Reply to DC resident sues neighbor over pot smell AND WINS

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "DC resident sues neighbor over pot smell AND WINS"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A lot of pot smokers are just straight up drug addicts so this probably isn’t going to deter them[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

L-E-G-A-L P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T.

Suck it, pothead.[/quote]

Super mad.  Not for you, you wouldn't sue. Probably would just seethe like you’re doing now. I could smoke a blunt nearby and you would just deal with it. Betcha.[/quote]

The police are warning of pot laced with fentanyl. That stuff will kill a horse.[/quote]

With MD going fully legal this July, everyone can get safe edibles from a legal recreational dispensary. Finally.  Now the entire DC metro area has a safe place to buy tested marijuana products.. and no more cops looking for easy possession arrests. Win win win.[/quote]

The idea that cops ever gave a shit about pot is hilarious. This is some weird fantasy potheads enjoy telling themselves. [/quote]

You are in fantasy land if you thought a police officer never arrested someone for it. Now they cannot…. try to keep up. Lay off the liquor buddy.[/quote]

I’m sure that in Iowa once, in the 1970s, they arrested someone for pot. The idea that cops in DC care about pot is pretty amusing. Someone has to die for cops to begin to consider caring about it.[/quote]

You’re kidding, right? Until D.C. legalized possession a few years ago, they used to make about 2,000 arrests per year for cannabis possession. (See article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-marijuana-arrest-legal/2020/09/15/65c20348-d01b-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html)[/quote]

I bet almost none of these arrests was simply for pot possession. When you get arrested, the police pile up as many charges as possible because the vast majority of cases are pled out and more charges means more leverage for the cops. Pot is something they’d throw in on top of all the more serious stuff that they actually care about. [/quote]

No, that same article indicates that in about 70 percent of the 115 pot possession arrests the Post reviewed from 2018-19, prosecutors later declined to file charges or dropped them. Which is a pretty good sign that they weren't just looking for leverage on other charges. It also showed that the vast majority of people arrested between 2012 and 2019 were black men, and that 40 percent of the arrests happened in Wards 7 and 8 -- less than 1 percent in Ward 3.

Do you think that represents the actual cannabis use distribution in the city? Or is it possible that legalizing marijuana actually helped end a serious ongoing structural injustice where only poor black people were being arrested for something all kinds of people do?

And yes, sure, I know you'll say it wasn't a big deal if the charges were later dropped or no-papered. I suspect you would feel differently if you had to miss a day of work for being arrested.[/quote]

DC is pillow soft on crime. You can shoot someone in the face and you’re most likely not going to jail. The idea that this same government is extremely hard on people smoking weed is delusional. [/quote]

It's not delusional, MPD used to make more than 2,000 pot possession arrests per year. Most of them didn't go to prison, true. But those statistics aren't just imaginary. [/quote]

But it is lying with statistics. If someone was arrested for raping a child, and the police also threw in a charge for pot possession, you would say that’s evidence of a war on pot. I’d say it’s going after people who commit heinous crimes and throwing in a pot charge at the end because f them. But if they hadn’t done something heinous, they would have never been arrested in the first place. [/quote]

No, sorry, you're just wrong about that. These are arrests, not charges, and the Post found most cases never went any further than the arrest. Before weed was decriminalized, MPD used to arrest people all the time for possession. 40 arrests a week! If most of these charges were just tossed in on top of much more serious charges, prosecutors wouldn't have dropped or no-papered 70 percent of the ones the Post examined in 2019. Also, there were a total of 12,000 crimes recorded in D.C. last year, about 10,000 of which were property crimes. How do you make 2,000 marijuana arrests in connection with other more heinous crimes if there are only 2,000 non-property crimes reported in the first place?[/quote]

You’re looking at the wrong numbers (you’re obviously looking at the so far this year stats). DC typically records 30,000 crimes per year, of which about 4,000 are violent crimes [/quote]

OK, fine, but there's still no way that every pot arrest before it was decriminalized was precipitated by an arrest for something more violent. Your "someone was arrested for raping a child" example was absurd hyperbole anyway that I shouldn't have bothered replying to. If you seriously think the police never arrested people in D.C. (especially black people east of the river) just for possession of marijuana, you're just being willfully ignorant.[/quote]

This is DC. Most cops are black.[/quote]

Yes, and? Black cops can't mostly arrest black people? I didn't say anything about what race the cops were, but it's a matter of public record that most of the thousands of simple marijuana possession arrests involved black people in wards 7 and 8.[/quote]

Probably not a coincidence that the vast majority of arrests for violent crimes are also in wards 7 and 8. [/quote]

Look, if you really want to keep on insisting that most pot arrests were just incidental to arrests for more violent crimes, that's fine, but it's not exactly a controversial or radical idea that the police used to (and in some places, still do) make arrests just for possession of small amounts of marijuana. No other violent crime involved. I'm not going to bother continuing to argue with you about this, as it would take more time exploring the data than I'm interested in devoting to this stupid message board. But I promise you that more recently than the 1970s, people have been arrested for nothing more than possessing a small amount of weed. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics