Ahmad Bradshaw cited for pot possession

[Jason_]

I never said to not do any critical thinking or to blindly follow a law just because it exists. You can still oppose and fight to change a law without having to break it.

If your idea of opposing a law is to just break it, then that's just plain dumb and get you no where.

That's like those Ferguson rioters, oh we don't like the verdict, so let's vandalize our own town (disputable), and intentionally attack police. That accomplished very little than just hurting themselves and their community.

No, it's nothing at all like the Ferguson rioters.

[Narcosys]

No, it's nothing at all like the Ferguson rioters.

By intentionally breaking the law you are only hurting yourself and your community. Yup, the same concept in both instances

[Jason_]

By intentionally breaking the law you are only hurting yourself and your community. Yup, the same concept in both instances

 

Just, no it's not like rioters at all.  The intention of the rioters was to take their anger out on society.   Not just on the government but regular, every day citizens.  They willfully destroyed private and public property.  In no way is someone smoking weed in the privacy of their home, or someone willfully going 5 mph over the speed limit anything even remotely close to what the rioters did. 

 

Also, how is smoking weed in the privacy of one's home hurting the community? 

[Narcosys]

Just, no it's not like rioters at all. The intention of the rioters was to take their anger out on society. Not just on the government but regular, every day citizens. They willfully destroyed private and public property. In no way is someone smoking weed in the privacy of their home, or someone willfully going 5 mph over the speed limit anything even remotely close to what the rioters did.

Also, how is smoking weed in the privacy of one's home hurting the community?

See, that's where you're confused. You're trying to look at the minute detail of each instance, I'm talking about the larger aspect and concept. And how does smoking pot hurt the community? Well let's look at the 2nd and 3rd tier effects of smoking pot. Where did you get it from, most likely from a dealer. That dealer is peddling more drugs to just one person. The dealer wouldn't be there if people didn't want to buy. So now he is in the community and able to reach underage kids who have no business taking that stuff. There's also probably more than one, how do drug dealers protect their product and themselves? By buying illegal guns or working in gangs. Now you have people killing other people over the drugs and innocent people getting caught on the crossfire. Even better is the drug cartels that get involved who traffic large amounts of drugs just for those people that want to sit in the privacy of their own homes and smoke pot. But ya, you're right, it doesn't hurt the community.

That's why the southern border around new Mexico and Arizona are the safest places in the US to live.

Open your mind and realize there can be 2nd and 3rd order effects of even the most mundane of choices.

[Narcosys]

Just, no it's not like rioters at all. The intention of the rioters was to take their anger out on society. Not just on the government but regular, every day citizens. They willfully destroyed private and public property. In no way is someone smoking weed in the privacy of their home, or someone willfully going 5 mph over the speed limit anything even remotely close to what the rioters did.

Also, how is smoking weed in the privacy of one's home hurting the community?

Furthermore, I don't blame the cartels for the murders and crime. They are just providing a product. I blame the people who are creating the massive demand for it.

[Jason_]

See, that's where you're confused. You're trying to look at the minute detail of each instance, I'm talking about the larger aspect and concept. And how does smoking pot hurt the community? Well let's look at the 2nd and 3rd tier effects of smoking pot. Where did you get it from, most likely from a dealer. That dealer is peddling more drugs to just one person. The dealer wouldn't be there if people didn't want to buy. So now he is in the community and able to reach underage kids who have no business taking that stuff. There's also probably more than one, how do drug dealers protect their product and themselves? By buying illegal guns or working in gangs. Now you have people killing other people over the drugs and innocent people getting caught on the crossfire. Even better is the drug cartels that get involved who traffic large amounts of drugs just for those people that want to sit in the privacy of their own homes and smoke pot. But ya, you're right, it doesn't hurt the community.

That's why the southern border around new Mexico and Arizona are the safest places in the US to live.

Open your mind and realize there can be 2nd and 3rd order effects of even the most mundane of choices.

