People in America buy weed that is not legal because they either don't have a store near them, or they prefer the illegal stuff over the legal one. Some people also live in places where weed is completely not allowed. The stores with legal weed need to find ways to make more people want their products, like making different types of edibles and drinks that are easy for older people who don't smoke to try. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Americans still buy non-legal weed because they are ignorant or irrational, when in reality there are many factors influencing their choice, such as availability, affordability, quality, safety, legality, and personal preferences. A more accurate title could be "Why Do Some Americans Still Buy Non-Legal Weed? An Analysis of the Supply and Demand Factors".
- The article does not provide enough evidence or data to support its claims. For example, it states that illicit cannabis sales are three times higher than legal marijuana sales, but does not specify the source, time period, or region for this statistic. It also does not explain how it measured or defined "illicit" and "legal" cannabis sales, or accounted for the unregulated and gray markets. A more rigorous and transparent methodology would be needed to establish the magnitude and scope of the problem.
- The article relies heavily on information from a single research firm, New Frontier Data, without acknowledging potential conflicts of interest, limitations, or biases in their methodology or findings. For instance, the article cites their survey results on consumer preferences for cannabis products, but does not disclose how many respondents participated, what criteria were used to select them, how they were recruited, or how the data was analyzed. A more balanced and critical approach would be to consult multiple sources of information and present different perspectives on the issue.
- The article uses emotive language and appeals to pathos rather than logos in its argument. For example, it describes illicit cannabis consumers as "trapped", "risking their health", or "wasting their money", without providing any factual evidence or logical reasoning for these claims. It also implies that legalizing cannabis would solve all the problems associated with the black market, without considering the potential negative consequences or trade-offs of such a policy change. A more objective and balanced tone would be to acknowledge the complexity and nuance of the issue and explore the pros and cons of both sides.