Entrapment

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. Most people would not be growing rite now if it were not legal. With this in mind, do you think busting a legal grower is entrapment.

I think they are taking the stance that dispensaries and coops are not addressed (covered by law in their opinion),
therefore are illegal. But then again, the Attorney General likes to think he can make shit up and add it to the law
as he sees fit to. I.E. Each patients 12 plants must be in a seperate locked facility, so potentally five or six grow rooms.
So he says, or would like to say. Busting someone for going against one of his fake rules would get laughed right out of court.
I think you may be right though if it were a legal, and law abiding patient/caregiver. I can see entrapment as a defense.

When representatives stop representing the will of the people, and start representing their own morality, sort of turn away from repping
the people, and instead start "ruling" or "leading" the people, it's time for those leaders to fuck off and go.
It's almost as bad as the politicans who pray to a god for guidence on decision making.
Excuse me but screw your god, you work for we the people, not for jesus.
I just hope any time a case goes before a judge, that judge doesn't ask himself, what would jesus do?

ismokealotofpot said:

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. Most people would not be growing rite now if it were not legal.

Click to expand...

I take issue with your point. Justify that statement.

What evidence do you have which indicates most people would NOT grow under the circumstances you stated?

Medical cannabis states began changing their laws because lawmakers, under pressure from their constituencies, realized people were growing and using cannabis regardless of the law. Those states just changed their laws to reflect the reality of the situation.

Conversely, Texas is loaded with growers. And cannabis is pretty damn illegal in Texas.

ismokealotofpot said:

With this in mind, do you think busting a legal grower is entrapment.

Click to expand...

What circumstances would prompt a LEO to bust a LEGAL grow?

A grow is either legal or it is not.

How many MMJ patients have been busted by the feds, despite having a state license? Thousands. That's how a 'legal' grow can get busted. And no, it's not entrapment. If you are a MMJ patient you should well know that the state law and the federal law differ and while you may comply and be safe from state prosecution, the feds can still intervene. It's completely not entrapment. You are violating a federal law regardless of your status in a state.

But the feds aren't going after small grow cancer patients, they want the million dollar operations, of which there are many..

My point is if it were illegal under state law, most people would not bother growing it. Therefore a bust on a legal grow sounds to me like entrapment.

ismokealotofpot said:

My point is if it were illegal under state law, most people would not bother growing it.

Click to expand...

You can't support that statement.

Plenty of people grow in states where it remains illegal as I have already demonstrated.

If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, now is the time.

ismokealotofpot said:

Therefore a bust on a legal grow sounds to me like entrapment.

Click to expand...

And again, a grow is either legal or it isn't. A bust on a LEGAL grow is no bust at all, unless some law were being broken thus making it illegal.

An entrapment defense resulting from a bust on an ILLEGAL grow would require a copper inducing someone to grow who otherwise would not do it.

ULMResearch said:

How many MMJ patients have been busted by the feds, despite having a state license? Thousands. That's how a 'legal' grow can get busted. And no, it's not entrapment. If you are a MMJ patient you should well know that the state law and the federal law differ and while you may comply and be safe from state prosecution, the feds can still intervene. It's completely not entrapment. You are violating a federal law regardless of your status in a state.

But the feds aren't going after small grow cancer patients, they want the million dollar operations, of which there are many..

Click to expand...

My statements were strictly within the realm of state law.

When the Feds get involved, Federal law is being applied where there is no such thing as a legal grow.

But you are correct, it is not entrapment.

You might grow regardless of law. I don't have to defend myself. I started this thread to get peoples opinion. There are a number of cases ware people have gone to jail. You have a wealth of knowledge at you finger tips so find it out for your damn self cop. I have zero to prove to you.

The feds really should concentrate the war on drugs at the mexican border.
This is where the behavior control of prohibition shows its downside, and where
a lot of the violence blamed on the plant, instead of on the large profits prohibition bring.
You'd think after living through it once in the early twentieth century, someone would put
two and two together....mistakes, history, doomed to repete....?
Alcohol didn't Make Al Capone a household name, Prohibition did.

Who would bust a legal grow? Anyone in law enforcement with like minded bosses
who feel morality, and not the law decide whats legal or not.
And Oakland County has a few of those.
The next question is, who would convict a legal grow.
Last question, why was Barb Agro not allowed a mmmj defense?

ismokealotofpot said:

You might grow regardless of law. I don't have to defend myself. I started this thread to get peoples opinion. There are a number of cases ware people have gone to jail. You have a wealth of knowledge at you finger tips so find it out for your damn self cop. I have zero to prove to you.

Click to expand...

Did you just accuse me of being a cop?