 

and how does that relate to people in California, Washington and Colorado where weed has been legalized?  BTW, a lot of illegally sold marijuana comes from those states these days, or from local growers, not South American cartels. 

[Jason_]

Furthermore, I don't blame the cartels for the murders and crime. They are just providing a product. I blame the people who are creating the massive demand for it.

 

ok well that just may be the dumbest thing I've read on this site, and it tells me enough to know this conversation will go nowhere fast.  People smoking weed in the privacy of their own home are responsible for the murders and other crimes committed by South American cartels?  Murder, human trafficking etc are ok so long as they are in the name of providing a product?  That's just...

 

[Narcosys]

and how does that relate to people in California, Washington and Colorado where weed has been legalized? BTW, a lot of illegally sold marijuana comes from those states these days, or from local growers, not South American cartels.

Who do you think is selling that stuff? Again you're looking at the fine details. Now there are just more hands in those areas who are creating their own 'cartels' to legally grow it and then sell it illegally. You really think the cartels haven't set up shop in those states where is legalized? Give me a break. Think big picture. Until it is fully legal to grow and use everywhere, it's still going to create crime everywhere. And cite some references when making claims like that. I Don't believe for one second that most of the illegal pot in the us comes from 3 states. If that's the case California wouldn't be in such economic shambles.

[Narcosys]

ok well that just may be the dumbest thing I've read on this site, and it tells me enough to know this conversation will go nowhere fast. People smoking weed in the privacy of their own home are responsible for the murders and other crimes committed by South American cartels? Murder, human trafficking etc are ok so long as they are in the name of providing a product? That's just...

Are you serious? So if no one wanted pot in the US you think there would still be a massive drug ring trying to peddle it? I'm sorry, do you understand economics? Supply and demand mean anything to you? Ya this conversation is going nowhere fast cause you can't see past the effects of one decision. Cause it sure isn't the hospitals creating the demand for it.

[Jason_]

Are you serious? So if none wanted pot in the US you think there would still be a massive drug ring trying to peddle it? I'm sorry, do you understand economics? Supply and demand mean anything to you? Ya this conversation is going nowhere fast cause you can't see past the effects of one decision.

 

Yes, I understand economics, supply and demand..etc.  However, you don't seem to understand that all weed that is illegally smoked in the US does not come from South American drug cartels.  I would venture to say that the majority of it is in no way affiliated or associated with South American drug cartels.  There are many other sources for people to get pot.  As I said in a previous post, much of it comes from states where it is legal.  It is simply illegally moved across state lines to be sold in states where it is still illegal.  A lot of it also comes from local (to the US) growers. 

 

And that's not even getting into the fact that many of these cartels that are still around are only around because the US allowed them to be, and in some cases the US has even helped those cartels.  The same government that made smoking weed illegal turned around and helped/funded the cartels they swore to eliminate.  Yet you'd rather put the blame on Joe Blow who's smoking a joint in his basement.  Seems reasonable to me.

[ruksak]

Furthermore, I don't blame the cartels for the murders and crime. They are just providing a product. I blame the people who are creating the massive demand for it.

If they made cheese illegal, would you blame cheese lovers for the illegal trade of black market cheese? Or would you blame the *s in Washington DC who decided to make cheese illegal, thusly opening a black market for the product? 

 

Marijuana is not going to shake the pillars of society if it was fully federally legal. Chaos will not ensue, it is not a dangerous substance. Every 19 minutes someone dies of a prescription narcotic overdose. Not one human soul has ever died from a marijuana overdose. It's time we stop pretending Eli Lilly isn't a damn cartel, and it's time we stop pretending that marijuana is anything similar to other illegal drugs. It's not even as comparable dangerous as alcohol, which people seem to think is acceptable just because you don't have to smoke it, you drink it like a sophisticated drug addict. 

