Ahmad Bradshaw cited for pot possession

[Narcosys]

If you are going to call something a "fact", you should provide a reference (or citation, no pun intended). I went to undergraduate and graduate school with upper middle class and rich kids. Believe me, many of them smoked marijuana and some did all sorts of other drugs that I had never heard of before meeting them.

You are kidding yourself if you think it is mostly (or "primarily") minorities and low-income people who do drugs. I cannot blame you for thinking this way, as that is what is shown in the media, but go to treatment and detox centers and you may be surprised to see how many of the folks in treatment look like they could be related to you.

I'm sorry, I thought it was common knowledge.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/us/rich-vs-poor-drug-patterns-are-diverging.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/07/24/1-in-3-american-adults-take-prescription-drugs/

And you would see 'richer' people in those centers, because they can afford it or have people who can pay for it for them.

It is the poor that does more drugs, and the minorities are primarily in the 'poor' class. No offense to anyone.

[braveheartcolt]

Does 'pot' make you tackle and block better? If so, campaign to legalise it in Indy.

[NewColtsFan]

This is post 323 in this thread.    Page 9.

 

It really, really IS the off-season!     

[esmort]

I'm sorry, I thought it was common knowledge.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/us/rich-vs-poor-drug-patterns-are-diverging.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/07/24/1-in-3-american-adults-take-prescription-drugs/

And you would see 'richer' people in those centers, because they can afford it or have people who can pay for it for them.

It is the poor that does more drugs, and the minorities are primarily in the 'poor' class. No offense to anyone.

 

I can't tell if you actually feel as strongly about "the evils of marijuana" and breaking laws as you are making out, or you really do have this completely unrealistic view of the world that you have been arguing, or you just feel compelled to defend your original stance of on marijuana and "breaking the law" to the point of absurdity, or are playing devil's advocate, or what .... because I find it hard to believe someone could function effectively in society with such a "black and white" view of what is moral and "right and wrong".  I know judges, prosecutors, and LEOs who are sticklers for the law, and even they do not have such a myopic view on the subject of marijuana use and other such victimless "crimes".

 

.... guys having a poker night, a 20 yo having a beer at a bbq (we'll just disregard the fact he/she is home after being wounded because he/she was old enough to serve in the military),etc, etc, etc .... "throw the book at them"; ITS THE LAW; and law breakers deserve to be punished!!!

[masterlock]

Smoking weed doesn't make you a bad guy.

Him getting cited for pot possession is like someone getting cited for alcohol possession during the Prohibition Era--the "crime" is created by the stupid law that makes it illegal in the first place. Having said that, I would have no problem with the NFL teams themselves deciding they don't want their players to use pot DURING the season, since it could affect performance.

[NFLfan]

I'm sorry, I thought it was common knowledge.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/us/rich-vs-poor-drug-patterns-are-diverging.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/07/24/1-in-3-american-adults-take-prescription-drugs/

And you would see 'richer' people in those centers, because they can afford it or have people who can pay for it for them.

It is the poor that does more drugs, and the minorities are primarily in the 'poor' class. No offense to anyone.

Neither of those references prove your point that it is mostly lower-income people who do illicit drugs. The Forbes article is about prescription drugs in general, not prescription pain killers or illicit drugs. It is not about drug abuse. Read it again. The NY Times article is from 1987!!! Do some more research before claiming something as a "fact".

[Narcosys]

I can't tell if you actually feel as strongly about "the evils of marijuana" and breaking laws as you are making out, or you really do have this completely unrealistic view of the world that you have been arguing, or you just feel compelled to defend your original stance of on marijuana and "breaking the law" to the point of absurdity, or are playing devil's advocate, or what .... because I find it hard to believe someone could function effectively in society with such a "black and white" view of what is moral and "right and wrong". I know judges, prosecutors, and LEOs who are sticklers for the law, and even they do not have such a myopic view on the subject of marijuana use and other such victimless "crimes".

.... guys having a poker night, a 20 yo having a beer at a bbq (we'll just disregard the fact he/she is home after being wounded because he/she was old enough to serve in the military),etc, etc, etc .... "throw the book at them"; ITS THE LAW; and law breakers deserve to be punished!!!

