The spiking numbers of late,are hardly indicative of MTV, Nintendo. Rather, increased use of a debilitating, expensive and incapacitating drug and corresponding spike in rate of child abuse.
Do not Republicans, Democrats, and others also have an explanation for everything? Or, is this a uniquely Libertarian phenomenon?
This really digresses from the discussion and isn't an argument.
...this recent wave of increased meth use stems from individual users who cook meth to support their habit and not to increase their net worth. Again, hardly "victimless" crime.
Perhaps they wouldn't cook meth in homemade labs to support their habit if they were able to 1) get drugs by prescription from pharmacies under the supervision of a physician and 2) seek rehabilitation without fear of incarceration for revealing their habit.
We seem to be going around in circles with regard to what constitutes a victimless crime. I stand by my initial assertion that without an unwilling party which has sustained harm, and a perpetrator to inflict the harm, there is no crime and thus no victim.
Your definition of victim could be construed to include alcoholics. One could argue that they are victims because they can't control their urge to intoxicate themselves.
When the state decides to make crimes out of activities which are not crimes then abuse, waste, and corruption are the inevitable results. We've seen it with the WOD and alcohol prohibition.
The spiking numbers of late,are hardly indicative of MTV, Nintendo. Rather, increased use of a debilitating, expensive and incapacitating drug and corresponding spike in rate of child abuse.
But, the spiking numbers coincide with the WOD. Before the WOD there were no meth labs and child abuse as a result of meth. Before alcohol prohibition there was no such thing as "Bathtub Gin." People didn't have homemade distilleries.