Cannabis

[LdiJ]

Standard insurance policies will not cover activities/products that are not FDA approved, either.

In Michigan, where marijuana is legal, specific marijuana insurance is needed.

Ok, Michigan made a law that specifically addresses that. I would have expected that.

 

[Zigner]

No I am not off base. Study up on some of the issues where states have quietly "revolted" against the feds, and the feds eventually had to give in.

The first one that I specifically remember is when the states rejected the federal mandate for speed limits not to exceed 55 mph after dealing with it for many years.

Gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two of the more recent ones.

The "mandate" was enforced by withholding federal highway funding if a state didn't comply. If a state didn't comply and the speed limit was set at, say, 65 mph, then the individual driver wasn't break any law (federal or state) by driving 65.

You don't seem to understand that, despite legalization at the state level (in some states), marijuana is not legal on a federal level. That is much different from gay marriage or the federal speed limit.

 

[quincy]

Ok, Michigan made a law that specifically addresses that. I would have expected that.

Well, no. Special insurance companies formed to fill the need for coverage when recognized national insurers would not.

There is even “pot raid coverage” available to cover legal costs should the marijuana business be raided by federal agents.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Every policy has a list of articles that aren't covered (without an additional rider). Often, agricultural stuff not directly related to residential use is not. For example, lawn mowers would be covered. A combine wouldn't. You'll have to read your policy and inquire as to what their justifications on not covering the items is.

Ron, just want you to know that someone actually read your post...

 

[bcr229]

OP were you growing pot as a business? If so that's also activity that would not be covered by a homeowner's policy. I have a home-based business and my business equipment, activities, inventory, etc. are specifically excluded from my homeowner's policy so I have a separate business policy for that.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Federal law does not trump those things that are reserved for the states.

But this is not an instance of an area reserved only for the states. Federal law has prohibited the importation, distribution, sale, and possession of certain controlled substances, including marijuana, for decades. Thousands of people have been successfully prosecuted under those federal laws and no federal court has ever struck down those laws as unconstitutional on any grounds, let alone the idea that the federal government has legislated in an area reserved for the states. Clearly the federal government does have the power to enact those laws, so your argument that the feds have trod on an area reserved only for the states easily fails.

I realize that there is some disagreement in general as to whether state or federal law trumps as far as marijuana is concerned,....

There is no disagreement in the courts or the legal community as to how things stand: both federal and state laws that prohibit sale and possession of marijuana are constitutionally valid. There is no issue of one "trumping" the other as they are both valid.

...but I think that the fact that the federal government so far, has neither the democrats nor the republicans willing to attempt to override state decisions to legalize marijuana is pretty compelling evidence that its a state matter.

The federal government cannot tell the states that they must have laws prohibiting marijuana. It is up to the states what activities they will criminalize. Likewise, the states cannot tell the federal government how to legislate. But the fact that the federal government cannot tell the states what criminal laws they must have has absolutely nothing to to do with the power of the federal government to enact its criminal laws. Your apparent argument that because the federal government cannot tell the states how to legislate must then mean that it is an area reserved to the states is, frankly, an absurd one as the power of the federal government to dictate what the states must do has no logical connection to what power the federal government has to enact its own laws.

No I am not off base. Study up on some of the issues where states have quietly "revolted" against the feds, and the feds eventually had to give in.

The first one that I specifically remember is when the states rejected the federal mandate for speed limits not to exceed 55 mph after dealing with it for many years.

The federal government in that instance encouraged the states to have a 55 mph speed limit by the threat of withholding highways funds. The states were always free to do what they wanted, it was just a question of whether they were willing to give up federal funds for it. Ultimately Congress decided their constituents didn't like that policy and changed it. But this example does not help advance your argument since Congress had never itself passed a law making speeding a crime, like it has with making possession of marijuana a crime. And as I noted, no federal court has ever held the federal controlled substance laws unconstitutional on the basis that it is an area reserved only to the states.

Gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two of the more recent ones.

No, you have that wrong. Gay marriage was an instance where the Supreme Court held that states could not constitutionally prohibit same sex couples from being married like straight couples can. Neither Congress nor the President tried to dictate to the states what policy they should have on gay marriage. And that is because, unlike controlled substances, it is clear that marriage laws are indeed solely in the power of the states to regulate. Such is not the case with controlled substances.

You do understand that if your argument was correct it would mean that all of the federal laws relating to controlled substances would be unconstitutional since only the states could regulate it, right? The laws on meth, coke, etc are all part of the same federal laws that prohibit possession of marijuana. And yet I don't see the feds slowing down pursuing meth dealers or the courts tossing out federal meth prosecutions on a theory that the feds don't have the power to enact them.

 

[xylene]

In Oregon Can State farm denie covering cannabis growing equipment after fire burned house. And Grow equipment was not the cause of the fire. Its state legal for growing and use in Oregon state

Just to reclaim SOME SEMBLANCE of OP Focus:

The op did not even indictate they were growing anything, commercially or for personal use.

The equipment to grow MJ is the same as growing anything.

Hydroponics are NOT illegal.

 

[quincy]

Just to reclaim SOME SEMBLANCE of OP Focus:

The op did not even indictate they were growing anything, commercially or for personal use.

The equipment to grow MJ is the same as growing anything.

Hydroponics are NOT illegal.

Rot6669 did not detail the equipment that State Farm refused to cover. He might not have been using a hydroponic system but the tent, grow lights, fans, grow pots, as well as the plants ... I assume these are what he lost in the fire.

State Farm probably required a special insurance rider (if they do not have growing equipment excluded entirely), this whether Rot6669 was growing marijuana for commercial use or growing it for personal use - or whether he was growing tomatoes.

Most grow lights burn extremely hot, making them a fire risk.

 

[xylene]

Most grow lights burn extremely hot, making them a fire risk.

Grow lights are ordinary HPS / LED lights. They are UL approved (mostly) and present no special risk vs any other electrical fixture.

People burn their house down with coffee makers too.

 

[quincy]

Grow lights are ordinary HPS / LED lights. They are UL approved (mostly) and present no special risk vs any other electrical fixture.

People burn their house down with coffee makers too.

HIDs (the HPS, MH, CMH lights) burn very hot but they might be used instead of the more expensive LED lights.

Whatever was used, apparently the lights were not the cause of the fire.

Rot6669 will want to read his State Farm policy to see if he can understand the reason for State Farm’s denial of his claim.