Drug sale and use is not victimless. The costs vary with the type of drug and the enforcement regime but the social costs never go to zero.
There can be huge negative externalities involved with drug use, as anyone with a family member who has a drug problem could tell you.
Even in the most enlightened societies one would have to acknowledge that support and rehabilitation for the small percentage of users who have problems creates a burden on society.
Since these costs are generally not borne by either party to the transaction there is a fairly straight-forward case for regulation here.
For this reason I do support banning some drugs and regulating most of them (including cigarettes and alcohol).
I don't think this is inconsistent with free market ideology at all. As far as I know, no one wants a totally free market for semtex, plutonium or nerve gas (I do admit those are perhaps overly emotive examples).
There can be huge negative externalities involved with drug use, as anyone with a family member who has a drug problem could tell you.
Even in the most enlightened societies one would have to acknowledge that support and rehabilitation for the small percentage of users who have problems creates a burden on society.
Since these costs are generally not borne by either party to the transaction there is a fairly straight-forward case for regulation here.
For this reason I do support banning some drugs and regulating most of them (including cigarettes and alcohol).
I don't think this is inconsistent with free market ideology at all. As far as I know, no one wants a totally free market for semtex, plutonium or nerve gas (I do admit those are perhaps overly emotive examples).