[Narcosys]

Yes, I understand economics, supply and demand..etc. However, you don't seem to understand that all weed that is illegally smoked in the US does not come from South American drug cartels. I would venture to say that the majority of it is in no way affiliated or associated with South American drug cartels. There are many other sources for people to get pot. As I said in a previous post, much of it comes from states where it is legal. It is simply illegally moved across state lines to be sold in states where it is still illegal. A lot of it also comes from local (to the US) growers.

And that's not even getting into the fact that many of these cartels that are still around are only around because the US allowed them to be, and in some cases the US has even helped those cartels. The same government that made smoking weed illegal turned around and helped/funded the cartels they swore to eliminate. Yet you'd rather put the blame on Joe Blow who's smoking a joint in his basement. Seems reasonable to me.

Holy moly. It doesn't matter where it comes from, what matters is that it is used illegally. When I say cartels, there are more than just that one type of organizations in south America. There are some in the US. Large gangs like MS 13, or hello angels do the same thing. So looking at the fine details and notice the big picture and inter-related concepts that govern the situation. Again you do not provide any sort of source fence for your claims, therefore invalid. There is no way that those 3 states provide most of the pot that is in the US. Even if true, the concept is still the same. That it is being illegally used and illegally moved. So those people that are moving it between states are doing the same kinda of acts and things as those moving it across borders and supplying it to those that are illegally consuming it. Those that move it have to hide it in much the same way that the south American cartels do once it's in the US.

No matter where it comes from, it's still the same outcome.

And who cares about the what the government did. The people still provide the demands for an illegal substance. Therefore supporting the existence of said illegal organizations. Eliminate the illegality of it, you eliminate the black market for it.

[ruksak]

Are you serious? So if no one wanted pot in the US you think there would still be a massive drug ring trying to peddle it? I'm sorry, do you understand economics? Supply and demand mean anything to you? Ya this conversation is going nowhere fast cause you can't see past the effects of one decision. Cause it sure isn't the hospitals creating the demand for it.

Anything that can be bought, sold, or traded....there's a black market for it. Women, electronics, viagra, designer handbags etc etc...you name it. So let's not blame the product itself for human greed. 

 

The cartels are making far more cash from meth and cocaine than they are for pot. Marijuana is NOT an easy commodity for them to profit from. It cost a lot to grow, it takes up huge amounts of space for it's value. A trailer full of pot won't get you a fraction of what you can get from a few compartments filled with meth or coke. Frankly, it's a pain in the butt to move the stuff. 

 

Have you considered that we spend billions annually trying to eradicate a frickin' harmless plant that makes people giggle? When we could put those resources toward truly dangerous drugs like meth and coke, even using the massive new tax base from pot sales to do so? Cartels aren't going to want to mess with weed if it enjoys full federal legalization. It would be a very unprofitable venture. 

[Jason_]

Holy moly. It doesn't matter where it comes from, what matters is that it is used illegally.

 

I would agree with you that it doesn't matter where it comes from had you not started blaming pot smokers for the murders committed by cartels and gangs. 

 

 

Even if true, the concept is still the same. That it is being illegally used and illegally moved.

 

 So those people that are moving it between states are doing the same kinda of acts and things as those moving it across borders and supplying it to those that are illegally consuming it. Those that move it have to hide it in much the same way that the south American cartels do once it's in the US.

 

 

Again, I might have agreed with this prior to the "pot smokers are responsible for murders and other crimes committed by cartels and gangs"

[ruksak]

Smoking pot can harm others. You dont want to be working on a construction site with people who are high.

I don't want to be working with a drunk either. I don't want to work with a guy that hasn't slept for 3 days. I don't want to work with a guy that is distracted because he thinks his wife is cheating on him and that's all he's thinking about. People are ultimately going to either be the type of people that conduct themselves responsibly..... or they are  not. Whether or not what they were doing was illegal .....it matters not. 

