Yes there are countless females - ranging in age from a child to late teens (among others) - who are forced into the sex trade; I agree. And I've also read/seen/heard more about it than I would of liked to (especially when it concerns children). And I think it's disgustingly wrong, and whoever is responsible for such actions deserve to be locked away for a very long time, if not life.
That being said, from my understanding, we are debating a favor (gay sex) for a favor (meth) between a 71 year-old ex-sheriff, and various adult men who are probably habitual users of amphetamines (especially meth). It sounds like both parties consented to this trade. And if that's the case, I don't believe that this should be treated as a criminal act.
Sure, the old man may have used the meth to his advantage, but that's an extremely common occurrence in a capitalistic society.
Does it make it morally correct to do such a thing? Probably not, but then again, it's not like they didn't have a choice to say no.
In fact, who knows how many meth users ended up saying no to the old man. I'm willing to bet that a lot more men ended up saying no compared to those that said yes to his offer. However, why would the media want to include that? It would make the story less entertaining, and it may undermine the sheer evil that the ex-sheriff is portrayed as.
Various Posts said:
Regarding morality in relation to meth...
It may be true that before the meth got into the hands of the end user, it was indirectly involved in violence, destruction, and the loss of human life.
Does that make it evil?
If yes, then shouldn't we apply the same ideology to non-necessities which also followed a similar path?
For example, what about the jewellery we wear? How about our clothing?
How about antiques? Used guns? World War I and/or II relics? All are bought and collected by avid collectors all over the world. And they were most likely used to kill quite a number of humans (many, possibly innocent bystanders).
The cash in our wallet could have been blood money before it ended up in our possession. And what about the gas in our vehicles?
Even the electronics we use to connect to Bluelight may have been manufactured using components which were the cause of a bloody conflict somewhere in the world.
Where do you draw the line?
Obviously that's your business/choice, and not mine, but I'd rather be all in (get rid of everything which I own, which, somewhere down the line resulted in bloodshed), or nothing (keep it all, because I'm part of the demand, and I've already paid the asking price).
Not a big fan of the following cliché, however, "don't hate the player (consumers), hate the game (war on drugs) and its poorly thought out rules (they - law enforcement - haven't made so much as a chink in the armor of organized crime)." Hell, I'm not even sure that the majority of law enforcement even wants the war on drugs on end, as they could be demoted to security at Wal-Mart.
P.S. - Meth may be a so-called "hardcore" drug, and it may be neurotoxic, but it has been demonized like a mother fucker by the pigs with their faces of meth propaganda (shock value yes, but are you certain it's only due to meth? I don't think so). Check out Dr. Carl Hart's book, "High Price" if you wanna learn from a credible source what many years of drug studies have shown in relation to addiction rates, adverse side effects, and so forth. He has studied (among other things) methamphetamine addicts extensively, and has come up with some unexpected (even surprising) results.
You would have been correct about most people, and despite my best efforts, I am sure I have more than a few things in my house made under questionable conditions in China etc.