DC resident sues neighbor over pot smell AND WINS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol you clearly do not know any militant vegans aligned with PETA. This next lawsuit is already in the works, I guarantee it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, what a hate filled post! I already know that most of this vitriol is driven by some strange personal feelings against cannabis culture but to see it written out so starkly is still fascinating!

[Anonymous]

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

Will everyone just think of the children!!!!

[Anonymous]

What did neighbors/pot smokers do before it was legalized? Are there more cases on the books pre legalization? I envision the best part of That 70s Show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow, what a hate filled post! I already know that most of this vitriol is driven by some strange personal feelings against cannabis culture but to see it written out so starkly is still fascinating!

“Cannabis culture”

Is that like “alcoholism culture”?

[Anonymous]

"Cannabis culture" is just a branding attempt. We see you, druggies.

[Anonymous]

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

Hahahahahahaha

See you in court potheads

LOVE this! I voted for decriminalization and never will again. The potheads have absolutely abused the privilege and shown zero responsibility /consideration. Fooled me once!

[Anonymous]

Some people obviously love screwing others who they perceive to be lesser than human “potheads” and we can see that hate right here on full display. They are irrational people with a personal grudge. I can see echoes of a lingering racial animus that was exploited over the years to demonize marijuana and its users. It’s ok though. This is the last gasp of prohibitionists. They have lost and we are now free to live our lives without threat of imprisonment. This makes them very bitter lol!!

[Anonymous]

Folks, this case is neither a "dangerous precedent" nor a useless outlier.

The plaintiff in this case was able to show that the pot smoke was pervasive enough to impact her health. That's going to be quite rare. This is not going to enable someone to sue their neighbor because they don't like the occasional scent of pot or cigarette smoke. It's clear this case involved an incredibly heavy smoker who was smoking all the time, and that the proximity of the homes was so close that this resulted in pot smoke IN the plaintiffs home all the time. Most in-home pot use will never rise to this level. If you smoke pot at home, even in your backyard or on your front porch, it's very unlikely this case could be used to sue you unless you are smoking all the time and in such a way as to fill your neighbors house with pot all the time.

And no, a vegan could not sue their neighbor for BBQing, unless they could show that the BBQing was so frequent and the smoke from it so pervasive as to cause health issues. Won't happen.

Think of it like noise. If you could occasionally hear your neighbor talking loudly, playing music, or hosting people, but it was at a generally "normal" level and only disrupted you very occasionally, could you sue them into silence? No, people are allowed to generate some noise in their normal lives. But if your neighbor was blasting bass-heavy music 24/7, rattling your walls and preventing you from sleeping or functioning, could you sue them. Yes, of course.

This person was engaging in the pot version of 24/7 music turned up to 11. Don't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I didn’t vote for this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people obviously love screwing others who they perceive to be lesser than human “potheads” and we can see that hate right here on full display. They are irrational people with a personal grudge. I can see echoes of a lingering racial animus that was exploited over the years to demonize marijuana and its users. It’s ok though. This is the last gasp of prohibitionists. They have lost and we are now free to live our lives without threat of imprisonment. This makes them very bitter lol!!

Pot legalization does not mean you can be a jerk. I'm pro legalization but anti smoking constantly in shared spaces or in a way that become a nuisance. Smoking tobacco is also legal (and should be) but that doesn't mean it's cool to do it in a way that makes it hard to impossible for other people to comfortably live their lives.

Everyone has an obligation to consider the impact of their actions on other people.

[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?

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

NP. You are now starting to live with the repercussions of your vote. Enjoy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This pp is correct. You broke it, you bought it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

My adult kid (before he moved out) used to practically hotbox his younger brother in the adjoining room. My leftist husband was too weak to enforce rules. His conservative wife did. So my leftist husband essentially DID say f**k off to his youngest son.

My adult kid is still a major pothead and can be a first-class jerk, though I still love him. I just won’t defend this aspect of his behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people obviously love screwing others who they perceive to be lesser than human “potheads” and we can see that hate right here on full display. They are irrational people with a personal grudge. I can see echoes of a lingering racial animus that was exploited over the years to demonize marijuana and its users. It’s ok though. This is the last gasp of prohibitionists. They have lost and we are now free to live our lives without threat of imprisonment. This makes them very bitter lol!!

Pot legalization does not mean you can be a jerk. I'm pro legalization but anti smoking constantly in shared spaces or in a way that become a nuisance. Smoking tobacco is also legal (and should be) but that doesn't mean it's cool to do it in a way that makes it hard to impossible for other people to comfortably live their lives.

Everyone has an obligation to consider the impact of their actions on other people.

As you can see from some of the vitriolic posts above, this is about more than people facing a legitimate nuisance. There are some people who just hate “potheads” and want to complain about those who they think are inferior. The post above sees this as some proxy for “leftists” vs conservatives for example.