 

I've smoked pot since I was 17....that's almost 25 years. .....and guess what? I don't go to work high because I'm not irresponsible. 

[Narcosys]

If they made cheese illegal, would you blame cheese lovers for the illegal trade of black market cheese? Or would you blame the *s in Washington DC who decided to make cheese illegal, thusly opening a black market for the product?

Marijuana is not going to shake the pillars of society if it was fully federally legal. Chaos will not ensue, it is not a dangerous substance. Every 19 minutes someone dies of a prescription narcotic overdose. Not one human soul has ever died from a marijuana overdose. It's time we stop pretending Eli Lilly isn't a damn cartel, and it's time we stop pretending that marijuana is anything similar to other illegal drugs. It's not even as comparable dangerous as alcohol, which people seem to think is acceptable just because you don't have to smoke it, you drink it like a sophisticated drug addict.

I never said it should or should not be illegal. I'm debating the consequences of it being illegal. If they make cheese illegal then people should stop using it and fight the law through proper channels. The government did not create the black market for it, the people who want it create it. They don't have the self control to stop doing it just because they believe it to be stupid. I do not blame tobacco companies for people getting Lung cancer, it's the fault of the people using it. It didn't matter if you believe it is dumb fir being illegal, It still is, so no matter how much you disagree doesn't change that fact. If you make it legal everywhere, the crime that comes from it being illegal would virtually so over night because everyone would be able to grow it and use it. No more put dealers with illegal guns killing innocent bystanders caught in the middle of turf wars.

[ruksak]

I never said it should or should not be illegal. I'm debating the consequences of it being illegal. If they make cheese illegal then people should stop using it and fight the law through proper channels. The government did not create the black market for it, the people who want it create it. They don't have the self control to stop doing it just because they believe it to be stupid. I do not blame tobacco companies for people getting Lung cancer, it's the fault of the people using it. It didn't matter if you believe it is dumb fir being illegal, It still is, so no matter how much you disagree doesn't change that fact. If you make it legal everywhere, the crime that comes from it being illegal would virtually so over night because everyone would be able to grow it and use it. No more put dealers with illegal guns killing innocent bystanders caught in the middle of turf wars.

The untolled violence that came from prohibition should clue us all into how a populous responds when the mass demand for a product is cut off by the government. When you create crimes with unjust laws, it is the lawmakers who bare the weight of their decision. 

[Jason_]

The untolled violence that came from prohibition should clue us all into how a populous responds when the mass demand for a product is cut off by the government. When you create crimes with unjust laws, it is the lawmakers who bare the weight of their decision. 

 

Especially when said lawmakers speak out of both sides of their mouths, on one hand talking about a war on drugs to eradicate illegal drug trafficking in the US while at the same time providing funding to some of the cartels that are directly responsible for the illegal drug trafficking in the first place.

 

Laws such as prohibition and weed being illegal are all about politics and business, not the welfare of the people.  If it was about the welfare of the people then cigarettes would also be illegal. 

[Narcosys]

Anything that can be bought, sold, or traded....there's a black market for it. Women, electronics, viagra, designer handbags etc etc...you name it. So let's not blame the product itself for human greed.

The cartels are making far more cash from meth and cocaine than they are for pot. Marijuana is NOT an easy commodity for them to profit from. It cost a lot to grow, it takes up huge amounts of space for it's value. A trailer full of pot won't get you a fraction of what you can get from a few compartments filled with meth or coke. Frankly, it's a pain in the butt to move the stuff.

Have you considered that we spend billions annually trying to eradicate a frickin' harmless plant that makes people giggle? When we could put those resources toward truly dangerous drugs like meth and coke, even using the massive new tax base from pot sales to do so? Cartels aren't going to want to mess with weed if it enjoys full federal legalization. It would be a very unprofitable venture.

