Hey, there! Log in / Register

Walsh could lead anti-pot effort next year

The Globe reports the mayor, himself a recovering alcoholic, sees pot as a gateway drug and would be willing to head up efforts to defeat a ballot question to legalize recreational marijuana use.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Because he has a problem with substance abuse no one else is allowed to responsibly use substances?

Between incompetence in city departments, bungled handling of the epic winter, the Olympics debacle, and this, Marty is working overtime to earn himself a retirement party on election day.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah he's workin'...OVAHTIME

I think the Marty Walsh character was based on Colin Sullivan.

up
Voting closed 0

Walsh fails on the logic for keeping marijuana illegal but that doesn't matter because he won on the personal redemption story-- he used to be powerless to alcohol abuse but now he isn't or something like that. Good for him but what does that have to do with marijuana? Booze is not illegal. We tried that. So what's Marty's argument?

up
Voting closed 0

Let's hope this is just a trial balloon that pops before he has a chance to embarrass himself or our city on a national stage.

The basic problem isn't drugs, or alcohol, Mr. Mayor, the problem is people with addictive personalities. Become a national spokesmen for sane treatment, not continued persecution.

up
Voting closed 0

Let's hope this is just a trial balloon that pops before he has a chance to embarrass himself or our city on a national stage.

We're talking about the same Mahhty who's still pumping the Olympics for Boston, right?

up
Voting closed 0


bostinno
:

In an interview with BostInno this week, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said if it looks like city tax dollars will be required to build facilities for the 2024 summer Olympics games in Boston, he's out.

Mayor Walsh was one of five people who presented the bid to the USOC. I find it hard to imagine Boston 2024 would propose financing 2/3rds of the stadium without his approval using municipal bonds (TIFs) which are paid off with future real estate tax revenue from a development built after the Olympics. I also find it hard to believe he'd sign the paperwork making Boston an official partner without reading the bid.

The bid proposes Bostonians pay off $100s of millions of dollars of debt (2/3rds of ~$800M) stadium (which will dissembled within a year after the Olympics) using taxes we haven't collected on a development that isn't built. Yes that's public money. Yes it hasn't been collected. Yes it is already been spent but not for anything Bostonians want or can use.

This year we couldn't close a $42 BPS budget gap without cuts. Last year we had a bigger gap and closed it with cuts.

After 6 months of claiming the bid did not use public money, then disclosing it did, the Mayor says the bid he presented somehow crossed a line he wouldn't cross.

Oh Marty, Oh Marty, where is the Marty I voted for?

up
Voting closed 0

... was a figment of our imagination. Not sure the alternative would have been better however. Sigh.

up
Voting closed 0

To suggest this will cost him his job shows you have no idea how politics works in this city. Boston gets a chance every 20 years to elect a new Mayor and if they win once they'll keep winning until they get board or die.

Walsh is supporting the Olympics because his core group of supporters (organized labor) stand to do well if Boston gets the games. They might be the only group to benefit but they vote in huge numbers as shown in the last election. And notice how Walsh quickly signed the contract with the police Union?

Walsh is safe being opposed to pot. 50%+ of the general public wants it legalized but only 25% of these people pay attention to politics and vote. Older and religious voters -- a huge base for someone like Walsh -- remain opposed.

Snow? Voters have memories as long as fleas. The election is in November which is about as far removed from snow as you can get. People aren't going to remember his response to a storm of several years prior or at least won't hold it against him in the voting booth.

But mostly he'll win because in Boston the Mayor is extremely powerful. Business will quickly fall behind him with their support as they don't want to get on his bad side should he win again and remember them as supporting the "other" guy. Most business leaders want to get their permits approved quickly and generally have good relations with the city. Supporting the incumbent makes good sense even if they don't like him or his positions.

up
Voting closed 0

is a moron and completely and utterly incompetent at the job. The oldsters are either dying off or selling their row houses for big money and moving to Reading, while the youngsters only know what they read on the internet. And what is on the internet regarding Walsh is not exactly high praise.

One term and done.

up
Voting closed 0

But since when has being a moron and incompetent been held against someone in this town?

up
Voting closed 0

Because I think Walsh is a dope, but you're right. Zero chance anyone knocks him off are slim. He's built a huge warchest, and made all the right allies during his time in office.

up
Voting closed 0

One-Term Walsh in: Reefer Madness!

up
Voting closed 0

Is this the top rated U-Hub comment of all time?

up
Voting closed 0

However, probably highest anon comment ever.

up
Voting closed 0

Most favorited UHub comments over the past couple of years.

