Pot and the CP Library

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pot is legal.

This op. This is what you get for voting for the progressives who run out city. It’s a little late to be complaining

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im super liberal and owned a home in DC and sold and moved out of DC last year to the dreaded suburbs (its been awesome, zero regret). I was so so so sick of my babies and kids having to walk through clouds of pot smoke every single place we went, adjacent to the daycare, outside the restaurants, at the local kids parks, and of neighbors who did not care if kids were playing outside hey would come toke up 6 feet away engulfing all the kids on the block in smoke. I know its legal. But its not about that, its about respecting a shared space especially with little kids. Move to the f'ign alley.

Anyway, it won't improve at all so if you dont like it probably best to move.

Ah, so you’re a hypocritical limousine liberal. Thanks for clarifying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pot is legal.

And this is why pot is a problem is DC. For as smart as we think we are, we conflate a simple decriminalization change with 'now you can cruise the street with a joint'.

This is why I wont vote for the dumb shrooms initiative. Do i care if you shroom? No. Do i care if your shroom in public, tear off all your clothes, rave and rant and scare kiddies with impunity? Yes. I totally forgot how selfish potheads are when i signed the pot prop, and I stupidly expected DC gov to maintain a where to use line.

+1

Yes, I'll be voting against the shroom initiative solely based on DC's completely dropping the ball on pot. I just don't trust the city to hold any sort of standard after its history with pot decriminalization.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am simply sad that this is even an issue. Why can't pot smokers smoke their pot at home?

Why would in front of kids at the public library make sense simply on a reasonable activity scale.

If they are homeless, then they should be able to smoke it at Friendship Place I guess or at 'The Brooks'.

Why should they pp? You probably voted for the pot initiative. Who are you to tell them where to smoke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The police need to be called. The librarians are probably doing their best getting people to try to behave in the library. Call your representative. Write your representative.

In many other places I have lived they have a perimeter, and people have to smoke whatever outside that perimeter.

But... but.... we’re trying to DEFUND the police, right? I’m so confused. I was just told that I would ruin someone’s life by calling the police on them. We’re supposed to accept this guys, come on!

[Anonymous]

Honestly, it is preparing them for living in East Quad. It's a teachable moment. You live in a city. Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am simply sad that this is even an issue. Why can't pot smokers smoke their pot at home?

Why would in front of kids at the public library make sense simply on a reasonable activity scale.

If they are homeless, then they should be able to smoke it at Friendship Place I guess or at 'The Brooks'.

Why should they pp? You probably voted for the pot initiative. Who are you to tell them where to smoke?

The pot initiative did not include smoking pot in public spaces. What is hard to understand about this? It's like saying you voted for outdoor dining, so restaurants can now set up tables and chairs in the middle of the street and block traffic. The "pot initiative' was to decriminalize possession, not to force everyone in the city to breathe second hand pot smoke.

[Anonymous]

It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

There are some people that others are willing to confront about cig smoke but are too chickenshit to do so over pot. It depends on your tolerance for confrontation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

There are some people that others are willing to confront about cig smoke but are too chickenshit to do so over pot. It depends on your tolerance for confrontation.

Honestly I think it's a racial thing. White parents aren't going to confront the black people smoking pot in front of the library. Not gonna happen in today's climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

There are some people that others are willing to confront about cig smoke but are too chickenshit to do so over pot. It depends on your tolerance for confrontation.

Right. Because people who smoke cigs are rednecks and people who smoke pot are woke. It’s liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

Yeah, I wonder if we can pass ordinances like Boulder did? Second hand smoke in public spaces is super obnoxious and unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

Yeah, I wonder if we can pass ordinances like Boulder did? Second hand smoke in public spaces is super obnoxious and unhealthy.

Where do you people live? Sure, I smell some pot in public at times, and sure it's not pleasant, but you guys act like there's a cloud of smoke covering every street. That's just not what I see and smell. Heck, unless you're outside a bar I hardly ever see people smoking cigarettes anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

Yeah, I wonder if we can pass ordinances like Boulder did? Second hand smoke in public spaces is super obnoxious and unhealthy.

Where do you people live? Sure, I smell some pot in public at times, and sure it's not pleasant, but you guys act like there's a cloud of smoke covering every street. That's just not what I see and smell. Heck, unless you're outside a bar I hardly ever see people smoking cigarettes anymore.

I don't live in Georgetown, but enjoy going there to stroll/browse sometimes. Was very common (I would say "clouds") pre-Covid just walking the sidewalks. Having a cloud outside any public library where people are lining up respectfully outside to retrieve their books is pretty obnoxious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious how people complained so much about their right to breathe unpolluted air wrt cigarette smokers and second hand smoke during the 90s and 00s. Those same arguments should apply to potheads. Our right to breathe unpolluted air supercedes your right to toke in public. Smoking weed and second hand weed smoke should be castigated and restricted as much as cigarette smoke and smoking.

Yeah, I wonder if we can pass ordinances like Boulder did? Second hand smoke in public spaces is super obnoxious and unhealthy.

Where do you people live? Sure, I smell some pot in public at times, and sure it's not pleasant, but you guys act like there's a cloud of smoke covering every street. That's just not what I see and smell. Heck, unless you're outside a bar I hardly ever see people smoking cigarettes anymore.

DC reeks like pot smoke EVERYWHERE. Were you even around in the 90s when people bitched about cigarett smoke while walking down the street? Pot smokers should be held to the same standard. 100% of people need air to live, you don't need pot to live. Everyone's right to breathe unpolluted air free from both cigarette smoke and pot smoke supercedes your right to toke in public just like how we have restrictions against cigarettes.