It comes down to whether we want to protect the children exploited in this media, or punish those who enjoy looking at it. That's a crucial distinction. When you nick someone for possessing, distributing, or god forbid producing it, the primary action being taken is the protection of individuals that are being exploited in horrible, horrible ways. They're taking advantage of people who can't defend themselves, and as such anyone involved needs to get charged to the full extent of the law ASAP.
However, I don't think that drawings, renderings, and soforth created entirely from the mind and not involving, endangering, or exploiting actual human beings should result in an equal condemnation. Punishing an individual for looking at drawings does not protect anyone beyond a theoretical implication that future abuse may occur on behalf of the offender.
I'm just going to cut through all the bull**** and say that I think that drawings, intellectual property, should not be treated - in effect be afforded the same rights - as the human beings in actual images. A drawing is not a human being, and therefore does not need to be protected. As such, even if the image is of utterly vulgar, horrible content, there is no need for protection. The issue becomes moot, and shifts to mere punishment of the viewer. When you punish someone for having pictures, how can you draw the line between artificial images and simply thinking about it? Where can the line be drawn between acting to protect children, and honest-to-god thought-policing?
Urgh, it's a hard issue to argue about. And hentai is a very murky issue, evidenced by the whole blowup over the RapeLay game.
