this same question the other way. As in, if the dogs walked by those who didn't have drugs, how are they victims? The problem isn't necessarily how drugs might affect someone who doesn't use them, although it's a valid enough question that can be answered in many ways. For instance, most of those who sell drugs are dangerous people who live on the edge, and one buying drugs from them is in immediate danger every time. Also, once people really start getting addicted, they'll commit all sorts of atrocities to get the money to buy more drugs. And, of course, both of those harm other people. But the big thing is that it's illegal, plain and simple, and if people want to do drugs, they should stay home and do them, instead of being stupid and bringing them out with them. Then again, there's another reason it's known as dope.

Services and Stuff, a web portal of quality services and products

But it's not me bringing victims into this equation. It's Tottie. As I said in my original comment there are no victims in this story.

The crimes you assert were not being committed in this article. And they wouldn't be happening at all if we'd just give up on prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol and it's not working with drugs.

Violent crimes should be prosecuted. Property crimes (such as theft) should be prosecuted. Both have victims. There were no victims in this story.

As for your "its illegal plain and simple" argument, well I guess there's no point in debating against the ultimate wisdom of the all knowing government then. Of course, when you stop questioning your government you're simply accepting slavery. But if you're comfortable in it, who am I to argue?

I, for one, miss the freedoms this country was founded on.

-----
Aahz is just a dad trying the make a better life (and a better world) for his daughter. You can learn more about him at his website: Philaahzophy