
The task of stopping the illegal marijuana distributors is the job of DEA and/or police, not the landlord. Perhaps what needs to be done is set up an inter agency team with representatives of each group and a landlord association to work together to accomplish the task.
This, however, doesn't address another central problem: the difference between legal jurisdictions governing the use of medical marijuana - including the question: Is medical marijuana a valid medicine and how should it be governed?
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2007 The Sacramento Bee
Contact:
opinion@sacbee.com
Website:
Northern California local news and information from The Sacramento Bee - sacbee.com