This is a philosophical argument against the drug war (and an erroneous one at that) not a practical argument, which is what you previously put forth.
If you want to argue theories and principles, I can do that, and if you want to argue practicality, I can do that as well. I do however believe it is more sensible to take one thing at a time instead of needlessly inflating the scope of the argument.
When we wage war on drugs we wage it in a manner that transfers the harm from the wrongdoer to the innocent. Thus we achieve a result contrary to the results we achieve in criminalizing murder.
As I regard your premise as faulty, so too do I regard your conclusions based on it. There are indeed victims of not having a drug war. I have had the unfortunate experience to witness all too many of them in the past.
Thus the war on drugs victimizes the innocent and creates new innocent victims.
Drugs do that. The "war" responds to the victims thus created. Victims are created by the passing of the knowledge and the means to get "high" to them. They should not be informed of this, and it is those who so inform them and supply them that are causing the injury.
If criminalizing victimless behavior were in fact effective in controlling that behavior we would have stayed with prohibition, prostitution would not be the second oldest profession, and we would not be debating Internet gambling.
I reject your premise that the usage of drugs is a victimless crime. I have seen all too many of them. I've known several people killed or overdosed because of their pursuit of drugs. They all left behind dependents for whom they were responsible. I also see how the government supports drug addicts who cannot work and pay for their upkeep, and that makes victims out of all of us who pay those bills. Do I not have a right to keep my own money instead of paying for a drug addict or their children?
Where Libertarians get the notion that drugs are a victimless crime is because the injury is not always apparent, or in close proximity to the initial act. No, the injury from introducing someone to drugs is often years away in time, and so people develop the false belief that no injury occurred. They have a short sighted view of the larger picture at work.
You've lived in a place and time where drugs were legal? When and where?
“I reject your premise that the usage of drugs is a victimless crime.”
The only “victim” is the user. No 2nd or 3rd party is directly harmed unless they choose to be. Once a person chooses to use some harmful substance the correct response of family and friends is instant rejection and shunning. Sadly many families and friends decide to tolerate it. They bring harm to themselves by doing so.
I feel no pity for them.
L