Again. I am not debating the morality of doing pot, whether it is right or wrong. I am not debating whether pot laws are just or unjust. I am talking about the fact that it is a law and people are breaking it. You can come up with whatever excuses or reasons you think it is ok to break the law, that's your perogative. But it doesn't matter, it is illegal. This leads to other illegal actions being performed to provide you with your own illegal acts.

That is all my point is. That it is illegal and people are breaking the law.

And everyone wants to bring in these other examples of supposed similar situations. None have them been even close. People are not committing murders to provide that 20 year old a beer.

[Narcosys]

Neither of those references prove your point that it is mostly lower-income people who do illicit drugs. The Forbes article is about prescription drugs in general, not prescription pain killers or illicit drugs. It is not about drug abuse. Read it again. The NY Times article is from 1987!!! Do some more research before claiming something as a "fact".

 

Well the forbes article discusses low income and the dynamic hasnt changed since 87'.  But ok, heres more http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382399/why-do-people-keep-claiming-all-races-use-drugs-same-rate-roger-clegg

 

Go to table 1.24B for Marijuana use.  http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTables/DetTabs/NSDUH-DetTabsSect1peTabs1to46-2012.htm#Tab1.1A

 

Still not much change.  And before you look at lifetime numbers, consider lifetime goes far enough back to cover the 1960's and 1970's when drug use was rampant, plus you excluded anything beyond 1987 since you were criticle of that article.. Furthermore minority population in the US has exploded since the 1970's, especially among hispanics.

 

[ruksak]

. People are not committing murders to provide that 20 year old a beer.

You mean except for the family of 4 that the 20 year old murders while driving drunk on the way home from a party? 

[ruksak]

I'm sorry, I thought it was common knowledge.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/us/rich-vs-poor-drug-patterns-are-diverging.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/07/24/1-in-3-american-adults-take-prescription-drugs/

And you would see 'richer' people in those centers, because they can afford it or have people who can pay for it for them.

It is the poor that does more drugs, and the minorities are primarily in the 'poor' class. No offense to anyone.

Aren't we talking about a multi-millionaire NFL star? Not sure what this tangent has to do with the subject. People of all walks puff rope.

[Narcosys]

You mean except for the family of 4 that the 20 year old murders while driving drunk on the way home from a party? 

 

First off, that was not esmorts point.  His point was about a 20 year old drinking beer is not that big of a deal and trying to compare it to the discussion about pot.  The murders were committed AFTER the 20 year old drank.  At this point, murders for pot are both before and after and is a discussion about which came first which is unsolvable.  But if you want to redifine the problem, then the drunk driving murder is the crime we are discussing.  Thus the people that broke the law to provide the 20 year with enough alcohol to get him drunk and then also allow him to drive away are just as culpable for the murders as the person who committed the act. 

 

But you are jumping into the middle of a conversation and trying to derail the original point.  Anyone can continue to play this game of bringing up more and more various comparision just to continue to derail the discussion at hand.  Stay on point of the original topic please.

[Narcosys]

Aren't we talking about a multi-millionaire NFL star? Not sure what this tangent has to do with the subject. People of all walks puff rope.

 

 

Please go back and follow the coversation instead of jumping into the middle.  You will get a better idea of the context in which this was used.

[ruksak]

I'll be honest, since honesty seems to be lacking a bit in this thread. I am completely morally ambiguous concerning what the provenance of my weed is. I know the odds of my bag having blood on it is infinitesimally small, as nobody buys that Mexican, sun dried schwag grass. People got a taste for professionally grown, American grown, top shelf smoke after 9/11 when our borders and customs suddenly tightened. The prices for "reggie" (Mexican) weed went way up and people started trying the high dollar stuff. 

 

I don't concern myself with the provenance anymore than the average person would consider such things while yard sale shopping. You don't know if that TV you bought from some random guy was stolen in a violent robbery, you have no idea. But you buy it anyway, don't you? 98% of the time, I know exactly where my bags come from. Almost as soon as it was legalized in Denver, our streets here in Indy became flooded with legally purchased marijuana, including dabs (google it) which has become quite the fad of late. 

[braveheartcolt]

This is post 323 in this thread.    Page 9.

 

It really, really IS the off-season!     

Or the vast majority posting are out of their heads......

[ruksak]

Or the vast majority posting are out of their heads......

