DC resident sues neighbor over pot smell AND WINS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of the potheads I know are completely consumed with smoking pot. They spend every waking hour of every single day high. Who on earth wants to live near that?

[Anonymous]

Why smoke when edibles are available?

[Anonymous]

This is a wonderful, beautiful thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of the potheads I know are completely consumed with smoking pot. They spend every waking hour of every single day high. Who on earth wants to live near that?

That sounds amazing. I’m so jealous. Wish I could do that but I’m not allowed to be high at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

[Anonymous]

Very seriously this is a major reason I left DC. The smell all over the city became such an horrible nuisance.

[Anonymous]

I mean, I drove through D.C. couple of months ago, on my way to the Nat'l Arboretum. It's been a few years since I was in that area. I'm driving up a street and the pot smoke is freaking getting into my car. Couldn't believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Maybe not a landmark decision legally. But in many parts of white collar DC pot smokers are now on notice that for the low, low cost of a court filing fee they will be publicly identified as a frequent marijuana user and a inconsiderate neighbor. Not career enhancing for those early in their careers, work for the feds, or have a security clearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Maybe not a landmark decision legally. But in many parts of white collar DC pot smokers are now on notice that for the low, low cost of a court filing fee they will be publicly identified as a frequent marijuana user and a inconsiderate neighbor. Not career enhancing for those early in their careers, work for the feds, or have a security clearance.

And people will be encouraged to sue because now they know it won’t be futile…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Maybe not a landmark decision legally. But in many parts of white collar DC pot smokers are now on notice that for the low, low cost of a court filing fee they will be publicly identified as a frequent marijuana user and a inconsiderate neighbor. Not career enhancing for those early in their careers, work for the feds, or have a security clearance.

So now people are threatening lawsuits just to be jerks? Who cares if your neighbor smokes pot in their own house (and you're not, like the plaintiff in this case, actually harmed other than being annoyed about it)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Maybe not a landmark decision legally. But in many parts of white collar DC pot smokers are now on notice that for the low, low cost of a court filing fee they will be publicly identified as a frequent marijuana user and a inconsiderate neighbor. Not career enhancing for those early in their careers, work for the feds, or have a security clearance.

So now people are threatening lawsuits just to be jerks? Who cares if your neighbor smokes pot in their own house (and you're not, like the plaintiff in this case, actually harmed other than being annoyed about it)?

Living near potheads is a nightmare. I hope they all get dragged into court and get publicly marked as ***holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Many living in DC are in row houses with adjacent walls and close windows. I had a neighbor whose basement tenant smoked so much that I could smell it constantly when the tenant was home and my throat burned and my eyes became irritated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Many living in DC are in row houses with adjacent walls and close windows. I had a neighbor whose basement tenant smoked so much that I could smell it constantly when the tenant was home and my throat burned and my eyes became irritated.

Sure you did, Jan.

Ever notice how all the people (liars) complaining about a little whiff of weed smoke seem to have terrible symptoms - burning throats, irritated eyes, etc - from just a little smell? But the people actually smoking it and inhaling the smoke right out of the blunt/pipe/hookah never complain about sore throats ?

Isn’t that odd?

It’s almost like the people complaining are liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Maybe not a landmark decision legally. But in many parts of white collar DC pot smokers are now on notice that for the low, low cost of a court filing fee they will be publicly identified as a frequent marijuana user and a inconsiderate neighbor. Not career enhancing for those early in their careers, work for the feds, or have a security clearance.

So now people are threatening lawsuits just to be jerks? Who cares if your neighbor smokes pot in their own house (and you're not, like the plaintiff in this case, actually harmed other than being annoyed about it)?

Living near potheads is a nightmare. I hope they all get dragged into court and get publicly marked as ***holes.

Well the joke in on you because cannabis is now mainstream and you will only make yourself seem unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I need people to re-read the bolded. People are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Maybe not a landmark decision legally. But in many parts of white collar DC pot smokers are now on notice that for the low, low cost of a court filing fee they will be publicly identified as a frequent marijuana user and a inconsiderate neighbor. Not career enhancing for those early in their careers, work for the feds, or have a security clearance.

So now people are threatening lawsuits just to be jerks? Who cares if your neighbor smokes pot in their own house (and you're not, like the plaintiff in this case, actually harmed other than being annoyed about it)?

Living near potheads is a nightmare. I hope they all get dragged into court and get publicly marked as ***holes.

Well the joke in on you because cannabis is now mainstream and you will only make yourself seem unhinged.

I think most of us are pretty pleased the woman who sued won. Seems like a victory for everyone except pot addicts.