No, I haven't been hiding that page from you; I just created it. No, I do not have better things to do with my time.

up
Voting closed 0

Two of the top 5 comments are both anon, one pro and one anti-bike, from the same article.

up
Voting closed 0

That stroked the hell out of my ego :)

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't even crack the first three pages.

Note to self: write better posts

up
Voting closed 0

I may well have missed the announcement but what happened to prior years comment histories? (i.e. "user profile" under "Track")

up
Voting closed 0

... and Adam had to delete the old comment tracking histories.

up
Voting closed 0

No one under the age of 50 or so refers to it as 'pot', it's 'weed'.

Stay Calm and Carry On.

And his honor needs to mind his own bidness. Nothing worse than a recovering fill-in-the-blank.

up
Voting closed 0

Not everyone under 50 refers to pot as "weed." Many of us don't mention it enough to warrant a vernacular update.

And his honor needs to mind his own bidness. Nothing worse than a recovering fill-in-the-blank.

Agreed. What's next? Telling us all about his personal and meaningful relationship with Mister Jesus?

up
Voting closed 0

No one over 50 calls it "weed", they call it "grass".

I figure if you're making shit up (and butchering famous slogans to boot), I can as well.

Stay On Truckin'.

Also, when did the kids start using single quotes when not quoting something within another set of quotes? I blame all the pots they're smoking.

up
Voting closed 0

In the early 70s we said "jay" a lot, short for "joint" I suppose. Later we also said "bone" as in "smoke a bone". And I recall when "nickel bags" actually cost $5, and "dime bags" actually cost $10. This meshed perfectly with concert tickets which were $4, $5 and $6. Heady times.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

This clip is 4:20 long.

up
Voting closed 0

When I was a teenager in the mid-90s, I could still get a dime for $10, and an eighth $25; A pack of Camel filters cost a buck eighty-five. You could fill up your beater for under $20. A good time to be a ne'er-do-well. Well, outside of the HIV scare, really unflattering clothing, and the rise of butt rock via post-grunge garbage like Seven Mary Three. Other than that it was alright. Oh god now I have "Cumbersome" stuck in my head and it's all bad again...

up
Voting closed 0

$4.50, $5.50 and $6.50! I remember the voice of that same announcer on all of the local stations "See Yes this Thursday at the Boston Garden, brought to you by Don Law!!! Tickets only $4.50, $5.50 and $6.50!".

Unless of course, you were too stoned to stand in line when they went on sale, so we'd usually end up trading a Blaupunkt with Billy Bona or Big Bird for tickets or if you were really desperate you could always count on ole "Rip" Valenti for ducats.

up
Voting closed 0

OMG Don Law!!!

up
Voting closed 0

Still smoking J's in 2015. I voted for Marty and appreciate and respect his own life decisions related to addiction. But alcohol, alcohol, and alcohol, are the top 3 addictive substances and if there is even such a thing as a "gateway" drug, it is most certainly alcohol, not smoking J's. Marty needs to educate himself beyond his own (and maybe his buddies) experiences.

up
Voting closed 0

My cynical side tells that that Walsh is doing this to 1) appeal to folks who vote in high numbers and don't support pot and 2) garner political support from the tobacco lobby.

up
Voting closed 0

It's right up there with masturbation for well known nicknames.

up
Voting closed 0

Democrats tell you what to do because they know better than you, Republicans tell you what to do because they're morally superior to you. Same (expletive), different label.

up
Voting closed 0

Reagan and "just say no" ring a bell? How about Nixon declaring a "war on drugs" including pot.

This has everything to do with a politician patronizing the citizens based on his personal experience rather than on what is best for those he represents. It has almost nothing to do with the letter in parentheses after his name but thanks for playing.

up
Voting closed 0

Same (expletive), different label.

