All of which is why most apartment buildings don't allow smoking of non-weed tobacco, either.

bud u were comparing tobacco to weed n suggesting smoking weed is riskier, do i need to quote ur post to remember u of that? so this is irrelevant

The government and the legislation don't have to be smart, good, or right, for insurers to decide that smoking marijuana is a higher risk to property and therefore charge more for premiums if the property owner intends to permit it.

no shit sherlock but that isnt what i said, i said insurers arent gonna rely on parliament to determine risk, they are gonna do there own calclations, so u saying "its obvs imparing (in a way that matters to insurers) because parliament says u cant smoke and drive" is fallacious bud, sorry

My logic is quite solid. If weed did not cause impairment of reaction time, then governments would have no reason to pay any attention to it beyond what they pay to any other cigarette.

actualy ur quite wrong, there could be other reasons to prohibit other then it causes it impairment, think about political reasons... if most ppl believe it is impairing there might be a prohibition even if science says it isnt... u think parliament only relies on science evidence, thats a wrong assumption