marijuana joint weed cannabis
Shutterstock
Previous Post
Next Post

KING5 in Seattle reported on a pot shop that’s hired armed security following a pair of armed robberies in recent months. They must have found the only pot shop in America that didn’t already have a guard with a gun. Then again, many pot shops in Washington State advertise themselves as “no guns” locations for customers. They also (obviously) have recreational pharmaceuticals and, thanks to banking regulations, deal exclusively in cash, making them ideal targets for violent criminals.

If the pot shops here in Illinois are any indicator, a dispensary without armed security would make the evening news. Here in the Land o’ Lincoln, openly armed private security, dressed almost like cops, often outnumber the customers. Especially as shops often limit the number of browsers to only two or three at a time. Or so I’m told.

But at Buddy’s Cannabis in Renton, Washington, owner Myles Kahn isn’t happy about the expense of hiring armed security “for the protection of his customers and his business.”

From KING5 . . .

A local cannabis shop in Renton is opting for private, armed security to further protect its business and customers, amid a week of several armed robberies at marijuana stores.

Buddy’s Cannabis was robbed in December and again in January.

“There’s been a huge uptick in armed robberies in the cannabis world,” Owner Myles Kahn said…

“So that’s almost like an invitation to these people who have ill intentions. We have cash, and we have drugs, right? So that’s very attractive for the wrong type,” Kahn said.

For a guy who has been selling weed (legally) for six years, how is it that he just managed to figure that out?

While the bulk of armed security officers represent their clients well with professional and competent service, not all of them fall into that category. Just because a business employs a guy in uniform with a gun doesn’t mean it’s “safer” for customers and the business.

Cutting corners on armed security can result in problems In Chicago, cops say an “armed” security guard — a felon with outstanding warrants — killed a bystander while opening fire at a guy a block away who was fleeing after shooting him in the foot moments before. That happened earlier this year.

Not long before that, another armed security guard in a liquor store shot and killed a man who refused to wear a COVID mask. That four-time felon guard admitted shooting the man, but claimed self-defense because of the virus.

Pfleger Bodyguard Henry Hale, seen between Jesse Jackson and Father Michael Pfleger, was charged with carrying a gun illegally on the steps of Pfleger’s St. Sabina’s church.  Image by John Boch.

Then there was another armed security guard for anti-gun Father Michael Pfleger, also in Chicago, who was arrested for carrying a gun illegally on the steps of Pfleger’s Catholic church.

Another former member of Pfleger’s security team was arrested for murdering a woman trying to boost some trivial item from a corner Walgreen’s store where he worked as armed security.

Long story short, do your homework and do business with a reputable agency before hiring security. Armed protection seems to be a prerequisite for operating a legal dispensary. Here’s hoping Mr. Kahn’s dispensary isn’t victimized again.

 

Previous Post
Next Post

69 COMMENTS

  1. Empowering rioters and thugs, then advertising a “gun free zone”……..they need to stop smoking the product!

    • Not so mellow hiring a “guard”. If it’s so great they should be GIVING it away like good little socialists. Or perhaps thats just for OTHER PEOPLES stuff.

    • “no regerts.”

      I can’t regret, what I can’t remember.

      Like, wow, man… *cough* 😉

      • “daddy, what does regret mean?’
        “well son, the funny thing about regret is that it’s better to regret having done something than not having done something. oh, and by the way, if you see your mother, tell her ~satan, satan, satan~!”

  2. Wait a minute, If you carrying a firearm protecting business that is federally illegal, isn’t that problematic?

    • nope. The issue is BEING A USER or addicted to the unlawfyllu labelled “controlled substance”. I can be around it al I want, no harm no foul. As soon as I start USING the stuff, all bets are off.

      Weed should NOT be a Sceudule One “drug”. as it is NOT addicint, and DOES indeed have valid legitimate medical uses.

      Note welll: I do not use the stuff, and do not itnend to start. Those are my opionos on the morality and legality of present laws. How can the Feds declare anything I can put into y mouth to be illegal to possess? That’s a seroius case of “missioin creep”. Or explosion.

      • You used the word “weed”, which is a colloquialism typically reserves for recreational (THC variety) cannabis. I absolutely do not condone it.

        Plus, I’ve noted that you always employ numerous spelling and grammatical errors whenever you post here or on other sites such as Ammoland. Casts some doubt as to your level of proficiency.

