Potentially, yes. But that case would only be good against poor _execution_ of the war on drugs, not the _concept_ that drugs need to be dealt with as if we were in a war. Activists seem to oppose the concept, which is where I disagree.
The concept is fundamentally flawed. Curtailing rights and imprisoning people for victmimless crimes is incompatible with anything approaching a free society. There are many approaches to dealing with the problems inherent with drugs, we just keep using the wrong over and over and at an extraordinary cost, in money, liberty and ruined lives.
Living in Seattle and seeing the fentanyl crisis first hand, I disagree with you that addicts aren’t victims.
Not to mention the citizens who are victimized by the crime needed to sustain that addiction.
Legalization of marijuana has gone fine, but there are drugs so powerful that adults lose all control and reason, and I can’t see ever legalizing something like that.
The people you see on the street are a tiny percentage of illegal drug users. I'd also consider the vast range of options between where we are now (people dying regularly from contaminated street drugs, spreading diseases, violence associated with black markets) and full-on, no limits legalization. Somewhere in between is a place where we can save lives, enhance liberty and still not have Ultra-Meth available at every corner store.