[esmort]

Again. I am not debating the morality of doing pot, whether it is right or wrong. I am not debating whether pot laws are just or unjust. I am talking about the fact that it is a law and people are breaking it. You can come up with whatever excuses or reasons you think it is ok to break the law, that's your perogative. But it doesn't matter, it is illegal. This leads to other illegal actions being performed to provide you with your own illegal acts.

That is all my point is. That it is illegal and people are breaking the law.

And everyone wants to bring in these other examples of supposed similar situations. None have them been even close. People are not committing murders to provide that 20 year old a beer.

 

If your concern is really the big picture, "2nd and 3rd order effects of even the most mundane of choices", how it effects society and not the morality of it as you stated earlier than by that logic you should apply that thinking to all of the choices you make.

 

If it was legal and the "cartels" were still able to profit from distributing illegally and committing murders is it now an ok choice to make in your mind simply because now its is legal?  If the cartels are going to fight for a piece of the weed action even if its legal ... than whether it is legal or illegal is going to make very little or no difference in the organized crime/gang crimes and murders you keep referring to... especially since they sell so many other drugs and weed is already one of their least profitable products.

 

So by your own logic you should refuse to buy:

 

-Diamonds ... often wars are fought over them, slave labor is used, thousands are killed

 

-Oil - see above

 

-Gambling ... even where legal still has strong organized crime ties

 

-Items manufactured in 3rd world country sweat shops ... often slave labor, organized crime, killing

 

-etc ... etc ....

 

 

You are jumping between reasons to support your original stance (both invalid) ....

 

1) It's illegal and based on that alone you should not do it and be punished if you do.  ... but you threw out the poker night, and the 20 yo drinking at the bbq as illegal acts that deserve punishment so that cup no longer really holds water, Not that it ever really did to begin with.

 

...and ... 

 

2)  The "2nd and 3rd order effects of even the most mundane of choices"; the "cartel" argument .... if this is the basis for your reasoning and society at large is what you are worried about, than you have to include everything listed above and more; whether it is legal or illegal shouldn't matter under this assumption.  The 2nd and 3rd order detrimental effects that most things have on society is not going to go away, or decrease by any meaningful amount simply because a law changes for the "last link in the chain" (the end user) if there is still demand for it by a significant portion of society.  Why do you think that law enforcement is trying to move away from putting users in jail and toward decriminalizing? ... because the prisons are full of low level nobodies and users,and no matter how many they punish or send to jail demand remains unaffected.

 

You really don't have a solid position to argue and are trying to "muddy the waters of your stance"; because even though you say you aren't, you are trying to defend a moral belief; whether it be about drugs or following the rules (laws). At this point you should just admit you have personal moral objections and leave it at that, because no one would "swim so hard against the current" otherwise.  

[Narcosys]

If your concern is really the big picture, "2nd and 3rd order effects of even the most mundane of choices", how it effects society and not the morality of it as you stated earlier than by that logic you should apply that thinking to all of the choices you make.

 

If it was legal and the "cartels" were still able to profit from distributing illegally and committing murders is it now an ok choice to make in your mind simply because now its is legal?  If the cartels are going to fight for a piece of the weed action even if its legal ... than whether it is legal or illegal is going to make very little or no difference in the organized crime/gang crimes and murders you keep referring to... especially since they sell so many other drugs and weed is already one of their least profitable products.

 

So by your own logic you should refuse to buy:

 

-Diamonds ... often wars are fought over them, slave labor is used, thousands are killed

 

-Oil - see above

 

-Gambling ... even where legal still has strong organized crime ties

 

-Items manufactured in 3rd world country sweat shops ... often slave labor, organized crime, killing

 

-etc ... etc ....

 

 

You are jumping between reasons to support your original stance (both invalid) ....

 

1) It's illegal and based on that alone you should not do it and be punished if you do.  ... but you threw out the poker night, and the 20 yo drinking at the bbq as illegal acts that deserve punishment so that cup no longer really holds water, Not that it ever really did to begin with.

 

...and ... 

 

2)  The "2nd and 3rd order effects of even the most mundane of choices"; the "cartel" argument .... if this is the basis for your reasoning and society at large is what you are worried about, than you have to include everything listed above and more; whether it is legal or illegal shouldn't matter under this assumption.  The 2nd and 3rd order detrimental effects that most things have on society is not going to go away, or decrease by any meaningful amount simply because a law changes for the "last link in the chain" (the end user) if there is still demand for it by a significant portion of society.  Why do you think that law enforcement is trying to move away from putting users in jail and toward decriminalizing? ... because the prisons are full of low level nobodies and users,and no matter how many they punish or send to jail demand remains unaffected.