Idc what we're doing to combat it. That's not the point and you're trying to derail the point by bringing in conjecture. The other drugs are not what the discussion is about, and if it's not worth it then why are they selling it. If it was all legalized there is most likely no way they would be able to make a profit by trying to compete with a legal substance. While it is illegal, they can set the price. If it is legal they have to compete with free, and they can't. Because once someone gets the seeds, they can continually grow it for essentially free.

Can't use women because buying women is illegal everywhere. Black market items that are typically purchased in stores are usually life that because of a few reasons, one of which is they can't get the specific item in their country.

But back to weed, as long as it is illegal there is more crime that evolves from it than just the law that is being broken by having possession of it. It affects more than just Joe schmoe sitting in his room. The idea that is ok to do it just because the cartels will be around from other drugs is asinine. You're only contributing to an already big enough problem.

If everyone stopped doing it, the drug footprint of the cartels would shrink. Fight the battle of legalization the right way and stop contributing to the problem.

[Narcosys]

I would agree with you that it doesn't matter where it comes from had you not started blaming pot smokers for the murders committed by cartels and gangs. 

 

 

 

Again, I might have agreed with this prior to the "pot smokers are responsible for murders and other crimes committed by cartels and gangs"

 

 

Answer these simple questions.

 

Are there crimes generated from organizations that move and sell pot?

Would these organizations and people that sell pot exist if there was no demand for it?

Do pot smokers create a demand for an illegal drug?

 

You have to go to the source of the 'Why' behind the drug cartels.  Why do they exist, why do pot dealers exist. 

 

Because there are individuals that create a demand for it. 

No demand, no reason to to deal it.  If there is no reason to deal it, then there are no organizations to do so. If there are no organizations to do so, then there are not the existential crimes cause by the organizations.

 

It all links to Joe Schmoe sitting in the comfort of his own home. 

[Narcosys]

I don't want to be working with a drunk either. I don't want to work with a guy that hasn't slept for 3 days. I don't want to work with a guy that is distracted because he thinks his wife is cheating on him and that's all he's thinking about. People are ultimately going to either be the type of people that conduct themselves responsibly..... or they are  not. Whether or not what they were doing was illegal .....it matters not. 

 

I've smoked pot since I was 17....that's almost 25 years. .....and guess what? I don't go to work high because I'm not irresponsible. 

 

Agreed. But the original point was that pot can harm others around you.  Just because you make a responsible decision doesn't mean there are others that do not.  You can try to bring in alcohol and everything else.  But were not talking about that.  You cannot disagree that someone who is high can harm others.  So can drunks.  Thats another discussion though.  But not the one were on.

[Narcosys]

The untolled violence that came from prohibition should clue us all into how a populous responds when the mass demand for a product is cut off by the government. When you create crimes with unjust laws, it is the lawmakers who bare the weight of their decision. 

 

Ok, so you are saying that people do not have to be held accountable for their actions if they do not agree with the laws and regulations set before them?  Crimes are not created by laws, crimes are created by those who BREAK the law.  It is not a crime until you break the law. 

[Jaric]

See, that's where you're confused. You're trying to look at the minute detail of each instance, I'm talking about the larger aspect and concept. And how does smoking pot hurt the community? Well let's look at the 2nd and 3rd tier effects of smoking pot. Where did you get it from, most likely from a dealer. That dealer is peddling more drugs to just one person. The dealer wouldn't be there if people didn't want to buy. So now he is in the community and able to reach underage kids who have no business taking that stuff. There's also probably more than one, how do drug dealers protect their product and themselves? By buying illegal guns or working in gangs. Now you have people killing other people over the drugs and innocent people getting caught on the crossfire. Even better is the drug cartels that get involved who traffic large amounts of drugs just for those people that want to sit in the privacy of their own homes and smoke pot. But ya, you're right, it doesn't hurt the community.

That's why the southern border around new Mexico and Arizona are the safest places in the US to live.

Open your mind and realize there can be 2nd and 3rd order effects of even the most mundane of choices.

