DC resident sues neighbor over pot smell AND WINS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She gets no damages but judge bans neighbor from smoking pot in his own home

Hahahahahahaha

See you in court potheads

If I'm the neighbor, I'm burning the worst incense that I can find in front of an open window with a fan pointing towards the neighbor

Do that enough and you too will end up with a judge slapping you down, PP.

You will have created a "private nuisance." Look it up. Private nuisance is the grounds on which the woman rightly won the suit against the pot smoker neighbor.

You would have the additional charge of harassment filed against you, too, for intentionally harassing your neighbor with your incense so clearly aimed directly at her. I hope you'd enjoy your petty revenge because it would cost you in a big way.

oh no, a minuscule fine and court fees amounting to a couple of hundred that will cost the neighbor tens of thousands in legal fees to ever get in front of a jury

Sure, go on thinking that as you rack up complaint after complaint and get the knock on your door over and over until your landlord boots you or your HOA fines you out of existence or your neighbors band together to push you out. Enjoy!

What HOA and what landlord?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm 100 percent behind the woman who won the suit.

But unfortunately, now the pot promoters are saying that this verdict means the District should permit smoking in public spaces if people are going to be successfully sued for smoking in their homes (or on their porches etc.).

The pot lobby says public smoking should be fine, we'll just have regulations prohibiting smoking within X feet of other people or kids or certain locations like schools, blah blah...Great! Let's put the cops in charge of policing how many feet a pot smoker is from a playground. Just what the city needs: More for cops to enforce (so--it won't be enforced at all) and more stench of weed everywhere. And people will STILL smoke in their homes, believing they'll never get sued like this guy was. So there will be nowhere to get away from pot.

But I know how the potheads will respond: So? Mellow out and breathe deeply! It's good for you! Everyone must just deal with my "need" to smoke whenever and wherever.

That's exactly how it already is with schools and maybe some parks too. We also have rules for dogs on leashes and such and I think there is sort of a lot of community enforcement as opposed to police doing it all.

You can do things to reduce the smell of pot. I hate the smell but DH smokes sometimes and I just make him do it in a way that releases no smell. That's what people should be doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t this mean that I can sue my neighbor for their leaf blower too?

I doubt a judge or jury would ever agree that occasionally using a leaf blower for its intended purpose in a residential neighborhood is a nuisance. Now, if your neighbor runs it every day for no apparent reason, then yes, you'd probably win that case. I'm not really sure how you see any parallels with weed.

I can step outside any given day of the week from spring into winter and hear a leaf blower or lawn service on my block. I can smell them too.

What about strong cooking smells? BBQ? Curry?

You should probably spend time researching nuisance law, and you'll probably be disappointed because leaf blowers and cooking are not out of character for living in a residential area (if any of the neighbors are running it just to annoy you, again that might be a different case, but you've described that many neighbors are all using them for their intended purposes). But hey, if you think you have a case that you can prove, and you want to sue all of your neighbors for collectively annoying you, go ahead and waste your money to do it. You'll need to convince a judge or a jury.

+1

At last, someone on DCUM who gets that people can't just equate pot smoking's effects on neighbors with other things like leaf blowers or cooking smells.

The pot lovers will come out of the woodwork here to defend their right to invade others' personal spaces with their smoke. What their addled brains can't comprehend is that smoking -- pot, cigarettes, anything -- not only creates a mere "scent," it creates particulate matter which permeates even the smallest spaces and goes into others' homes and lungs. The smokers don't want to understand or admit that aspect and don't see any problem with it if they DO understand it. Because they're self-centered.

Has anybody won something like this for cigarette smoke, or cigar smoke? I hate that smell and it's every bit of a health risk as the smell of pot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t this mean that I can sue my neighbor for their leaf blower too?

I doubt a judge or jury would ever agree that occasionally using a leaf blower for its intended purpose in a residential neighborhood is a nuisance. Now, if your neighbor runs it every day for no apparent reason, then yes, you'd probably win that case. I'm not really sure how you see any parallels with weed.

I can step outside any given day of the week from spring into winter and hear a leaf blower or lawn service on my block. I can smell them too.

What about strong cooking smells? BBQ? Curry?

You should probably spend time researching nuisance law, and you'll probably be disappointed because leaf blowers and cooking are not out of character for living in a residential area (if any of the neighbors are running it just to annoy you, again that might be a different case, but you've described that many neighbors are all using them for their intended purposes). But hey, if you think you have a case that you can prove, and you want to sue all of your neighbors for collectively annoying you, go ahead and waste your money to do it. You'll need to convince a judge or a jury.

