And I responded that our laws are not limited to those which prohibit harm to others. You wish to reframe and restrict the debate to behavior which harms others.
I've not restricted nor reframed the debate to that. I've included the violation of the constitution that occurs when an object is prohibited. Such as would be the case had congress not obeyed the constitution by passing an amendment as the proper way to prohibit alcohol. I've included the discussion arguing against the constitution being a living document, which your ideology is that it is a living document. This could be no clearer than the necessity of congress to use the amendment process to prohibit alcohol in order to obey the constitution and, unconstitutional drug-prohibition laws passed by congress without the necessary amendment.
You enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate harm/force on persons that have harmed no one. You do that under the color of law. You enlist government agents to be your mafia-like strong-arm muscle which you personally cannot commit the initiation of harm/force or you'd be held liable for paying restitution to you victim and criminal charges against you. That depends on how your victim wants to deal with you and your criminal act against him. That is, chose to take you to civil court and/or press criminal charges.
Ain't gonna happen.
Because, as I said in the post you just replied to: "You can't explain because you haven't been harmed. When you do respond it's typically your authoritarian and/or communitarian twisted logic and perversion of honest justice." I add to those, rationalization.
Congress used the power of the Commerce Clause to write a federal law prohibiting the sales of alcohol to the Indians in 1802. No amendment was required.
You're saying that Congress, President Thomas Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, violated the U.S. Constitution in 1802 by doing so?
"You enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate harm/force on persons that have harmed no one broken the law." Yes I do. Break the law, pay the price. Your choice.