I don't always agree with Wil, but he was spreading the wealth across the two parties.

up
Voting closed 0

here, includes;

  • Rick Santorum
  • George Pataki
  • Jeb Bush
  • Newt Gingrich
  • Sarah Palin
  • Paul Cellucci
  • Barack Obama
  • John Kerry
  • Howard Dean
  • Andrew Cuomo
  • Bill Clinton
  • Lincoln Chafee
  • George W. Bush
  • Bill Bradley
  • Michael Bloomberg
up
Voting closed 0

The rich and powerful and politicians use the coke and weed and booze but have sources procure it for them. This is the truth and always has been. Rules are for the little people.

up
Voting closed 0

Look at a map of what states have medical marijuana and what ones don't. Both parties have idiots like Marty Walsh but overall democrats are way more likely to have common sense when it comes to weed.

up
Voting closed 0

He's the worst. He should focus his efforts to provide beds for the displaced Long Island rehab residents that are still sharing shelters with actively using patients.
He's beyond ridiculous.
How about looking at prescription drugs as the gateway drug to heroin.. That would be more timely and effective given the current crisis in our country and the state.
When was the last time pot caused someone to use heroin???? Ugh

up
Voting closed 0

I totally agree about concentrating on the Long Island debacle. We generally do great work of trying to provide care for the vulnerable population in the area, including detox and rehab, but then we kick them out of their long term facilities in the middle of the night without any plan for placement or treatment.

But yeah, let's go after pot because Mayor Walsh is in recovery from another substance.

The people I see in shelters are care centers generally aren't there because they smoke too much pot. If Mayor Walsh really wanted to tackle the drug problem, he'd go after heroin.

up
Voting closed 0

Agree x2.

I work in DTX. The area has become over run with homeless people and junkies. Where's the mayor's stance on this? And ever since the long island shelter closed, it's become worse.

Yet he's so concerned about pot? really? I wish I had dollar for every time I've seen a heroin junkie in DTX or Haymarket... I'd be rich. A stoner? Almost never.

It's sad, you'd think since Mahty is in recovery himself, he'd be a champion about getting facilities built and fast tracked, because he should know what it's like to be in a treatment and how it really can help. But apparently, he'd rather be misguided and ignore the real issues of the city, and pot isn't one of them.

up
Voting closed 0

Think of all the WEED JUNKIES you're going to see at DTX if med marijuana becomes readily available. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

up
Voting closed 0

*clutches pearls*

up
Voting closed 0

> A stoner? Almost never.

I know this isn't what you were getting at, but you see stoners every time you walk through DTX or Haymarket. They're walking around, going to work, buying stuff, and generally going about their business like everyone else.

up
Voting closed 0

well yeah.. most are functional stoners. But I'm talking more about the junkies that are begging for money or ones who take benzi's and their methadone who fall over everyone or can't stand up straight. I see PLENTY of those people in DTX and Haymarket.

Stoners.. not so much. I don't see ANYONE where it's obvious they are stoned.

And the last time I checked, you are more likely to find a homeless heroin addict than a homeless stoner.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a stealth real estate deal on par with 20024. There are still some hazardous areas left from its military phase, but basically it is another fat opportunity for luxury housing.

That island just got banked. Suffolk Construction has ideas. The tell was when that hazardous outer tip was referenced as a 2024 Rifle Range. This is an assumption that the development bonanza would be well underway over the next 8 years.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm somewhat expecting that Long Island will ultimately become the Olympic venue for much more, and that was the plan all along. Stuff that Boston 2024 is hiding from the public keeps leaking and it's obvious everything they have released intentionally has been nothing more than a ruse de guerre (that is, a lie) to lull the public as they work on what they're really up to. Expect to see Long Island held up as a convenient "back up location" for various parts of the Olympics as more and more people say "hell no" to other venues floated so far like Widett Circle and Boston Common.

up
Voting closed 0

Walsh sounds like a damn fool when he talks about weed. He says weed leads to addiction and death which everyone knows is total fucking bullshit. He is completely biased and ignorant on the subject. What an embarrassment to the city of Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.”

― Mark Twain

"Keeping pot illegal is telling me I can't have a toke just because Walsh has no self-control."

-- Lanny Budd

up
Voting closed 0

... to marijuana, (NIH: Alcohol as a gateway drug) is he going to lead up an effort to criminalize alcohol?

up
Voting closed 0

The facts are pretty well settled: most of the harm from illegal use of marijuana is from it being illegal!

If he would only spend this energy on housing the homeless and replacing treatment beds (and getting state funding for treatment of out-of-city addicts!) we would all be safer.