        • (posts comment above, notices my own misspelling of “reserves” that should have been “reserved”, curses the keyboard and tells the ghosts haunting it to get away, shrugs shoulders and shuts off the PC to go outside and enjoy the Springtime sunshine instead…)

      • weed is to addictive …maybe not to you and others

        but it is a drug that registers to the sensors and ( hopefully,,in most cases) brings pleasures which then ,,like other substances,, causes the brain to demand to be “pleasured” and while the user may choose other substances
        the same can then be said true for heroin ( as one example) as methodone ( which,,yes does/can contain some small amounts of the drug itself)

        weed is a drug

        as is alcohol etc and is craved and the habit can be kicked

      • The American people have decided they want to get high. The War on Drugs is a failure. The wealth of the Latin American cartels is proof. We talk about the gun control industrial complex. They are pikers compared to the drug control government complex. The War on Drugs actually started as soon as Prohibition was repealed. It gave out-of-work Prohibition agents something to do.

        My own ideas for a rational drug policy are
        (1) Legalize everything for legal adults. If you buy products, made by a major pharmaceutical manufacturer, from a pharmacy, you can trust purity and strength. If you buy on the street, you’re on your own.
        (2) Being high (including with alcohol) is neither an aggravating factor nor a mitigating factor in the commission of a crime. All that matters is the crime itself.
        (3) Offer free treatment for addicts who want to get off drugs. Limit of three tries to avoid wasting resources.
        (4) Treat overdoses as best we can, knowing they will do it again and, eventually, no one will be there to save them.
        (5) Nominate those who die from drugs for Darwin Awards and move on.

        I have no expectation that anything like my policy will be adopted at least for the foreseeable future. Too many in law enforcement owe their jobs to the current policy. Many of those opposed to recreational drug use do so on philosophical, often religious, grounds. Either they feel it is their calling to save drug users from themselves or they believe drug use, including alcohol consumption, is a sin.

    • As someone who spent his mispent youth getting high I have no sympathy for these poor pot dealers.Cost of doing business. I don’t really agree with making it prohibited to toke & lose yer gat. I have a very old friend who still partakes & has a boatload of gats. Never known him to be violent or criminal. Neither was I 40 to 50 years ago…

    • Most Great Progressive ideas fall apart when put into practice. Even if the Government sent a daily pound of marijuana to every resident of the USA, there would still be violence. Humans are addicted to violence. And the Cartels are moving into kidnapping and extortion to legalization-proof their business model.

      • “Most Great Progressive ideas fall apart when put into practice”

        No it was a Libertarian and Progressive idea to legalize drugs. And they didn’t get the results they claimed would happen.

    • It did and does reduce crime amongst the users and sellers. But it INCREASES crime in other greedy lzy barstids who don’t like to work. If banks were to begin having large amounts of cash right out there at each teller’s station, and had no armed security, bad guys would be hitting banks a lot more often. But today they have electronic bill dispensers, the teller processes the transaction, sends the drawto the computer contollling the cash machine under the counte,r which then spits out the paper. Thieves cannot access the cash.

      If I ran a pot shop (I’d not even considr it with today;s laws in place) I would set up a secure drop box, chute, slide, something like that where cash would be dropped in there, and no one on premises has key or combit=nation. Emoty it in the dead of night, ferret it away to somewhere else, using different cars and at different times. Establish NO patter.

      WHY cann’t the banking systems accmodate the financial needs of this ndustry? Sooner or later they will be forced to. This is due to state laws making it as risky s possible for anone to conduct trade in this industry. This is NOT RIGHT. It is government saying “OK YOU WIN you can DO this, but wE willmake it s paiful and unprofitable s we possibly cal”. No wonder 65% of all pot sold in California does an end run round the state’s insane regs and taxes, and just carry on business in spite of it all. All pay, no fety or support. Government at its worst.

      I had considered getting into the pot business in my state, but as I began to read the rules/regulations, I decided NOPE. State is all about the taking, and nothing bout proteting MY inerests. Fct is, 80% of the actual price of the product at a registered pot shopo is the cost of government interference, untrusion, persecution, and stuoidity.

      • “WHY cann’t the banking systems accmodate the financial needs of this ndustry?”

        Because they don’t want to. Just like they don’t want to provide Financial Services to the Firearms industry. And last time I checked the Libertarians liberals and the left were against forcing financial institutions to do business with the gun industry.

