[JT_Lancer]

The black market in cigarettes due to increasing govt prohibition via high taxes simply illustrates how any govt ban increases crime. It happened with Prohibition, and it exists with the Drug War. It really boils down to whether or not you think the govt owns you and should regulate how you choose to live your life. In this case, illegal drugs are no different from legal ones like alcohol or tobacco, or fatty foods for that matter. Consumption of any of them poses possible health risks, and users under the influence of legal or illegal drugs may pose a threat to others if they drive a vehicle while using, for example. But should the govt be able to imprison you for the simple act of consumption of a substance that may impose health threats to yourself, but harms noone else? If you believe so, then any claim to natural rights is non-existent.

[Dataman]

But should the govt be able to imprison you for the simple act of consumption of a substance that may impose health threats to yourself, but harms noone else?

This is the hanging rope for the libertarian perspective. While it is easily demonstrated that "harmless" libertarian behavior does indeed have consequences which harm others, the libertarians have yet to create a scenario in which they can consume their intoxicants or practice perversions without hurting others.

Just as the criminal does not get to define crime, the libertarian is not the impartial judge who can fairly determine if someone else gets hurt.