In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> [..]
> >> Even so, the principle is the same. *If* you believe that the pay rates
> >> for
> >> migrant workers is unconscionably low, *if* that is seen as a wrong, then
> >> buying those products perpetuates the wrong, and the correct response is
> >> to
> >> remove one's complicity with a boycott. It is precisely what vegans do
> >> not
> >> do, as we see, instead they wriggle and squirm, anything to pretend they
> >> are
> >> not complicit.
> >
> > Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers is
> > wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute minimum
> > that one could do to deal with the wrong.
>
> > Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
> > migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses. What's
> > that about.
>
> Think about it, I require the exact same bare-bones response from the vegan,
> to boycott the offending product. They refuse, because walking the walk is a
> lot harder than talking the talk.

Decriminalizing a product is not a boycott of it. Decriminalizing pot is
not boycotting pot. Quite the contrary.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

> > Is it wrong to exploit migrant workers with low wages? This only
> > requires a logical response of True or False.
>
> It's not relevant if it's wrong, IF you believe it's wrong then you must not
> subsidize it.

You've claimed pot use as harmful. Can you clarify if you think it
wrong. Since you used "responsible" pot use, can you clarify when pot
use is wrong, a bit wrong and right.

Paying for health care for pot users is subsidizing their pot use.
Paying for the problems of an pot user, such as their person and social
problems is subsidizing it.

You are complicit. You are what you despise in our vegan friend.