Law States Man Can’t Smoke In His Own Home

You have to be kidding me.

How could a judge make a ruling like this and we are suppose to think it is an intelligent one?

According to an article I just read on wjla.com, a Washington, D.C. Superior Court judge just made a temporary decision that stated a man cannot smoke in his own home.

Yes, you heard that right. A judge ruled that a man cannot smoke in his own home.

You may not know about a new D.C. law passed this year allowing anyone to smoke pot in their home, yet this judge ruled that the homeowner cannot smoke a cigarette in his own home.

According to the article, the homeowner can no longer light up in his northeast D.C. home,  which has been owned by his family for 50 years.

What started it all? A neighbor.

According to the article,

“court filings show the couple that moved in next door has one child and another on the way. They claim they're being harmed by smoke they say sneaks into their home through a hole in the basement.”

The neighbor is quoted as saying "I think it’s an excellent precedent to start, so people can realize you can't just ignore your neighbor," and "Your home is no longer your castle."

My first thought was, "Why didn’t the neighbor fix the hole in the adjoining wall and then take the owner/smoker to court if he would not pay for it?"

Sounds reasonable, does it not?

My second thought was, "Didn’t the judge rule that the smoker must fix the hole in the wall and pay for half of it?"

Another reasonable idea, I think.

The judge agreed with the neighbor, as the decision stated: the smoker and any guests or family cannot smoke cigarettes, cigars or marijuana in their home—even if it's legal in the city where they live.

The neighbor will not let it go at just that, according to the article:

“the couple suing the homeowner declined 7 On Your Side’s request for an interview. Court filings and a statement they supplied to ABC7 say they tried to work with Johnson and Gray, but had to file suit when mediation attempts failed. In addition to the injunction, their lawsuit asks for $500,000 in damages. The case is ongoing”

Do you believe the judge went too far in their temporary ruling?

Will this open the door to a waterfall of cases?

Does this judgment sound insane to you?

Or do you agree with the judge’s decision?

Let’s discuss this tomorrow (Wednesday) on my show the Live with Renk show, which airs Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to noon, to let me know your thoughts at (269) 441-9595.

Or please feel free to start a discussion and write your thoughts in the comment section.