I think he has a serious problem with understanding basic research for policymaking decisions.

up
Voting closed 0

Other than the schizophrenia, but yeah, sure, the science is settled.

up
Voting closed 0

that cause people to take on anon status in public forums? I mean, there has to be a public you, no?

up
Voting closed 0

It is that affliction where non-scientists do drive-by hearsay on forums based on uncited, seriously limited, single studies not controlled for temporal confounding, which they would be totally unable to understand without anti-pot organization summaries.

From the "correlation isn't causation" and "self-treatment of nascent mental illnes" case files: https://news.vice.com/article/pot-might-not-cause-schizophrenia-but-schi...

up
Voting closed 0

as "Person smokes pot, goes insane with schizophrenia as a result."

Scientists aren't sure about the purported link between schizophrenia and weed. They *do* think it's not quite as simple as "smoking weed will make some percentage of the people who smoke it go crazy," though.

Prevailing theory these days is that undiagnosed schizophrenics lean towards self-medicating with weed in the early stages because it helps alleviate the symptoms a bit. Later, of course, the symptoms get worse, and people end up being diagnosed. There's no solid evidence confirming that, but it seems to fit the facts. Whether worsening symptoms are exacerbated by weed or not, no one really knows.

Marijuana smokers, also tend to have some overlap with genetic markers for schizophrenia. No one's really sure why. So, if you have a family history of schizophrenia, it might be wise to avoid weed out of an abundance of caution. Your call.

up
Voting closed 0

Schizophrenia is a rare disease. Oxycontin and opiate addiction and overdose is a prevalent cause of death.

There is now some evidence that when states legalize medical marijuana, opiate deaths drop by about 25%. One possible reason is that people used weed instead of oxy, it works for some of them, and they are thus never exposed to the opiates and their risks.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/states-with-legal-marijuana-have-f...

up
Voting closed 0

One thing I find interesting is this.. if Marty was in AA.. he should know to allow people to come to their own convictions about addiction. He should know, by being in AA, that people need to be left alone. You can't 'force' people to do anything, they have to realize it themselves.

So if he's anti-pot and feels that preventing legalization would help, he's actually going against what is taught in AA. Let people make their own decisions and come to their own convictions about addiction.

And besides, it's not like pot is not readily avaliable now, so his claim to that legalization would further addiction is a farce. It's not like you can't get it now. Like I said above, he'd be better off focusing his efforts on treatment rather than prohibition.

(I also stand to be corrected about AA's preaching.. it's been a while since I've been to an Al-Anon meeting so I am a bit rusty. So I welcome being corrected)

up
Voting closed 0

With any luck, he'll be as effective as he has been selling 2024.

Numbers aren't looking too shabby.

http://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_%... has 49% with 9% undecided.

And this one is even better from 2/2014.

http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/2_4_2014_marginals.pdf

It hits 53%.

Cholly Baker is 'vigorously opposed' too. I wonder what him and Walsh will do when they are fired in the next cycle?

up
Voting closed 0

Starting to like Walsh more and more

up
Voting closed 0

That's great! You'll have plenty of time to get to know him better when he rejoins private industry in a couple of years, after becoming Boston's first one-term mayor since Frederick Mansfield. By that time, marijuana will most likely have been legalized via a ballot question, so he and Charlie will be able to drown their sorrows in something other than alcohol.

up
Voting closed 0

ikr - he's great for laughs, isn't he? :D

up
Voting closed 0

Pot isn't a gateway drug, alcohol and prescription drugs are the true gateway drugs. Walsh just lost my support for this idiocy.

up
Voting closed 0

Gateway drugs DO NOT EXIST. No single drug leads a user to other drugs, unless that person would do those drugs eventually anyway.

The problems are self-medication of mental illness and/or stress, and underlying propensity for addiction (so-called "addictive personality"). It doesn't matter which drug the self-medicator starts with, or the would-be addict starts with.