Why would I? I don’t believe in harassing my neighbors with lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t this mean that I can sue my neighbor for their leaf blower too?

Your leaf blower doesn't leave a lingering smell on your property that doesn't go away or infect your respiratory system. So, no. Although it's funny you can sue over marijuana but police won't enforce noise ordinances since they are considered racist.

[Anonymous]

Anyone can get a “medical marijuana” card in DC - you just claim you need it and that’s it. The guy said he uses in order to sleep - which means that he could easily be taking edibles instead. What a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Seems pathetic our elected leaders can’t be bothered to come up with rules beyond “hey pot should be legal.” Guess it’s up to judges to decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hmm. The article states in the first sentence that the marijuana was for medical purposes, but does not explain whether there was a doctor's letter.

This could get fraught, if someone with a serious or terminal illness gets sued for managing pain or other symptoms with marijuana.

There is no such thing as “medical marijuana.” It’s all bull. If a pharmaceutical company made such flimsy claims about their drugs, they’d be sued out of existence.

Drug companies: we submitted 40,000 pages of evidence to the FDA that our drugs do what we say they do.

Pot companies: do you like getting zonked out of your gourd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems pathetic our elected leaders can’t be bothered to come up with rules beyond “hey pot should be legal.” Guess it’s up to judges to decide.

I really would like to see edibles not look like freaking gummy bears. They should be in child safe containers (like pill bottles), not brightly colored and attractive to children. They're almost indistinguishable from the gummy bear vitamins that children take daily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hmm. The article states in the first sentence that the marijuana was for medical purposes, but does not explain whether there was a doctor's letter.

This could get fraught, if someone with a serious or terminal illness gets sued for managing pain or other symptoms with marijuana.

There is no such thing as “medical marijuana.” It’s all bull. If a pharmaceutical company made such flimsy claims about their drugs, they’d be sued out of existence.

Drug companies: we submitted 40,000 pages of evidence to the FDA that our drugs do what we say they do.

Pot companies: do you like getting zonked out of your gourd?

Oof I've got some bad news for you:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results/

[Anonymous]

I think edibles should look like licorice. Or cat turds. That would keep the children away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think edibles should look like licorice. Or cat turds. That would keep the children away.

Licorice hahahaha that's amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm 100 percent behind the woman who won the suit.

But unfortunately, now the pot promoters are saying that this verdict means the District should permit smoking in public spaces if people are going to be successfully sued for smoking in their homes (or on their porches etc.).

The pot lobby says public smoking should be fine, we'll just have regulations prohibiting smoking within X feet of other people or kids or certain locations like schools, blah blah...Great! Let's put the cops in charge of policing how many feet a pot smoker is from a playground. Just what the city needs: More for cops to enforce (so--it won't be enforced at all) and more stench of weed everywhere. And people will STILL smoke in their homes, believing they'll never get sued like this guy was. So there will be nowhere to get away from pot.

But I know how the potheads will respond: So? Mellow out and breathe deeply! It's good for you! Everyone must just deal with my "need" to smoke whenever and wherever.

I’ve got some bad news for you. The stench of pot is everywhere already. People smoke it wherever & whenever they want. It’s disturbing how many Maryland commuters smoke it as they are speeding through residential neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm 100 percent behind the woman who won the suit.

But unfortunately, now the pot promoters are saying that this verdict means the District should permit smoking in public spaces if people are going to be successfully sued for smoking in their homes (or on their porches etc.).

The pot lobby says public smoking should be fine, we'll just have regulations prohibiting smoking within X feet of other people or kids or certain locations like schools, blah blah...Great! Let's put the cops in charge of policing how many feet a pot smoker is from a playground. Just what the city needs: More for cops to enforce (so--it won't be enforced at all) and more stench of weed everywhere. And people will STILL smoke in their homes, believing they'll never get sued like this guy was. So there will be nowhere to get away from pot.

But I know how the potheads will respond: So? Mellow out and breathe deeply! It's good for you! Everyone must just deal with my "need" to smoke whenever and wherever.

I’ve got some bad news for you. The stench of pot is everywhere already. People smoke it wherever & whenever they want. It’s disturbing how many Maryland commuters smoke it as they are speeding through residential neighborhoods.

The city makes zero effort to police drivers who are stoned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Story is in Washington post

I saw it posted online in many other places.