 

You really don't have a solid position to argue and are trying to "muddy the waters of your stance"; because even though you say you aren't, you are trying to defend a moral belief; whether it be about drugs or following the rules (laws). At this point you should just admit you have personal moral objections and leave it at that, because no one would "swim so hard against the current" otherwise.  

 

 

And here is why none of that can compare.

 

It cannot apply the same way to everything you do, because everything you do is not Illegal.  Buying pot is.  I dont know how noone understands this.

 

You are trying to argue with 'IF' statements, which doesn't fly in any real debate.  Yet everyone wants to keep bringing them up. All 'IF' statements do is try to derail the original point with no basis in fact.

 

I like how you try to twist my logic, even though it has been very clearly explained.  Buying diamonds and oil are ALL legal lacts.  The person buying them is not responsible for those that perform illegal acts, most of the time unknowingly because you cannot be sure that the company you are buying from has people that do illegal acts to provide the product.  This is different from buying pot because it IS ILLEGAL to buy pot and everything people do to support this is ILLEGAL.  There is a massive difference between buying diamonds and buying pot, and it is a ridiculous to even try to compare the two.  This applies to the gambling and 3rd world items as well.  If it is illegal, then you can compare, if it is legal, then it cannot be brought up into the same discussion.

 

And no my points are not invalid.

 

The drinking of the 20 year old:  No illegal act was performed in purchasing the alcohol unless it was someone who was underage, but it is assumed that they were of age.  Therefore, it cannot compare because illegal acts are committed so that you can buy pot.  No illegal acts were committed to support a 20 year old drinking.  You want to try to bring up if he is a drunk driver and kills someone which COMPLETELY changes the dynamic.  The crime is then murder and the supporting illegal act is providing alcohol to a minor.  Different than the crime of underage drinking/providing to the minor (as they occur at the exact same moment, one cannot exist without the other), with no supporting illegal act.  If they are caught providing alcohol to a minor, yes, punishment will follow because it is illegal, and he will get in trouble for underage drinking.   But i will not compare the two situations of buying pot and underage drinking because they incomparable.

 

You have the wrong assumption.  Yes the 2nd and 3rd order of affects need to be thought about but the dynamic of those change between committing illegal or legal acts.  That is the difference, this is where you start determing where the responsibility lies.  With buying pot, you are committing an illegal act, creating a demand for an illegal product that creates the need for more illegal acts to be committed to support the demand.

 

With committing a legal act, you are creating a demand for a legal product, you are following the law.  It is the responsibility of those above you to now continue to follow the law to provide you this product.  THEY decide to break the law and commit these illegal acts you describe, to support the demand.  It is not the fault of the person committing the legal act for those that decide to break the law.

In the case of buying pot, those providing the product have no CHOICE but to break the law.  That is the difference. 

 

You can try to spin it all you want but you cannot compare committing legal acts and illegal acts and how the chain of responsiblity flows within these acts. 

 

My point has never changed and my stance never more solid.  It is you and others who try to muddy the waters by trying to argue with 'IF' statements and hypotheticals.  Bringing in conjecture and no real facts.  My logic has remained the same throughout, but you are trying to argue from an emotional standpoint based on your opinion that weed should be legal.

 

I dont care either way if it is or isnt, but the facts still remain that it is illegal, and people have to commit crimes to support it.  I have no moral objections to weed being legalized.  My "moral" objection is that it is an illegal act and therefore any crimes committed in the name of supporting your illegal act, fall upon the person creating the demand for the illegal act. 

 

Care to bring up any more what ifs, and non-comparable comparisons? 

[Narcosys]

I'll be honest, since honesty seems to be lacking a bit in this thread. I am completely morally ambiguous concerning what the provenance of my weed is. I know the odds of my bag having blood on it is infinitesimally small, as nobody buys that Mexican, sun dried schwag grass. People got a taste for professionally grown, American grown, top shelf smoke after 9/11 when our borders and customs suddenly tightened. The prices for "reggie" (Mexican) weed went way up and people started trying the high dollar stuff. 