A classic, but extreme situation was that football player who had never touched anything ever (LDS adherent) who became addicted to painkillers when injured.

up
Voting closed 0

Of course it's true that many people are using the term "gateway drug" to mean pretty much whatever serves their agenda, but there does seem to be such a thing. It's called nicotine.

up
Voting closed 0

I have a lot of qualms about it. Using anything "responsibly" doesn't come easily to most people, especially young people. I wish I knew how we were planning to regulate this stuff--ie edibles (which are already causing a lot of issues out west) and driving under the influence. I know, I know--it's not the same as drunk driving but still--I don't want people driving around high as kites. Or frankly just being stoned all the time.

up
Voting closed 0

There was a news thing about driving stoned. I'm not excusing the practice, but there was a informal study done by a TV station in Colorado. It was very dependant on the user.. if the user was a regular smoker, they were extremely safe. However if a user wasn't a regular smoker, their chances for an accident was far higher (so to speak).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/stoned-drivers-test-course-mari...

up
Voting closed 0

It just seems as if we're still in the dark ages on understanding this stuff. And I see people driving and smoking ALL the time in my neighborhood (and now that the windows are open, have cars drive by me exhaling clouds of pot smoke). It just seems so difficult to measure HOW baked you are and what the effects are going to be. I just wouldn't want my kid riding in a car (or crossing a street) in a situation where the driver was baked out of his mind.

up
Voting closed 0

We're in the dark ages because of a century of terrible public policy. You can't study the effects of marijuana impairment on driving, because it's really hard to get federal money to study something illegal under federal law. And it's been wildly politicized by the Nancy Reagan school of pearl-clutchers, so much that it's still political suicide (at a national level, anyway) to mention the idea that actually, no, it's the criminalization of it that's causing all the societal harms.

Which is all to say, it's entirely possible that marijuana-impaired driving isn't all that dangerous, or that there's an easy solution to building a device that can test for impairment like a breathalyzer. We'll never know until there's critical mass to reverse federal anti-drug policy.

up
Voting closed 0

Stoned people often just drive slowly and deliberately, but not necessarily unsafely.

NORML has a rundown - and they aren't citing much out of context here (they provided references and I have checked in the past): http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scie...

I really think that cel phone use during driving and drunk driving having a high threshold (many developed countries have an impaired driving threshold at 0.04 BAC) are bigger public health and safety problems.

up
Voting closed 0

Legalization is clearly coming and is clearly the right thing. Still, I worry about the negative effects of people using it all the time and of stoned drivers.

Based on my life experiences, there is no way that people who are high can drive as safely as those who are not high. My friend in high school always claimed, while driving drunk, that he drove BETTER when he had been drinking. That's crazy and so is the idea that your ability to focus behind the wheel is not impaired by smoking pot.

(P.S. I have never called it weed or grass or cannabis. Pot is pot in my vernacular.)

up
Voting closed 0

You talk as though weed is completely unavailable now. The people who would do all those things you're worried about are likely already doing them.

up
Voting closed 0

I smoke "the weeds" and I do not smoke and drive. SO no, not everyone that smokes is doing it now.

up
Voting closed 0

"The people who would do those things....." i.e., evidently not you. Nor I...

up
Voting closed 0

I think legalization would help with all this. Right now, people are told that driving while high is bad, or that smoking them tweeds isn't great for the adolescent mind, or whatever. But because they're also told that mary jane is going to automatically turn them into depraved criminal junkies, and that's clearly not the case, so they disregard the other warnings, too. Perhaps we could keep people from driving while high or smoking up while under 18/21/whatever if we had the basis of credibility that not criminalizing simple marijuana use would give us.

up
Voting closed 0

This is such BS. I am so sick and tired of pot being described as the gateway drug. The small minded thinking of people in the country amazes me. Cigarettes ok? YES! Alcohol ok? YES! How about those ridiculous energy drinks that kids drink all day? Um, prescription drugs anyone? Where is the outrage of how many people are hooked to prescription drugs? Just b/c a doctor prescribes them to you doesn't mean they are good for you. Legalized drug dealers. Pot was the last thing I tried.

I don't drink, I don't smoke ciggies but yes, I still smoke pot. I have also worked my whole life, pay my taxes, give to charity, am a good neighbor, support my community and pay all my bills.

People in this country have been brain washed to think that pot is the root of all evil. It's maddening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9UQJjLcBsE

up
Voting closed 0

But Walsh’s position is a matter of conscience, according to aides. Even as mayor, he still personally helps people struggling with addiction find beds in rehabilitation facilities, they said.

Sure he does!

One adviser said Walsh feels strongly enough about opposing legalization “that he is willing to use his political capital to let people know that he is not in favor of it.”

No name to go with that quote? So glad to see Marty's aides are as passionate as he is. And what political capital? The man is a joke.

And finally:

“So because of racial disparities we legalize a drug that potentially could kill people, lead to death?” the mayor asked with incredulity. “I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to do it.”