This is actually the strongest argument for legalization. If pot is legal, the black market no longer profits from it.

[Jaric]

Answer these simple questions.

Are there crimes generated from organizations that move and sell pot?

Would these organizations and people that sell pot exist if there was no demand for it?

Do pot smokers create a demand for an illegal drug?

You have to go to the source of the 'Why' behind the drug cartels. Why do they exist, why do pot dealers exist.

Because there are individuals that create a demand for it.

No demand, no reason to to deal it. If there is no reason to deal it, then there are no organizations to do so. If there are no organizations to do so, then there are not the existential crimes cause by the organizations.

It all links to Joe Schmoe sitting in the comfort of his own home.

Actually it all links to marijuana being illegal. If it's not, none of this is relevant.

[Narcosys]

This is actually the strongest argument for legalization. If pot is legal, the black market no longer profits from it.

 

I have never once stated it should or should not be illegal.  I am merely stating the argument that since it is currently illegal, people should not do it because it is generating much larger issues than just the crime of having possession of it.  Fight to legalize it through the proper channels, not to break the law just because you disagree with it.  I care less about the fact of actually doing it, it is more about the 2nd and 3rd order of effects from the process of getting it.

[Narcosys]

Actually it all links to marijuana being illegal. If it's not, none of this is relevant.

 

 

...omg man...  I am not arguing the point of its legality and whether or not it should be.  It is illegal...fact.  Crime is not generated by the law, crime is generated by those who BREAK the law, whether unjust or not.  There would be no crime if no one broke a law.  Again, fight against the law all you want but do it through proper channels.  Breaking the law to obtain it does nothing but cause harm to others is also fact.  You're debating this with 'IF' statements which you would get eaten alive in real debate competitions.  You can argue and debate all the 'IF' statements you want, 'IF' statements do not refute current facts. 

 

It IS illegal.

It IS the regular joe who BREAKS the law to obtain it.

It IS this demand that CREATES the illegal market for it.

Other crimes DO occur from organizations who are dealing in it.

[Jaric]

I have never once stated it should or should not be illegal. I am merely stating the argument that since it is currently illegal, people should not do it because it is generating much larger issues than just the crime of having possession of it. Fight to legalize it through the proper channels, not to break the law just because you disagree with it. I care less about the fact of actually doing it, it is more about the 2nd and 3rd order of effects from the process of getting it.

I think you missed my point.

What I'm saying is all of those issues that you bring up are the best reasons to legalize it. The demand isn't going to go away. It's time we just accept that. Decry it if you want to (not saying that you do) but we have to accept that by now.

This is no different than prohibition back in the 20s. Prohibition made organized crime. Without prohibition theres no Al Capone and all that other bad stuff.

If you really want to stop the cartels and the violence associated with them, take away the need for them.

The war on drugs has failed. Miserably. All we've accomplished is wasted billions of dollars, made violent criminals ludicrously wealthy, and got to a point where we have more citizens incarcerated than any other civilized country in the world. It's time to aknowledge this, and think up better strategies to address the issue.

Or we can keep doing the same thing and hope for a different result. Einstein had a theory about that.

[Jaric]

It IS this demand that CREATES the illegal market for it.

Actually it's the law that creates the "illegal" market for it. The demand isn't going away. It's time for rational and pragmatic people to accept that. All we accomplish by continuing the way we are is that we ensure the demand is met by criminals instead of business men.

[Jason_]

Ok, so you are saying that people do not have to be held accountable for their actions if they do not agree with the laws and regulations set before them?  Crimes are not created by laws, crimes are created by those who BREAK the law.  It is not a crime until you break the law. 

 

Of course they are.  That's why I would feel no sympathy for Bradshaw if he was actually caught in possession of weed.  If I make the decision to be possession of weed and I get caught then I would fully accept the punishment.  However I would not accept the punishment for crimes being committed by cartels and gangs that do what they do to make sure they make the most profit. 

