This came up in another thread but is not a subject of the thread. i've always seen a very reactionary reply on this topic by some of 'there are no such thing as victimless crimes'. Do you believe that? Accept that? the typical example people give to argue for a victimless crime is a pot smoker. That then bleeds into the up stream and down stream problems that come with drug production and use and muddies the discussion. Most of these discussion end up circular as most point to the harm and victims caused by trying to enforce the law and say 'see victims' when those victims would not necessarily exist if the law was not in place. So I see them as victims of the 'law' and not the 'act'. What i would call 'tangential' victims. -------- So how about this instead as an example where I am unable to identify even tangential victims. In many jurisdiction Big Agri has lobbied effectively to make the consumption of certain things illegal. One such example is Unpasteurized Cow's milk under the boogeyman that only their mass consumer product pasteurized milk is safe. Laws were passed in many jurisdiction making Unpasteurized Milk illegal. Selling it to the public could see a farmer charged with a crime. However the farmers who owned the cow could drink it themselves. to get around a loophole in the law and its intent, Farmers (or their lawyers) figured out the law stated 'cow ownership' was how the law defined who could buy it and drink it legally. So for consumers who wanted it Farmers started selling shares (ownership) in their cows. If someone was an owner of a fraction of the herd, even if for just $1/yr, they could then buy milk directly from the farmer. Who is the victim of this crime if that same farmer, sells a bottle to his neighbour, who may not have signed up to his cow share model which is only in place to skirt a silly law?