 

I don't concern myself with the provenance anymore than the average person would consider such things while yard sale shopping. You don't know if that TV you bought from some random guy was stolen in a violent robbery, you have no idea. But you buy it anyway, don't you? 98% of the time, I know exactly where my bags come from. Almost as soon as it was legalized in Denver, our streets here in Indy became flooded with legally purchased marijuana, including dabs (google it) which has become quite the fad of late. 

 

Legally purchased, but illegally brought into indiana and are in illegal possession of.

[ruksak]

Legally purchased, but illegally brought into indiana and are in illegal possession of.

I think the concept you're missing is that of civil discourse. Disregarding what many consider unjust laws IS part of the iteration process that Americans have utilized to great effect time and time again, and in regard to marijuana, it seems to be working quite well. 

 

When blacks sat at the lunch counter, disregarding the laws, they did so to begat change. It was the law, they broke it, and in doing so they flashed a light on the absurdity of the law. Not that I'm comparing old race laws directly to current marijuana laws, in terms of severity, but the concept of civil discourse is the same. 

 

You must understand that this sort of behavior is 100% American. If they outlaw weed, then only outlaws will smoke weed. When these "outlaws" include college professors and the like, we must ask why we're doing this. 

[Narcosys]

I think the concept you're missing is that of civil discourse. Disregarding what many consider unjust laws IS part of the iteration process that Americans have utilized to great effect time and time again, and in regard to marijuana, it seems to be working quite well. 

 

When blacks sat at the lunch counter, disregarding the laws, they did so to begat change. It was the law, they broke it, and in doing so they flashed a light on the absurdity of the law. Not that I'm comparing old race laws directly to current marijuana laws, in terms of severity, but the concept of civil discourse is the same. 

 

You must understand that this sort of behavior is 100% American. If they outlaw weed, then only outlaws will smoke weed. When these "outlaws" include college professors and the like, we must ask why we're doing this. 

 

your statements about civil discourse are true, however have not taken hold in the state of Indiana.  Therefore, it is still illegal until otherwise changed.  Blacks sat at the table and broke the law.  All fine and dandy, but noone was committing other illegal acts to make it to where they could sit down, they just chose to sit there. 

 

Does not compare.

[esmort]

And here is why none of that can compare.

 

It cannot apply the same way to everything you do, because everything you do is not Illegal.  Buying pot is.  I dont know how noone understands this.

 

You are trying to argue with 'IF' statements, which doesn't fly in any real debate.  Yet everyone wants to keep bringing them up. All 'IF' statements do is try to derail the original point with no basis in fact.

 

I like how you try to twist my logic, even though it has been very clearly explained.  Buying diamonds and oil are ALL legal lacts.  The person buying them is not responsible for those that perform illegal acts, most of the time unknowingly because you cannot be sure that the company you are buying from has people that do illegal acts to provide the product.  This is different from buying pot because it IS ILLEGAL to buy pot and everything people do to support this is ILLEGAL.  There is a massive difference between buying diamonds and buying pot, and it is a ridiculous to even try to compare the two.  This applies to the gambling and 3rd world items as well.  If it is illegal, then you can compare, if it is legal, then it cannot be brought up into the same discussion.

 

And no my points are not invalid.

 

The drinking of the 20 year old:  No illegal act was performed in purchasing the alcohol unless it was someone who was underage, but it is assumed that they were of age.  Therefore, it cannot compare because illegal acts are committed so that you can buy pot.  No illegal acts were committed to support a 20 year old drinking.  You want to try to bring up if he is a drunk driver and kills someone which COMPLETELY changes the dynamic.  The crime is then murder and the supporting illegal act is providing alcohol to a minor.  Different than the crime of underage drinking/providing to the minor (as they occur at the exact same moment, one cannot exist without the other), with no supporting illegal act.  If they are caught providing alcohol to a minor, yes, punishment will follow because it is illegal, and he will get in trouble for underage drinking.   But i will not compare the two situations of buying pot and underage drinking because they incomparable.

 

You have the wrong assumption.  Yes the 2nd and 3rd order of affects need to be thought about but the dynamic of those change between committing illegal or legal acts.  That is the difference, this is where you start determing where the responsibility lies.  With buying pot, you are committing an illegal act, creating a demand for an illegal product that creates the need for more illegal acts to be committed to support the demand.

