That's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs.
Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, aside from failing in its main goal.
> We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized.
Given what we know about the prohibition era and insights about the success in the fight against drug abuse, it's a pretty safe bet.
> That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong.
Is it? Even the most successful countries, like Japan and Singapore, seem to have low drug usage despite of criminalization, not because of. Even then, the data is murky, because criminalization of usage incentivizes low self-reporting.
Weed isn't harmless. For example, it can probably lead to long-term brain damage. It is also toxic for the lungs, although less so than tobacco, which is usually consumed in greater quantities.
Sure, but that’s not different from other things reserved to adults in life. And we don’t label those consumers as victims… it’s stretching the definition of victim to a point where it loses its value
Considering that there are a) many drugs that are substantially more dangerous than marijuana and that b) addiction does create users which are not in full control of their actions anymore, the term "drug victim" does make sense.
So what else are you going to do? Paperwork up front for every single product?