In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > > >"Dutch" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Derek" > wrote
> > > >> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > > >> > >In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > [..]
> > > >> > >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of
> law,
> > > >> > >> morality, and logic.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would
> appreciate
> > > >> > >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in
> law.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> > > >> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> > > >> > a vegetarian, among other things."
> > > >> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
> > > >>
> > > >> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
> > > >> crimes
> > > >> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
> > > >
> > > > It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and
> at
> > > > this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a
> criminal
> > > > act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily the same crime. Driving a getaway car in a robbery may
> be
> > > considered robbery, but buying the goods later is being an accessory to
> > > robbery after the fact, a different crime.
> > >
> > > > Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure
> of
> > > > an absolute moral code is problematic.
> > >
> > > You're the only one talking about an "absolute moral code". You attempt
> to
> > > answer every problem you encounter in this debate by pummelling this
> same
> > > strawman.
> >
> > Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and location) or
> > absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an accomplice
> > or accessory.
>
> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice and the
> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> evaluation.

Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
*actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.