If I were to take the full “definition” from the Wikipedia page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation_of_force), the statement would still not be accurate. This is because it essentially includes any and all acts of wrongdoing, physical or otherwise, against another person, but does not include those harmed indirectly by your actions. Again, please tell me how the family torn apart by a sex cripple’s use of a prostitute has some force initiated upon them. Sure, if you expand the definition to essentially reverse-engineer it based on the outcome, then it becomes a tautology (i.e. Person A was harmed by Action B, thus Action B constitutes initiation of force). The problem here then becomes that almost everything can be construed as initiation of force.
The free use of drugs is not without consequence as many libertarians (and apparently you) believe. Step one, in this case, is the engineering of the term “initiation of force” in such a way that it supports your ultimate goal. Step two is then rationalizing your actions. Marijuana, possibly the least harmful of the illicit drugs, has marked negative health effects. This costs otherwise healthy people financially in the form of increased health care costs. Does this constitute initiation of force? In what way is it different from regular tobacco smokers? In either case, why must I subsidize the habit, directly or indirectly, of a person incapable of dealing with reality?
This discussion is not about freedom or liberty. It’s ultimately about the legalization crowd’s petulant need to have their vice legalized - a vice that is used and abused by people already suffering from some sort of social disorder. If you need to escape, instead of fixing the symptoms you should fix the cause. That’s my opinion. That said, the reason drugs are so abused is because the kinds of people that abuse are precisely the kinds of people mentally inclined to abuse them. It’s essentially self-perpetuating. While anything can be addictive depending on the person, it’s not as if it’s the minority of drug users who suffer social or health consequences from the use of drugs. It’s the majority.
In general, I have become more or less agnostic about the issue of legalization. Were it to be legal, those who wish to use drugs should simply have to accept responsibility for their actions. Much like bad drivers eventually lose their licenses, those who abuse drugs and lose their jobs are entitled to no help whatsoever from productive members of society. Those who endanger their children in any way from the use or abuse of drugs must bear the consequences of that decision.
This discussion to me has never been about liberty or freedom, but rather about the collective need of many libertarians to pretend their vices do not affect others. They do.