[Narcosys]

I think you missed my point.

What I'm saying is all of those issues that you bring up are the best reasons to legalize it. The demand isn't going to go away. It's time we just accept that. Decry it if you want to (not saying that you do) but we have to accept that by now.

This is no different than prohibition back in the 20s. Prohibition made organized crime. Without prohibition theres no Al Capone and all that other bad stuff.

If you really want to stop the cartels and the violence associated with them, take away the need for them.

The war on drugs has failed. Miserably. All we've accomplished is wasted billions of dollars, made violent criminals ludicrously wealthy, and got to a point where we have more citizens incarcerated than any other civilized country in the world. It's time to aknowledge this, and think up better strategies to address the issue.

Or we can keep doing the same thing and hope for a different result. Einstein had a theory about that.

 

And my point is i dont care what your point is (not to be rude).  It is irrelevant to the debate at hand.  The debate is that since pot is illegal, it is causing more crimes than just the one that is broken by those sitting in their home smoking it.  Im not discussing the issue of IF it should be legal or not, Im debating the consequenes of those who break the law to use it.

 

I have already stated the consequences of it being illegal and what might logically happen if it was made legal, but I am not going to paint myself into a corner of saying whether i believe it should or should not be legal.

[Narcosys]

Actually it's the law that creates the "illegal" market for it. The demand isn't going away. It's time for rational and pragmatic people to accept that. All we accomplish by continuing the way we are is that we ensure the demand is met by criminals instead of business men.

 

No its not.  It is the people who don't have the self control to not use it.  Again, it is illegal therefore noone should do it.  If people didnt do it because it is illegal there wouldnt be a market for it, just the same as your argument if it was legal then there wouldnt be a market for it.  Doesn't change the fact that people who want it create the market, not the law that makes it illegal.  Your point suppors mine, if peopple didn't want it, there would be no market.  Exact same as if people didn't break the law, because they don't want to break the law, then there would be no market.  But people want it so bad they do not care if they break the law or not.  It comes down to self discipline and self control.

[Narcosys]

Of course they are.  That's why I would feel no sympathy for Bradshaw if he was actually caught in possession of weed.  If I make the decision to be possession of weed and I get caught then I would fully accept the punishment.  However I would not accept the punishment for crimes being committed by cartels and gangs that do what they do to make sure they make the most profit. 

 

But you are the reason that the demand exists, that the cartels who supply the demand even exist.  If you create the entity, you have the accept the consequences of the entity you create and their actions.

 

You create a child, you are responsible what that child does.  Given that you are supposed to teach the child right and wrong, and there are other aspects of learning.  But in the end, you are responsible for their actions up to a certain point.  So because you, along with millions of others, have created a need for the product, you create the organization that supplies it to you and therefore are held accountable for their actions.  There are plenty of cases where someone who did not directly do something were still found liable because of responsibility. 

[Jaric]

No its not. It is the people who don't have the self control to not use it. Again, it is illegal therefore noone should do it. If people didnt do it because it is illegal there wouldnt be a market for it, just the same as your argument if it was legal then there wouldnt be a market for it. Doesn't change the fact that people who want it create the market, not the law that makes it illegal. Your point suppors mine, if peopple didn't want it, there would be no market. Exact same as if people didn't break the law, because they don't want to break the law, then there would be no market. But people want it so bad they do not care if they break the law or not. It comes down to self discipline and self control.

The market will exist if its legal or not. By making it illegal you force it to the black market with all the crime and violence associated with it.

If you want to out a stop to the black market you should be in favor of legalization. Then the market is addressed by legitimate business men. Keeping it illegal does nothing except waste more money and lives.

[Jaric]

The bottom line is that the demand isn't going away. We aren't going to be able to change that.

What we can change is the manner in which the demand is met. We've currently elected to have the demand met by the black market. I propose we'd be better off as a society having that demand met by legitimate (and highly regulated) business.