        Or perhaps they will reveal themselves to be the Hypocrites that they are. And still be against guns but support Financial business dealings with pot dealers.

        • 1: Don’t get in business with morons
          2. Potheads are morons
          3. If they were not potheads, sight still be morons but not a sure thing.

    • Before legalization: Dealer deals only in cash, customer buys, thugs rob dealer.

      After legalization: Dealer deals only in cash, customer buys, thugs rob dealer.

  3. Interestingly, all the laws in this state that keep guns out of pot shops do allow business owners and employees to carry concealed without licensing. The fact that almost all pot shop owners and employers are also users tends to negate that, however. Hence having to hire a sober security guard…

    • “Interestingly, all the laws in this state that keep guns out of pot shops do allow business owners and employees to carry concealed without licensing.”

      Saw a vid on this last night. It seems that customers, even permitted concealed carriers, cannot carry into a Washington State pot shop, even if they wanted to :

      • That’s bizarre. It is private property. Does Wa law also prohibit you from carrying concealed in your own home? Even California does not go that far. Around here, although most are probably licensed any way, employees of gun stores may legally carry open or concealed with the permission of the owner. Even NYC issues business premises permits without requiring a CCW.

        • Washington allows you to conceal carry without a license on property you own. Your guests would need a license to conceal on your property. Business owners don’t need a CPL at their fixed place of business, but the employees do. Same thing at pot shops. 3 people have been killed recently; 2 criminals and 1 employee. 3 separate events.

        • I got into this discussion online with a pothead who lamented her fear of guns while working at a pot shop. Someone quoted the RCW and failed to note the last lines that exempted owners and employees where they work. Yes, Colt, it blows out all the above laws for this situation. It was good to hear that video explain exactly that law as well.

    • Washington state law prohibits the carrying or possession of any firearm in that portion of an establishment classified by the Liquor and Cannabis Board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age, other than by a law enforcement officer (RCW 9.41.300 (d)).
      This prohibition also applies to persons who have a concealed weapons permit.
      Violators are subject to arrest under chapter 9.41.

      https://lcb.wa.gov/publications/enforcement/signage/LIQ237-11-16.pdf

      • (11) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment.

  4. Drug dealers selling weed for cash sometimes do hire armed guards. This is nothing new. It’s been that way for decades. Particularly if the dealer isn’t of large stature. But it’s just part of the business to minimize drug deals gone bad. Which is obviously what’s taking place.

    It the same old song and dance.

    • “This is nothing new.”

      No, This is new to the white pot heads. I will say it because no one else will. The white liberal left and Libertarians believed that if any product was made legal that it would remove any incentive for criminal activity. This is an amazingly stupid and naive way of thinking. And shows how completely disconnected from reality the drug legalization crowd has always been.

      The white drug legalization crowd publicly stated in the 1970s that if they could just make pot legal “there would be no need for black drug dealers to carry guns”.

      As I have said before the drug legalization crowd has never supported the Second Amendment. As far as I am concerned they are anti-civil rights. They’re irrational fantasies publicly supported gun control. The fact that they now “have buyer’s remorse” at this point, does not excuse any of the destruction that they helped to cause in the past.

      If they really wanted to make amends these billionaire pot businessman would be spending the same amount of money defending gun rights, that Bloomberg spends to take our rights away.
      The drug legalization crowd has never supported civil rights. Yes there’s a few individuals who support gun rights. And you folks are a tiny minority in that group.

      This [email protected] Progressive pot store owner as expected wants the government to come and save him with tax credits.
      Instead of asking the government to get out of his way so that he can use guns in his business, to defend himself, his employees, and his property.
      These stupid people supported raising taxes on business when marijuana was an illegal business. They helped to destroy California now a high tax state. And then ran away to low-tax Colorado. And then they wrecked that state too.

  5. “This is nothing new.”

    No, This is new to the white pot heads. I will say it because no one else will. The white liberal left and Libertarians believed that if any product was made legal that it would remove any incentive for criminal activity. This is an amazingly stupid and naive way of thinking. And shows how completely disconnected from reality the drug legalization crowd has always been.

    The white drug legalization crowd publicly stated in the 1970s that if they could just make pot legal “there would be no need for black drug dealers to carry guns”.