You made a ludicrous assertion, I refuted it.

You repeated said assertion, and now refuse to back it up.

In fact, you seem to be demanding that I prove it for you, which is impossible.

Because you CANNOT back it up, as your claim it is utter BULLSHIT.

And your little temper tantrum is icing on the cake.

Sounded like a stupid stoner question to me, ya'll need to relax.

stumpjumper said:

Sounded like a stupid stoner question to me, ya'll need to relax.

Click to expand...

It's ironic you would describe the question as stupid, then end your post using an inbred hillbilly term like "ya'll"
The word "Ya'll" doesn't exactly invoke images of Mensa members conversing.
Maybe you shouldn't throw stones after all.

probo24 said:

It's ironic you would describe the question as stupid, then end your post using an inbred hillbilly term like "ya'll"
The word "Ya'll" doesn't exactly invoke images of Mensa members conversing.
Maybe you shouldn't throw stones after all.

Click to expand...

STFU I'm not throwing stones dumbass..

stumpjumper said:

STFU I'm not throwing stones dumbass..

Click to expand...

No, no. It's plain to see you're not the stone throwing type.
You just wanted to add your opinion to the thread, and your opinion was,
"Sounded like a stupid stoner question to you."
See, clearly no stone throwing going on there.

The problem for you here is twofold.
First, if using the word ya'll didn't tip us off to your general iq range, i'm
sure your response, correcting my obvious mistake will.
Second problem you have is you're in over your head if your looking to argue.
It's plain to see I need only use third grade tactics defending myself against
such an obvious moron.
So here goes, Sticks and stones (how ironic) may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Apparently you need the IQ check if you can't comprehend that I was sticking up for the OP and telling the people who were arguing to chill.

It's very amazing that you have the ability to judge someone's IQ by reading one sentence of internet communication. You should be receiving a fucking Darwin award for that, or maybe a cookie or something shiny and sparkly to keep your mind occupied. It must be a bitch reading every post on the internet and testing everyone.

You also can save your third grade bullshit. Hide behind that shit all you want but it's pretty clear you are a fucking asshole.

Later Y'all.

stumpjumper said:

Apparently you need the IQ check if you can't comprehend that I was sticking up for the OP and telling the people who were arguing to chill.

It's very amazing that you have the ability to judge someone's IQ by reading one sentence of internet communication. You should be receiving a fucking Darwin award for that, or maybe a cookie or something shiny and sparkly to keep your mind occupied. It must be a bitch reading every post on the internet and testing everyone.

You also can save your third grade bullshit. Hide behind that shit all you want but it's pretty clear you are a fucking asshole.

Later Y'all.

Click to expand...

I'll save my third grade bullshit. As long as you can remember, it wasn't something I was hiding behind.
It was all the reply your post warranted.
Darwin Award - Given to commerate those who give natural selection a hand by removing themselves from the gene pool.
Darwin Awards honor Charles Darwin's observation that each generation is only as smart as its parents.
Did you have to look more than once at the award hanging in your parents basement to spell it correctly?
See, a better award to try to be clever with in your post would of been a made up one,
something like a carnival weight guesser award.
Not the one so close to your family.
I see something shiny and sparkly
what was I talking about again?

Enjoy the last word. I have better things to do than argue on the internet over rediculous bullshit.

Okay, i didnt even keep track of who said what, but I will say there ARE many people who only grow because of the law. Not every one of them obviously and the %'s are hard to tell. So The first post blowing this out of proportion doesnt make a lot of sense. The OP never said it was all, mearly that they do exist and the person arguing that seems to think that every single person would have grown anyway. The is simply not true. I personally and many of my friends would have never grown had the law not been on our side. Anyway, just clarifying the fact that some people wouldnt grow otherwise. Not all of course but they are real.

Jankedyjoe said:

Okay, i didnt even keep track of who said what, but I will say there ARE many people who only grow because of the law. Not every one of them obviously and the %'s are hard to tell. So The first post blowing this out of proportion doesnt make a lot of sense. The OP never said it was all, mearly that they do exist and the person arguing that seems to think that every single person would have grown anyway. The is simply not true. I personally and many of my friends would have never grown had the law not been on our side. Anyway, just clarifying the fact that some people wouldnt grow otherwise. Not all of course but they are real.

Click to expand...

Yours is a reasonable statement.

However, you are not accurately portraying the OP's statement because that is not what the OP asserted. He claimed and I quote, "Most people would not be growing rite now if it were not legal."

This is simply not true and cannot be supported with evidence.

I asked him to show some evidence in support of his assertion, and his pussy got sore.

Sore enough to accuse me of being a motherfucking COP.