In general, I view marijuana similar to that of alcohol. Let it be legal, with laws similar to that of DUI/DWI, etc. People can use it, just be smart about it. No driving under the influence, don't show up to work reeking of it, nor under the influence. If there are habitual behavioral issues, again similar to that of alcohol, then follow procedures regarding treatment, etc.
That being said, there are still things which need to be discussed further regarding its use:
1) Employers have the right to deny employment if they decide to. If part of the job hiring process is testing for it and other controlled substances, they have that right to do so. If someone disagrees, they don't have to work there. This includes both private and public sector jobs.
2) Testing for THC levels needs to be more clearly defined when it comes to DUI and other scales of how judgment and motor skills may be impacted. Again, similar to that of alcohol with the BAC levels.
3) Other smaller discussions regarding things such as growth in home and packaging. Again, similar to homebrew kits for beer, or wine making kits, etc. I'm not familiar with laws on this. But, I believe there are laws regarding sales/distribution of homemade alcohol.
There are many other related points which would need to be ironed out. Again, I look at it as being similar to alcohol, thus can model laws off those. Which, alcohol laws need to be reviewed to some degree as well.
The argument then switches over to other controlled substances. Where is the line drawn for what other drugs are legal, and which aren't? Is it as simple as naturally occurring (peyote, opium, etc), vs synthetic? Or, do we continue to use the classification we have on record now?
Going back to the Castille case, replace "smells of marijuana" with "smells of alcohol". Should it have been treated any different? No. Again, it was a descriptive used in the scenario as to possible indicators of how they might be acting. When put in a high-stress situation such as a vehicle stop, anything out of the ordinary puts the situation at an even higher level. As I stated in my original post, there were already a large number of items which unfortunately led to the outcome it did.
If we remove the marijuana use, would he not have been shot? It's very difficult to say. Again, they were in a vehicle which matched the description of one involved in a robbery. He had a similar appearance to that of one of the suspects. Those two right there already put the officers on high-alert. He was ordered to not reach for his pocket multiple times, yet he continued to do so. Was this the result of his being nervous and not thinking clearly? Or, was it compounded by an impared judgment immediate preceding use of marijuana?
Again, I'm not trying to debate the shooting. I'm only looking at how marijuana may have impaired the judgment of Castille. If it was alcohol, should it have been treated any different? What about meth, or other drugs where there most likely wouldn't have been a smell? What if it was prescription drugs he was addicted to, and under the influence of? Would/should it be viewed any differently?
Let's go back to my statement which you have issues with:
Right or wrong, marijuana is illegal in the state of MN for recreational use. MN firearm laws currently are written that a habitual user of controlled substances cannot be in the possession of a firearm, and the use of such substances are a question on the application. Knowing Castille was a habitual user, and he had a permit to carry, we know he lied on his application for a permit to grant purchase of a firearm. The admission of the use of marijuana almost immediately preceding the stop reaffirms his use
Knowing the items in the immediate paragraph above, let's look at it from a right/wrong perspective:
1) Did Castille use sound judgment to operate a motor vehicle while more than likely under the influence of a controlled substance? Does having two passengers, one of which was a very young minor, impact this decision as well? Knowing the legality of said controlled substance, should that have changed his decision?
2) Was sound judgment used for making the decision to have a firearm in his possession while under the influence of a controlled substance? Knowing the state classifies it as an illegal substance, does it change the decision one would reasonable make?
So, I ask the question: Was it right or wrong of Castille to have put himself into the situation he did? I broke the legality of marijuana into a separate question for the reason that knowing it is currently illegal may cause one to have a second level of reasoning for a decision as if compared to that of a legal substance such as alcohol. Which, at a 0.04% BAC, or under the influence of a controlled substance, one is prohibited from carrying a firearm per
MN state law. These are laws which a person issued a permit to carry are supposed to know and follow.
For myself, and those I know who can legally carry, we will not have a firearm in our possession when we decide to drink. BAC of 0.04% comes up very quickly, and it is not worth it to put oneself into legal situations such as this. I don't use drugs recreationally, and if I have to take a prescription which may impair my judgement and/or motor skills, I do not have it in my possession nor will I drive a vehicle.
Again, this is by no means meant to justify the shooting. Only a response to your question of "right or wrong" hen applied to sound decision making. Or, lack thereof.
That could mean the officer thought he was really facing a threat, or it could mean he was poorly trained and/or too high strung. It is pretty clear the cop was telling him not to do whatever he was doing (or what he thought he was doing). 