    As I have said before the drug legalization crowd has never supported the Second Amendment. As far as I am concerned they are anti civil rights. They’re irrational fantasies publicly supported gun control. The fact that they now have buyer’s remorse at this point, does not excuse any of the destruction that they helped to cause in the past.

    If they really wanted to make amends these billionaire pot businessman would be spending the same amount of money defending gun rights, that Bloomberg spends to take our rights away.
    The drug legalization crowd has never supported civil rights. Yes there’s a few individuals who support gun rights. And you folks are a tiny minority in that group.

    This socialist Progressive pot store owner as expected wants the government to come and save him with tax credits. Instead of asking the government to get out of his way so that he can use guns in his business, to defend himself, his employees, and his property.
    These stupid people supported raising taxes on business when marijuana was an illegal business. They helped to destroy California now a high tax state. And then ran away to low-tax Colorado. And then they wrecked that state too.

  6. There may be a few folks who genuinely benefit from medicinal cannabis. As for the rest, the only dope you’ve been smoking is you.

  7. As I said before anyone who believes that making pot legal will, make all the crime go away, is either a liar or a fool. The laws against marijuana are not enforced in Mexico. Just as the laws against marijuana in the United States are not enforced. Because it’s still illegal on the federal level.

    But in Mexico these marijuana “businessmen” are murdering people left and right in order to take over the avocado Farm business. And many other businesses that they’d like to take over. It’s really amazing that there are people who believe that giving bad people money will change their criminal ways.

    Effectively making marijuana legal did not change the morality of the murderess marijuana gangsters in Mexico. And giving teenage gangs money to stop committing crimes has done nothing to reduce crime in those American cities.

    • i don’t remember reducing crime being part of weed legalization. distributing maintenance opiates would help. i think the concern was not being jailed for something so benign.
      anyone in jail for non- violent reefer problems shouldn’t be there. let all the three strike mopes out if it was for mezz.

  8. fighting the drug war was considered rayyy cist

    b/c the left needs for it to be legal

    but b/c of the incarcertion rate of ybm

    it has come to the legalization

    the left runs the show even when the occasional pro americans get elected

    until the pro americans get real ;lefty will continue to run the world

  9. Pot is still illegal at the Federal level. So few if any bank will be willing to face possible money laundering charges to do business with what is still an illegal operation. So, that means the dispensary is an open target for any miscreant who thinks they can get what the business has at little to no risk to themselves.
    My personal take is don’t be in what is at this time a high risk, still not legal business. Even if the state has decriminalized or legalized the product, the Feds have not.
    I don’t use the stuff, didn’t like it the couple times I tried it way back when, and don’t want it around me. Flip side is I don’t care if someone wants to smoke it, I don’t see why they can’t. Far as I have seen, pot is no more dangerous than booze. Perhaps less so. But, like any other mind altering substance, it can be, and is addictive. I have known people who would buy pot before buying food for their kids. Or pay their rent. Same with booze or other drugs.
    What I would suggest for the shops selling “legal” pot, would be use the same drawer and plexiglass booth you see at late night gas stations. No access to the product or the cashier from the customer side until the transaction is complete.

    • “…it can be, and is…”
      i agree with half of that, personality depending. i’d go as far as to say if it keeps someone off of benzos they are better off.

    • Improperly banding lobsters or packing them for shipment in boxes not explicitly approved for the transport of lobsters are also a federal crimes.

      As per usual, your problem isn’t “people” or “drugs”, it’s that there is nothing government touches that it can’t make orders of magnitude worse through gross stupidity.

      • strych9, “Improperly banding lobsters or packing them for shipment in boxes not explicitly approved for the transport of lobsters are also a federal crimes.

        As per usual, your problem isn’t “people” or “drugs”, it’s that there is nothing government touches that it can’t make orders of magnitude worse through gross stupidity.?”

        Those laws are written to protect the population from contaminated shell fish. Do you really have a problem with that?

        • “protect the population from contaminated shell fish“

          If the religionists were following the law of Moses they would not be eating shellfish, bacon or cheeseburgers.

        • Those laws are written to protect the population from contaminated shell fish. Do you really have a problem with that?

          No, I fully and enthusiastically support contaminated shellfish. *eyeroll*

          If you really believe that this is why such laws were passed (which is historically inaccurate and just plain strange as a claim) then you’re gonna love where this country is going.

        • Minor MINER49er For your edification (and you do seem to need it) back in the days when the Bible was written they did not have the precautions we have to do to protect the people from parasites.

