Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear the majority have spoken. Its just the weirdos on this site that are upset at cannablis legalization. Suck it fools. Seethe and breathe it in. Think about me while you smell it. I know you will

Not everyone needs a binkie to get through life.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear the majority have spoken. Its just the weirdos on this site that are upset at cannablis legalization. Suck it fools. Seethe and breathe it in. Think about me while you smell it. I know you will

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.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a vegan and my neighbor cooks a lot of meat. I'm planning on using this to sue my neighbor. Thanks for posting OP! The law suits are on!!!

See you in court MURDERERS

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The majority of DC residents obviously don’t agree with you and this case doesn’t establish a legal precedent so this is bit of a hollow victory for hate filled people like you. Modern culture is increasingly becoming cannabis friendly whether you like it or not.

Wrong issue. This isn’t about your right to smoke weed. It’s about your right to stink up our houses/streets with it. Just like I don’t have a right to blast polka music at your house at 3am.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of DC residents obviously don’t agree with you and this case doesn’t establish a legal precedent so this is bit of a hollow victory for hate filled people like you. Modern culture is increasingly becoming cannabis friendly whether you like it or not.



Wrong issue. This isn’t about your right to smoke weed. It’s about your right to stink up our houses/streets with it. Just like I don’t have a right to blast polka music at your house at 3am.
report

Totally. The constant stench of pot in 2023 is as bad as the cigarette smoke clouds of the 1970s and 80s. I am so happy this woman won her case against what apparently was an unreasonable pot head and his equally rude and inconsiderate landlord.

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of DC residents obviously don’t agree with you and this case doesn’t establish a legal precedent so this is bit of a hollow victory for hate filled people like you. Modern culture is increasingly becoming cannabis friendly whether you like it or not.



Wrong issue. This isn’t about your right to smoke weed. It’s about your right to stink up our houses/streets with it. Just like I don’t have a right to blast polka music at your house at 3am.
report

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The majority of DC residents obviously don’t agree with you and this case doesn’t establish a legal precedent so this is bit of a hollow victory for hate filled people like you. Modern culture is increasingly becoming cannabis friendly whether you like it or not.

Anonymous wrote:Cannabis will never be banned. This is just a short term feel good story. Inside they seethe because we can not longer be criminalized. In fact I can go buy some in a store! *sticks out tongue* HA!