Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm glad that you decided to confront your flatmate. It is his choice to spend his time how he sees fit, but not when it interferes with your life and your studies. If your flatmate cannot accept that he shares a flat with someone and that compromise must be reached then perhaps you and he would be better off parting company.


+1 for Kronk's suggestion too

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
No, it's douchy. You do not know his level of tolerance. You do not know how he behaves under the influence. You do not know if the stuff actually impairs his cognitive faculties. Basically, you know nothing. Yet you think yourself capable of making life-altering choices for him, choices which could get him thrown out of a higher education establishment and out of his current housing arrangements.

You know nothing also. So you may want to remember that yourself before berating someone for doing the same exact same thing that you are doing.

Actually, Konvik, I'm gonna stop you there.

I do know how he acts when doped up, and I do not consider myself capable of making his choices for him.

He made the choice to break rules that he signed up to obey.

So, if he then makes the choice not to stop when I ask him to tomorrow, then he's the one choosing what happens - because he'll know exactly what happens if he doesn't stop.

And if that makes me a douche - well, at least I'll be a happy, healthy douche, won't I?


(EDIT: Ah! double Ninja'd! )

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Do not ruin another man's higher studies because you feel righteous about denouncing his smoking habits. At some point during your stay, you'll do something against the dorm's rules. Housing and schooling is just too important to be douchy about.

If he smokes dope recreationally, that might be true, if he smokes to the extent that's described, it's bad for him, period and will also mess with his studies. So getting him to cut down is not douchy, it's adult.

No, it's douchy. You do not know his level of tolerance. You do not know how he behaves under the influence. You do not know if the stuff actually impairs his cognitive faculties. Basically, you know nothing. Yet you think yourself capable of making life-altering choices for him, choices which could get him thrown out of a higher education establishment and out of his current housing arrangements.

If his smoke is invading my personal space he's outta there.
Report him to the ATF as a narco terrorist and freelance Zeta hitman. Then report him to the Zetas as an MS13 member who talked about the Zetas' mammas.

Wait this is Britain. Call the Hot Fuzz and say he's an IRA supporter who talked funny about the Queen Mum. Then call the local Rugby team and say he called them a bunch of pontsy poofs who couldn't beat Liverpool if their lives depended on it, and that their mammas have arm hair like French people. And he smokes dope incessantly.

That should take care of it.

Collateral Damage Fraz. Your plan relies on certain people not getting the rooms wrong.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
No, it's douchy. You do not know his level of tolerance. You do not know how he behaves under the influence. You do not know if the stuff actually impairs his cognitive faculties. Basically, you know nothing. Yet you think yourself capable of making life-altering choices for him, choices which could get him thrown out of a higher education establishment and out of his current housing arrangements.

You know nothing also. So you may want to remember that yourself before berating someone for doing the same exact same thing that you are doing.

But I did not posit knowledge either. The man could be addicted to the stuff the the level Raymond described, and in this case, I'd be the first to suggest intervention. I do not know. Dreadclaw doesn't know. Dark Apostle might know, or he might be biased against the stuff in a way that clouds his judgement.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Actually, Konvik, I'm gonna stop you there.

Go ahead and try.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
He made the choice to break rules that he signed up to obey.

You must be fun at parties. Let me guess, Pre-Law? Nah, can't be right, pre-laws may be self-righteous little douches, but they know how to party hard.

I don't know what the policies in the UK are about weed, or if they're analogous to over here, but if it's anything like my college in the US, do be careful that no matter how you handle it, you make it clear that the weed is not yours. And that's including the layout of the room, like make sure your clothes or books aren't on top of each other.

Basically, if the cops do get involved, and there's any ambiguity as to whose weed it is, you'll likely be dragged under with him. It happened at my university (not to me, but to friends).

So if you do go to the administration/cops/whoever, make it clear up front that you don't smoke, and that when they do bust him you'd better darn well be left alone.

If you go with a more middle ground approach, like the vaporizer, still make sure that if cops busted in all the stuff they found was clearly among his stuff, and not close enough to your stuff that it might be mistaken for yours. You never know when an overzealous RA is going to go on a power trip and burn the heret- I mean try and rid the campus of pot smokers.



Also, I don't know if your cops are like our cops, but having worked in a public defender's office over here, and seeing tons of weed cases, I can tell you that most of our cops can smell unlit weed in a sealed bag in a car driving 60 mph/ 100 kph in the opposite direction on the highway.

Or maybe that's just what they say so they can have probable cause for a search.

/public defender humor

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
But I did not posit knowledge either. The man could be addicted to the stuff the the level Raymond described, and in this case, I'd be the first to suggest intervention. I do not know. Dreadclaw doesn't know. Dark Apostle might know, or he might be biased against the stuff in a way that clouds his judgement.

And you might be biased because you don't think it did you any harm, as your posts above demonstrate. So lets not pretend you're being impartial here. You posted in ignorance and gave some advice. The same thing that you hypocritically berated another community member for.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
And if that makes me a douche - well, at least I'll be a happy, healthy douche, won't I?

You'll also be the dude known on campus as the guy who fethed over his flatmate, and a snitch.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
you know nothing

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You know nothing also.

Not sure who to root for here.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
And if that makes me a douche - well, at least I'll be a happy, healthy douche, won't I?

You'll also be the dude known on campus as the guy who fethed over his flatmate, and a snitch.

As opposed to being a doormat to a sociopathic drug abuser?

One shouldn't be forced to be around someone else's smoke if they don't want to be, particularly in their own living space.

DogofWar1 wrote:
Also, I don't know if your cops are like our cops, but having worked in a public defender's office over here, and seeing tons of weed cases, I can tell you that most of our cops can smell unlit weed in a sealed bag in a car driving 60 mph/ 100 kph in the opposite direction on the highway.