 

With committing a legal act, you are creating a demand for a legal product, you are following the law.  It is the responsibility of those above you to now continue to follow the law to provide you this product.  THEY decide to break the law and commit these illegal acts you describe, to support the demand.  It is not the fault of the person committing the legal act for those that decide to break the law.

In the case of buying pot, those providing the product have no CHOICE but to break the law.  That is the difference. 

 

You can try to spin it all you want but you cannot compare committing legal acts and illegal acts and how the chain of responsiblity flows within these acts. 

 

My point has never changed and my stance never more solid.  It is you and others who try to muddy the waters by trying to argue with 'IF' statements and hypotheticals.  Bringing in conjecture and no real facts.  My logic has remained the same throughout, but you are trying to argue from an emotional standpoint based on your opinion that weed should be legal.

 

I dont care either way if it is or isnt, but the facts still remain that it is illegal, and people have to commit crimes to support it.  I have no moral objections to weed being legalized.  My "moral" objection is that it is an illegal act and therefore any crimes committed in the name of supporting your illegal act, fall upon the person creating the demand for the illegal act. 

 

Care to bring up any more what ifs, and non-comparable comparisons? 

 

So let me make sure I understand this, so if someone were to legally buy weed in a state where it is legal than everything is good even if every aspect higher up in the chain has some level of "cartel" involvement (which many do) & that money is definitely going to an organized crime syndicate in some way..... than you are perfectly ok with that because the end user bought it legally; everything is all good.

 

--But---

 

If someone buys it in a state where it is illegal even if they bought it off someone who grew it themselves; where they know there is no "cartel" involvement. violence, or killing involved  ... and before you say this doesn't happen their are plenty of people who know exactly where their weed came from, and many smaller towns are completely self supplied by local growers..... This you are NOT ok with because the end user bought it illegally.

 

You do realize how messed up that point of view is .... right?

 

... And what if someone grows their own only for their own use in a state where it is illegal ... they are not doing anything that drives illegal demand. 

 

Most things can not be broken down into this "black or white", completely right or wrong based on the law box that you are trying to fit it into. The world is mostly shades of gray.

 

I can't believe you can't comprehend this ... I am done.

[Narcosys]

So let me make sure I understand this, so if someone were to legally buy weed in a state where it is legal than everything is good even if every aspect higher up in the chain has some level of "cartel" involvement (which many do) & that money is definitely going to an organized crime syndicate in some way..... than you are perfectly ok with that because the end user bought it legally; everything is all good.

 

--But---

 

If someone buys it in a state where it is illegal even if they bought it off someone who grew it themselves; where they know there is no "cartel" involvement. violence, or killing involved  ... and before you say this doesn't happen their are plenty of people who know exactly where their weed came from, and many smaller towns are completely self supplied by local growers..... This you are NOT ok with because the end user bought it illegally.

 

You do realize how messed up that point of view is .... right?

 

... And what if someone grows their own only for their own use in a state where it is illegal ... they are not doing anything that drives illegal demand. 

 

Most things can not be broken down into this "black or white", completely right or wrong based on the law box that you are trying to fit it into. The world is mostly shades of gray.

 

I can't believe you can't comprehend this ... I am done.

 

If someone buys weed in a state in which it is legalized, then the business providing it is doing it in a legal manner (or is supposed to be).  I find it very difficult to believe that it is the cartel that is running this business, as most of you have stated that cartels no longer sell as much illegal weed in the US, but the legalized states do.  It serves no purpose for them to set up legal shops because it is going to cost them more money to go through the process of legitimizing the business and following government regulations only to sell illegal weed that is imported to these legalized states.  It is much easier to just grow it for free themselves, whoever the business owner is.  Either way, if they are sending money to illegal organizations, then they are probably breaking other laws.  But at this point, the responsibility of law no longer falls upon the person buying the legal pot. It is then upon the person breaking the law higher up.

 

When discussing my point on the responsibility, it no longer falls upon the end user.  If they choose to morally ignore the possibility of their money supporting illegal crime syndicates, that is on them.   But legally speaking, to me, they are not culpable.

 

I grant you there are definitely self contained instances where people grow their own and have no sphere of influence coming in or going out.  But this is a significant minority of people compared to the issue at large.  If you wish to exempt those people that is fine, because they are outliers.  If they get caught though, i don't feel bad because they knew it was illegal.

 

And i know the world is grey.  but buying weed illegally is no shade of grey.