DC resident sues neighbor over pot smell AND WINS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of pot smokers are just straight up drug addicts so this probably isn’t going to deter them

Why do you care so much that I be deterred from a legal product that I choose to consume?

DP why are you forcing your neighbors to consume your secondhand pot smoke?

I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, unlike those of you who go out of your way to criticize cannabis use.

Smoke away. Just don’t let it drift into others’ airspace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that smell is now taken into account regarding what you are free to do or not do in your own home.

It must have been a strong and persistent smell for the judge to react this way.

Have you never smelled pot before?

No, but I’ve heard about it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of pot smokers are just straight up drug addicts so this probably isn’t going to deter them

Why do you care so much that I be deterred from a legal product that I choose to consume?

DP why are you forcing your neighbors to consume your secondhand pot smoke?

I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, unlike those of you who go out of your way to criticize cannabis use.

Smoke away. Just don’t let it drift into others’ airspace.

The day that you keep every single aspect of your life from affecting me in any negative way then I will do the same for you. Until then, deal with city living or move to a 100 acre property.

[Anonymous]

I feel like this is a decently unusual situation and isn't going to have that much of an impact. The pot-smoking occupant of that apartment was a first-class jerk and major pothead. I don't know anybody who smokes that much (I'm sure others do but it cannot be the norm) and I don't know anybody who would say "f**k off" when somebody in poor health asked them to stop doing something that further damaged their health, which was something she could prove. I highly doubt that this precedent will extend to your typical annoying smell from a neighbor.

I admit I occasionally smoke when I just cannot stand my anxiety anymore (I don't drink because I think that's worse), and I always make sure neighbors can't smell it. It's so inconsiderate to do otherwise and I wish people wouldn't make the rest of us look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of pot smokers are just straight up drug addicts so this probably isn’t going to deter them

Why do you care so much that I be deterred from a legal product that I choose to consume?

You’re missing the point (probably killed too many brain cells). The point is that a judge has ruled that people here can be banned from smoking pot in their very own home if the stench prevents their neighbor from enjoying their home. That’s fantastic news to people who have potheads for neighbors. Potheads make for sh*tty neighbors. Whether the judge’s decision deters anyone remains to be seen. If a pothead is so inconsiderate that a neighbor will go through the time and expense to sue them, they probably don’t care what a judge says either.

No, a judge has ruled that THIS PERSON can be banned from smoking pot in their home BECAUSE it caused a nuisance for their neighbor. That doesn't mean the judge has said no one else is allowed to smoke in their own homes. Despite the crowing from a lot of people who really cannot handle the idea that some people use cannabis.

[Anonymous]

In terms of Pot and cigarette smells this is fantastic!

However, this worries me on other ways that it will apply. If somebody doesn’t like the smell of a neighbors cooking, perfumes, incense.

[Anonymous]

This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

This is all starting to seem more like a dog catches car moment. I don’t think people have fully thought this one through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

In at least some jurisdictions you can be criminally prosecuted for public intoxication when you're drinking at their own home if the drinking causes a public disturbance. So there are already laws that regulate what you can do in your own home based on how it impacts others above and beyond nuisance laws, and they haven't gone down a slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

Not really. Cities have had nuisance laws for a bajillion years. What’s new is adding pot to the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

Not really. Cities have had nuisance laws for a bajillion years. What’s new is adding pot to the list.

The point that you seem to miss is that there cannot be a double standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

Not really. Cities have had nuisance laws for a bajillion years. What’s new is adding pot to the list.

The point that you seem to miss is that there cannot be a double standard.

1. This is no double standard here
2. There are double standards in the law *all the time*. Laws are written by politicians, not philosophers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

Not really. Cities have had nuisance laws for a bajillion years. What’s new is adding pot to the list.

The point that you seem to miss is that there cannot be a double standard.

1. This is no double standard here
2. There are double standards in the law *all the time*. Laws are written by politicians, not philosophers

1. There is a clear double standard here.
2. Any specific treatment of an issue written into law is by definition not a “double standard”. But that isn’t what we have here. A judge cannot impose a double standard upon similar claims and that is the weakness of this ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

Not really. Cities have had nuisance laws for a bajillion years. What’s new is adding pot to the list.

The point that you seem to miss is that there cannot be a double standard.

1. This is no double standard here
2. There are double standards in the law *all the time*. Laws are written by politicians, not philosophers

There is no “law” here, just one judge’s interpretation of the current nuisance laws on the books.

Further, the punishment requires the man to smoke at least 25 feet from the neighbor’s residence. In a rowhouse scenario, that means he can’t even smoke outside. Which, of course, means he must smoke on public property which is illegal.

I don’t think we are too far off from a vegetarian suing his BBQ-using meat-loving neighbor under the same logic. The impacts are similar - there will be a physiological negative reaction to the smell of burning meat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is especially interesting because it did not involve an apartment building, but adjoining rowhouses.

The smoker lives in the English basement apartment of one rowhouse, while the woman who sued lives in the next door rowhouse. She was also complaining when the man smoked outside.

The guy is now banned from smoking on the property in which he lives. Which opens a whole can of worms when it comes to nuisances of rowhouse living.

Can I claim that my neighbor’s curry use bothers me and sue? What about the guy who smokes a pork should all say Saturday in his yard only 20 feet from my rowhouse windows? What about my neighbor who sprays harsh insecticide to treat mosquitos?

This ruling is going to enable a flood of lawsuits.

Not really. Cities have had nuisance laws for a bajillion years. What’s new is adding pot to the list.

The point that you seem to miss is that there cannot be a double standard.

1. This is no double standard here
2. There are double standards in the law *all the time*. Laws are written by politicians, not philosophers

There is no “law” here, just one judge’s interpretation of the current nuisance laws on the books.

Further, the punishment requires the man to smoke at least 25 feet from the neighbor’s residence. In a rowhouse scenario, that means he can’t even smoke outside. Which, of course, means he must smoke on public property which is illegal.

I don’t think we are too far off from a vegetarian suing his BBQ-using meat-loving neighbor under the same logic. The impacts are similar - there will be a physiological negative reaction to the smell of burning meat.

So what? No one is actually going to sue over BBQ. The upshot here is that average people now have a way to fight back against ***hole pothead neighbors. That seems like a good thing. We shouldn’t have to live at the mercy of the neighborhood drug addict.