Or maybe that's just what they say so they can have probable cause for a search.

/public defender humor

No, that's a real thing - it's like how Dads can tell if someone is screwing with the thermostat.

No, that's a real thing - it's like how Dads can tell if someone is screwing with the thermostat.

Totally.

Seriously, their noses are better than drug dogs. That or they're psychic.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
But I did not posit knowledge either. The man could be addicted to the stuff the the level Raymond described, and in this case, I'd be the first to suggest intervention. I do not know. Dreadclaw doesn't know. Dark Apostle might know, or he might be biased against the stuff in a way that clouds his judgement.

And you might be biased because you don't think it did you any harm, as your posts above demonstrate. So lets not pretend you're being impartial here. You posted in ignorance and gave some advice. The same thing that you hypocritically berated another community member for.

You are being obtuse. I gave advice on methods to diminish the odour. I have knowledge of these methods, and of their effectiveness. On everything else, I simply opposed the general view that a pot smoker is an unhealthy person which cannot make appropriate judgement.

DogofWar1 wrote:

No, that's a real thing - it's like how Dads can tell if someone is screwing with the thermostat.

Totally.

Seriously, their noses are better than drug dogs. That or they're psychic.

Drug Posession. Two years in the iso-cubes!

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
And if that makes me a douche - well, at least I'll be a happy, healthy douche, won't I?

You'll also be the dude known on campus as the guy who fethed over his flatmate, and a snitch.

As opposed to being a doormat to a sociopathic drug abuser?

One shouldn't be forced to be around someone else's smoke if they don't want to be, particularly in their own living space.

Somehow, I think the fact that we got from ''Pothead roomie with a bit of a respect issue'' to ''sociopathic drug abuser'' kinda underlines my argument about people having an unduly strong bias against anything labelled 'drugs'.

I certainly wouldn't say he couldn't make an appropriate judgement - I'm actually rather hoping he will make a reasonable decision - IE one that means I don't have to take this to the "Authorities"

I don't relish the idea of getting him in trouble, I quite like the guy, but I'm going to put my wellbeing and learning before his "right" to break rules because he can't be bothered to walk outside.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
And if that makes me a douche - well, at least I'll be a happy, healthy douche, won't I?

You'll also be the dude known on campus as the guy who fethed over his flatmate, and a snitch.

As opposed to being a doormat to a sociopathic drug abuser?

One shouldn't be forced to be around someone else's smoke if they don't want to be, particularly in their own living space.

Somehow, I think the fact that we got from ''Pothead roomie with a bit of a respect issue'' to ''sociopathic drug abuser'' kinda underlines my argument about people having an unduly strong bias against anything labelled 'drugs'.

I ratcheted up the language to match your own. I don't have a bias against people who smoke weed responsibly and with respect to people around them.

Though I think to any reasonable observer there is more than a "bit" of a respect issue going on, and the frequency with which the substance in question is used could easily be argued to be at an abusive level.

The best thing you can do is ask him to stop/be better about smoking it. A draft excluder can help with the smell. Try to appeal to the fact that you both have to live there.
Personally, I wouldn't report him but if you have no other choice and it's bothering you so much it's affecting your studies then I guess it's your only choice...

This is way too intense for a thread about weed. Please keep in mind Rule Number One is Be Polite.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
But I did not posit knowledge either.

You posited that it is "douchey" to be upset that someone is doing something illegal that is interfering with their education. It is strange to me that the drug user in your mind is the victim and the guy trying to get the most out of his education is the donkey-cave. Sure, it isn't heroin, but it is a controlled medicine in the same way opiates are, and I can't imagine if the person said that his roommate was abusing codeine that they would be called a douche.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I certainly wouldn't say he couldn't make an appropriate judgement - I'm actually rather hoping he will make a reasonable decision - IE one that means I don't have to take this to the "Authorities"

I don't relish the idea of getting him in trouble, I quite like the guy, but I'm going to put my wellbeing and learning before his "right" to break rules because he can't be bothered to walk outside.

Fine, all I wanted to stress here is that you should offer as many non-confrontational options as possible.

Meanwhile, I'll just continue rolling my doobie and listening to Roundabout by Yes.

Just to set things straight - Tomorrow, I intend to just say that the fumes are making me feel ill, and would he try to do something about it - I think that might be enough, he's an ok bloke.

It's only if it doesn't improve that I'll take it higher - Hopefully it won't come to that.
I'd like to thank everyone for their advice, and opinions, but I think that now my mind's made up, I'm going to ask for this thread to be locked.

Thanks again!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I certainly wouldn't say he couldn't make an appropriate judgement - I'm actually rather hoping he will make a reasonable decision - IE one that means I don't have to take this to the "Authorities"

I don't relish the idea of getting him in trouble, I quite like the guy, but I'm going to put my wellbeing and learning before his "right" to break rules because he can't be bothered to walk outside.

Fine, all I wanted to stress here is that you should offer as many non-confrontational options as possible.

Meanwhile, I'll just continue rolling my doobie and listening to Roundabout by Yes.

Hello mister knows about weed.

It shouldn't be up to the non-smoker to have to come up with this stuff. If this was happening to me I would give one warning and that's it. And don't bother lecturing me on the stuff, it's my actual legal job.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
But I did not posit knowledge either.

You posited that it is "douchey" to be upset that someone is doing something illegal that is interfering with their education.

Slight correction ; I posited that it's douchey to mess around with someone's higher education and his housing, or to dangle that above his head. As in, getting him kicked out of school or of his flat.

The mature thing is, obviously, to discuss this in a manner that underlines how both respect and tolerance is important in a shared appartment, and to find a solution to the problem that satisfies both parties.