[Jason_]

But you are the reason that the demand exists, that the cartels who supply the demand even exist.  If you create the entity, you have the accept the consequences of the entity you create and their actions.

 

Again, no, I don't.  Just like anyone who's ever bought a sweatshirt that was made in a sweat shop is responsible for the atrocities that occur in sweatshops.  Or anyone that's ever sped is responsible for speeding-related accidents or fatalities.  It was not the users who said "hey, XX cartel should be making the most money off of illegal drugs, so they should go out and murder all of their rivals."

 

You create a child, you are responsible what that child does.  Given that you are supposed to teach the child right and wrong, and there are other aspects of learning.  But in the end, you are responsible for their actions up to a certain point.  So because you, along with millions of others, have created a need for the product, you create the organization that supplies it to you and therefore are held accountable for their actions. 

 

This is a ridiculous comparison.  As a parent, you are physically present with your child to teach them right from wrong and how to behave in society.  Pot smokers are not present with these cartels and gangs you keep referring to telling them how to conduct their business and to punish them and correct them when they do something wrong. 

 

 

There are plenty of cases where someone who did not directly do something were still found liable because of responsibility.

 

Well, first the US justice system is a borderline joke.  Still, this is not even close to the same thing.  The closest possible connection I could make is that it is the law for bars to cut off patrons after a certain point, and if a patron gets too drunk and leaves the premises and gets into an accident then yes, the bar can take some of the blame.  However again, this is because the bartender or waiter was present with the patron and did not properly monitor the amount of intake.  I still think this is a ridiculous law but it is what it is.  What it is NOT, however, is a drunk driver being held responsible for any crimes that may or may not have been committed by the brewing company of his favorite alcohol.

[Narcosys]

Actually it's the law that creates the "illegal" market for it. The demand isn't going away. It's time for rational and pragmatic people to accept that. All we accomplish by continuing the way we are is that we ensure the demand is met by criminals instead of business men.

You cannot blame a law. That's a scapegoat for those who want an excuse to get away with breaking the law. The law does not perform an action. Slice it any way you want to, it is the person who breaks a law.

[Jaric]

There is no way the legal system would be able to prosecute charges against weed buyers for the crimes of the cartels. That's frankly silly.

[Jason_]

But you are the reason that the demand exists, that the cartels who supply the demand even exist.  If you create the entity, you have the accept the consequences of the entity you create and their actions.

 

I assume you drive a car....by doing so you're contributing to the demand for Oil and Gasoline.  Do you accept responsibility for atrocities committed by the big time oil companies, or by the government on behalf of the oil industry?

[18Manning]

Not saying it wasn't stupid. But he's not a bad guy because of it.

 

I agree. He's not a bad guy because he got caught with pot. I don't smoke pot, but I know a few people that do. They're not bad people either, or even what I would call a "pot head". It's illegal in most places, but so was alcohol at one time. BTY, I don't drink either, so I'm not supporting what I consider bad habits as far as health is concerned. I think there are much worse things out there than someone that might smoke pot on occasion. STILL STUPID TO GET CAUGHT! 

[Narcosys]

The market will exist if its legal or not. By making it illegal you force it to the black market with all the crime and violence associated with it.

If you want to out a stop to the black market you should be in favor of legalization. Then the market is addressed by legitimate business men. Keeping it illegal does nothing except waste more money and lives.

No it would not if people had the self control to NOT do it until it is legal. It is a conscious choice to do it. Therefore it is created by the people choosing to do it. Again, I am not weighing in my opinion on whether or not it should be cause it would only be conjecture. I am debating the facts at hand and the cause and effect of those facts, and where the issue originates.

Just because you believe is ok to drive 45 in a 40 mph zone in the middle of the woods is irrelevant. It's the posted speed limit and the law. You cannot blame the law because you disagree with it.