But there have been instances where a crime was committed that obviously wasn't hate-related, but hate crime legislation was applied to them solely because of the races of the parties involved. I'm not saying that any violent act is okay, but it does bother me that if I killed a black man that I could potentially be more severely punished than if a black man killed a black man.

Suppose we defined morality as conforming to a code of ethics that caused the least amount of harm to others?

I don't think UN would have complained too loudly, if at all. Methods Coalition forces employed were rather far from impeccable (remember Basra road with its 'collareral damage', fabricated news of Iraqi soldiers plundering matenity ward of Kuwait hospital leaving babies on the floor etc), but there was virtually no outcry and that was basically considered (perhaps correctly) as grim but acceptable price to be paid for liberation of Kuwait (whatever that might mean, given the regime there).

used to (who knows nowadays) use cocaine

Remember that time where he was found lying on the floor in his office and he supposedly choked on a chip and hit his head or some such bullshit?

I don't think people that used to (who knows nowadays) use cocaine as highly moral people...

Oh yeah, anyone who has tried drugs must be a horrible person. That would be a very hypocritical comment if you've smoked a cigarette or tried marijuana, but I won't get into that. I'm sure you're perfect anyway

First off, cigarettes are legal, so that doesn't make any sense.

You seem to be confusing morality with legality. Clearly many illegal things are immoral, and vice versa, but defining one in terms of the other doesn't seem like a good idea; it doesn't allow one to speak of "an unjust law", for instance.

will point out that Christianity (which is Bush's faith) teaches to follow the law unless it contradicts God's law. This makes doing drugs in the U.S. a breach of the moral code Bush has chosen to follow.