          Now the only parasites we have to worry about are Leftists.

        • strych9, I know that these laws were passed to protect the population. If you have any reasonable proof to the contrary, by all means present it.

        • Shipment and banding of lobsters in interstate commerce is governed primarily by the Lacey Act, which states “fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of … any foreign law.” This law was not passed to “protect the public” but rather wildlife by regulating wildlife trafficking.

          So you “know” that Congress wanted to regulate trafficking but really wanted to prevent “contaminated shellfish” and to protect the public decided that this should be done by foreign laws… because Congress knew 122 years ago that these laws were going to be passed in foreign countries… for the purpose of protecting the US population from “contaminated shellfish”…?

          That’s fascinating.

          It’s particularly interesting when numbers of the laws were expressly written in foreign countries to go after the smuggling of non-native species into the country or the capture of native species for illegal export as pets.

          Pretty fascinating the things you “know”. But hey, thank God Congress, in its infinite wisdom, saw that foreign governments had the primary goal of protecting US citizens from “contaminated shellfish” that were harvested and shipped entirely outside the jurisdiction (that of the other country) of the original law passed in another country.

          Next maybe you can tell me how Congress determined that the enforcement of foreign laws vis a vis the manufacture of guitars keeps the US population safe from unsafe wood products that might, you know, be contaminated?

          Or maybe this is just a government agency applying “law” in ways Congress never intended and doing it to benefit the agency and grow government power? Nah, couldn’t be. It’s gotta be all those “world citizens” protecting us from contamination through a complex weave of various national laws, right?

        • “Next maybe you can tell me how Congress determined that the enforcement of foreign laws vis a vis the manufacture of guitars”

          Sure, Gibson was participating in a illegal would smuggling operation that could cause the overharvesting of Ebony and other exotic woods and lead to extinction. This would mean no more exotic wood for guitars, I favor a sustainable model that allows my grandchildren to own the finest flat top boxes.

          And of course we should cooperate with other nations import and export rules if at all possible, so that in turn we would get the same consideration from them regarding our import export regs.

          Do you understand how civilization works?

          “The agreement, announced by Justice Department officials in Washington, caps a probe into the Nashville-based guitar maker that began in 2009 when it came under suspicion of importing banned or protected wood from both Madagascar and India.

          “As a result of this investigation and criminal enforcement agreement, Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to limit over-harvesting and conserve valuable wood species from Madagascar, a country which has been severely impacted by deforestation,” said U.S. Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.“

        • Minor MINER49ER I know full well what laws are designed to do an how society works. the real question is do you? Apparently you think that because it effects you, you should be exempt from the law? Does that just apply to guitars or to all laws? Such laws which Gibson allegedly violated are based on Treaties that are a part of US Law. You Lefties are so much in favor of “environmental protection laws” except when it applies to you? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

          If Gibson violated the law then it is their problem to pay the “piper”.

  10. So much for the nonsenses that pot smokers are peaceful people. If they were so “peaceful” how come they need an armed security officer?

      • possum, a possibility to be sure, but as far as I am concerned, both should be punished. Possession of marijuana is a Federal Crime.

  11. I’d wager that the issue is mostly being in Seattle.

    Denver’s had a rash of attempted robberies at dispensaries for the same reason. That just doesn’t seem to happen much outside of Denver. Which, also happens to cover areas where the cops take a dim view of armed robbery.

    IMHO, the real issue here cities. I even know a teenager who became a GSW victim in Denver last week, he’s lucky to be alive. Shot for his shoes like it’s ’82 at a rail station trying to come back from a school trip.

    • Nope, they’re hitting shops around the Puget Sound region. Regarding the recent deaths; one occurred in Bellevue and the 3 suspects were chased into Seattle, where 2 surrendered and 1 was killed by police. Another robbery happened in Covington and the robber was killed by the shop’s guard. Tacoma had the robbery where the employee was killed.
      The was a shop robbed near my home a couple of weeks ago. That’s about 16 miles north of Seattle, in Snohomish County.

  12. So how is weed a pharmaceutical? Please elaborate or fix you’re article. If it’s a federally illegal business why do I still pay federal income tax working at a pot store? If they’re making money off of me shouldn’t that entitle my business to use federal banking cards or have some better security? Or is it just they want my money but don’t care if I get shot at for $14 an hour.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here