[wwweston]

I've supported legalization efforts in two states. But I kindof have regrets, now. And in fact, if I were in charge, I might leave it as an infraction.

I don't really want it to be illegal, but as far as I can tell, the same thing that happens to cigarette smokers happens to weed smokers: perspective on the fact that smoking is the atmospheric equivalent of peeing in the pool is lost.

And I wake up like I did last night at 1:30am having had a neighbor opt me into the experience via my open window next to the patio. Yay, personal liberty.

I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, but please, figure out a way to keep it personal.

[01100011]

That existed before legalization. The only difference is now you can't tie up precious law enforcement resources because of unfavorable air currents. You can still appeal to your city or landlord. They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable.

[wwweston]

> That existed before legalization.

The frequency of occurrence has absolutely changed, which in retrospect seems to be exactly what you should expect.

> They might not take it seriously, which, given the level of your personal suffering, seems reasonable.

You know, I was a little worried that my comment about people losing perspective on the impacts of their habit might have been an overgeneralization (I certainly do know some people who are more circumspect about it), but thank you for volunteering to demonstrate exactly how it works.

If my "level of suffering" at being involuntarily opted into someone else's smoking choices is inconsequential, then surely their entirely voluntary choice to engage in it is inconsequential too, and their level of suffering at any requirement to forgo it should be inconsequential.

"I enjoy this and so I don't have to worry about whether it annoys or distresses anyone else" is no basis for social reasoning.

[dumbfoundded]

This is a pretty silly way to think about the issue. Loud music, dogs barking, kids running around on the floor above you, smoke of any kind, a bed frame hitting the wall repeatedly. I wouldn't rethink the legal status of music, dogs or children because of some bad neighbors.

[wwweston]

Noise ordinances are absolutely a thing, and common.

Smoke ordinances would be at least that reasonable.

[dumbfoundded]

Yes, that would be very reasonable. The current status of cannabis as a schedule 1 substance is a completely different subject.

[paxys]

Do you honestly believe there was no one smoking pot in your apartment building before it was legal?

[CardenB]

You want weed to be illegal because you don't like the smell of the smoke?

[kapp_in_life]

It sounds more likely they would like it to be illegal for one to force others to be subject to second hand smoke.

[wwweston]

Correct. As I wrote in my earlier comment, I have zero problem with people choosing it for themselves, as long as it's kept personal and I don't get opted in to anyone's smoking choices.

[CardenB]

Ah I see.

I feel that it's unreasonable to equate second hand marijuana smoke with second hand tobacco. It's really hard to consume weed to the same extent as tobacco, so the smoke is in much lower quantity.

[jshawl]

Is there another window in your house you can open so that the airflow comes in from the other side of the house?

[wwweston]

There are literally no other windows in my apartment except those adjoining this shared patio.