We’d have heard endless references to Bush’s past drug use, even more about how he doesn’t care about the children who these addictions are forced upon, and blah blah blah. Plus, he’s an evil scare-monger trying to scare people to get re-elected.

Though I agree with the point that in 2001 we spent too much on anti-drug stuff, and too little on anti-terror, I think you should be happy for the progress that was made.

Priceless. :D

In an assault, the unwilling participant is harmed, and the perpetrator is prosecuted for this.

In a car theft, the unwilling participant has their property stolen, and the perpetrator is prosecuted for this.

In a drug use case, the user themselves enter into the act of their own volition, and noone else is involved.

Thus ‘victimless crime’.

Drug dependency is simply an addiction which leads to further drug use. This, too, has no direct consequences for anyone but the user.

Indirect consequences?

‘Dear God, won’t someone think about the children’?

If we based the law on indirect consequences, we could lock anyone and everyone up.

‘Who says working long hours is a victimless crime? Don’t you see the family suffering?’

‘How can you call Michael Moore a victimless crime? The emotional trauma he causes is enormous.’

On the Netherlands issue, they are constantly evaluating the success of their drug policies. If only the rest of the world would do the same we’d all be in better shape.