With that one quote, Marty Walsh proves himself to be , without a doubt in my mind, an absolute moron. A bought and paid for moron, owned by people who can actually think. I defy this idiot to show me one person who has died from smoking weed. These are not the words of a civic leader, these are the words of a clown, a clown who hopefully will only last one term and then is relegated to the obscurity he so richly deserves.

up
Voting closed 0

people have died of a marijuana overdose in Boston this year? How exactly does smoking marijuana "lead to death"?

up
Voting closed 0

a 36% approval rate means "overwhelming support" for the Olympics!

up
Voting closed 0

Later, they die. Q.E. fucking D.

up
Voting closed 0

One adviser said Walsh feels strongly enough about opposing legalization “that he is willing to use his political capital to let people know that he is not in favor of it.”

Marty's political capital and four dollars will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

My favorite comment in the Globe yesterday asked "Honestly, has he ever been photographed without a look of abject confusion?" (misterwatson 05/31/15 10:57 PM)

up
Voting closed 0

sometimes I feel bad about how terribly he photographs. like, his Twitter picture - is that really the best he could find?? must be rough.

up
Voting closed 0

When I saw photos of him haggard, confused, and helpless-looking at press conferences during this past winter's snowpocalypse, I actually felt bad for the guy. Then, like the Globe poster referenced above, I later realized he always comes off like this. He's just a dunce.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2015/05/25/BostonGlobe.com/Metro/Images/mem_day_10.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

But he's taking the lyrics to "I'm Straight" a little too seriously, I think.

up
Voting closed 0

I know, right?

(IKR = I know, right? Ask dad later...)

up
Voting closed 0

Couldn't taxes from recreational "weed" pay for drug and alcohol treatment in Boston? And maybe homeless shelters?

up
Voting closed 0

They'd rather gouge those who consume alcohol even more than they already do.

up
Voting closed 0

How adorably retro. Maybe he's going for the Hipster Mayor look.

"I'm more into the 80s criminal theory scene; modern public heath just ruined everything with all its research and evidence and stuff."

To the extent that marijuana usage substitutes for alcohol usage, it's a public health win. A potentially large win, given that alcohol is incredibly more harmful in almost every respect.

up
Voting closed 0

Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Poverty is.

up
Voting closed 0

N.B. Delaney is also a recovering alcoholic. And he's joking here.

up
Voting closed 0

At the bottom of this page is for a "75 sweet Mary Jane recipes" cookbook.

up
Voting closed 0

Medical pot with a prescription makes sense. Leaglizing pot does not. I have chosen not to smoke so I don't want to be inhaling it my apartment just because someone moves into the building who wants to smoke it daily. As it is there is someone in the basement unit who smokes and the lobby smells like a skunk most of the time. It's not fair to the rest of us who live here.

up
Voting closed 0

It's not fair for me to have to be around drunk people.

up
Voting closed 0

to have to deal with an odor that fades away quickly as opposed to the smell of stale beer bottles in the recycling all summer. Nope. No, sir.

up
Voting closed 0

Completely agree! Other things we should illegalize, due to my insane narcissistic delusions personal dislikes of smells:

  1. Incense
  2. Indian (but not Thai) curry
  3. Ferrets
  4. Christmas trees
  5. Diesel engines
  6. Chrysanthemums
  7. Cauliflower

Just let me know where to sign the petition, and we'll purge the world of all unclean smells, friend!

up
Voting closed 0

They smell bad when they spray. And dogs, their poo smells the worst. Sometimes I am FORCED to smell it walking down the street! Ugh

up
Voting closed 0

Excessive perfume or aftershave. I'd love to be able to walk into Macy's and not get hosed by the scent spritzers!

up
Voting closed 0

As is, you never know, a new tenant might smoke weed and cause problems for you, like you said.

If weed were as legal as cigarettes, smoking vs. nonsmoking apartments could be upfront about this, and hopefully avoid conflicts like this.

up
Voting closed 0

Non-smoking means non-smoking ... of anything!

However, if a certain smoking material isn't mentionable, it kind of skirts around the prohibition.

up
Voting closed 0

if more folks smoked weed perhaps we'd all get along better?

up
Voting closed 0

I knew a police officer that always said he would rather walk into a house of people smoking pot than drinking. Why? He said drunk people were unpredictable.

up
Voting closed 0