I do not understand the logic, or rather lack there of in this thought process. can someone explain it to me?

that's supposed to say *victimless* and *partaking* sorry... Should have put on my glasses.

Phillip, yeah my question was deleted. I appealed. Not sure why it was deleted. It clearly was not a violation of the question and answer format as the e-mail said. But as usual I will get no response and lose the points because someone is a jerk. But here is the link to another version of the same question. Just in the post that was deleted, the points made at the end were at the beginning to get an actual answer to my question. (which did not happen) The only answer I got was "sounds like you are trying to get rid of victimless crimes. Won't happen they are an important part of the law" Which led to this question... Here is the link.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiUly...

@ sugarpie - that leads to a question too. If god doesn't try to change a man's will then why should you by force or coersion?

@ mr hamilton - what about those who get drunk and don't make stupid choices? They should have to be subject to arbitrary rules as a result of the few that do?

Also @ mr hamilton - This Amendment could and should be applied to drug use and that was a part of the intent of the language. But it was by no means the entire intent of the language or the result of me "being too high" to see the damage it does to society. It is the result of me being sober enough and lacking in narcissism to see that these laws injure the rights of law abiding citizens as well as criminals with the intent to stop crime, but without actually achieving that goal. Which leads me to the quote;

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property — no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property."

or "It is not the function of the Government to keep the people from falling into error; It is the function of the people to keep the Government from falling into error" - US Supreme Court 1950

@ Mr. Hamilton - can you explain to me how if 2 people partake in an act, one makes a decision and as a result that harms a person and the other does not make that same decision and harms no one, why a law should be applied equally to punish both persons?