8.3 Possession of Restricted Substances with Intent to Produce

[Feras]

Is this a new law or a change to current law: Current

What law do you wish to change/add:
8.3 Possession of Restricted Substances with Intent to Produce
Misdemeanor - liable to 4 years maximum imprisonment, $4,000 maximum fine and asset forfeiture.

Changed to:
8.3 Possession of Restricted Substances with Intent to Produce
Misdemeanor - liable to 4 years maximum imprisonment, $4,000 maximum fine, asset forfeiture and Eviction from the property.

Why should this change/addition be made: This should be added as the property is being used illegally by growing drugs in that property.

What is the aim of this change/addition: The aim is to make people actually losing something, not just weapons and a small amount of drugs which is cheap.

Additional Information:
This conviction can only be used by Supervisors

 

[Double J]

Sorry, the conviction can only be used by supervisors, so I have to go all the way to a Sgt and ask "can I charge this guy for. 8.3?" no thank you,

 

[Hendricks]

As for eviction of the property, this is not really enforceable, they would just go back when they receive the charge as well as causing unneeded hassle and I don’t think that restricting something to only make it chargeable by a supervisor is a good idea either.

You say “The aim is to make people actually losing something, not just weapons and a small amount of drugs which is cheap” but most of the time, weaponry and the drugs total is not cheap at all and often tops the maximum ticket. I can already see that if this would happen then there would be a large group of unhappy people from this.

 

[Feras]

You can charge him, but you can't evict someone. Like you can give him the 4K ticket and 4 years if you want to.

The only reason why I am making this a supervisor thing, its because people can and will abuse this

 

[Feras]

I like the response and you're opinion is useful, and you're right and I agree about the drugs, but if you lose more things it would be riskier and make people think more to make drugs in the property.

Plus most of the times when I get in the morning there are some random sweaters owning Office and they usually have Walther PPKs and 1 planter box with 6 seeds which is so cheap to lose.

Plus it would be more realistic to evict someone.

 

[Sorle]

when the fuck will people understand that gameplay > realism

and why do you want sweaters to lose MORE hello???

 

[Feras]

@Sorle Umm... because they are not losing much, besides if they're sweaters they won't own office as it's expensive, they should simply buy slums and regals if they're new, and it's also their fault for buying something really expensive.

 

[Sorle]

@Feras you're still trying to make new players lose more, when police is already ridiculously anti-fun for new players to deal with

 

[Blue]

make people think more to make drugs in the property.
where are we going to grow drugs then

 

[Feras]

You're not allowed to grow anywhere anyways so IDK as it is illeagal

 

[Feras]

@Sorle it does not specifically aim to new players it applies to everyone

 

[Sorle]

@Feras yeah but we all know it's going to only be an issue for new players

 

[Bert]

Eviction won't work there isn't a landlord responsible when you purchase the property from the bank, in theory, you are receiving the deed to the property you own that property until you disconnect, therefore no matter what acts may occur in said property you can not be evicted for producing illegal substances inside of it because you yourself own it. Side note just because you own the property does not mean you can produce illegal substances without getting cited or arrested.

 

[Crimson Nugget]

So how do you get your props back after you've been evicted from a property you fortified?