This no long has anything to do with drugs. The same could be said for fireworks smuggling, or smuggling anything that is taxed differently in different jurisdictions. The fact that the thing being smuggled is a psychoactive substance has no bearing on the issue at hand.
The whole point I was trying to make is that drug related crimes happen because drugs are illegal. You apparently don't have a point, but are looking to nitpick your way through any statement I make. This is tiresome, so this is my last response. Feel free to sneak in a last word, but I do not feel like continuing this conversation. I am writing the following for the sake of clarity; not that anyone will read it.
My argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and the justifications for keeping drugs illegal are flimsy--essentially non-existent. One can use drugs responsibly, or fail to; one can use alcohol responsibly, or fail to. One can consume cigarettes responsibly, or fail to; one can set off fireworks responsibly, or fail to.
It is totally unjustified why drugs are illegal--"they fund organized crime and human trafficking" which is the argument put forth above, is circular reasoning. If drugs weren't illegal, they wouldn't fund such things to any extent, because drug users could obtain drugs without shady internet sites or on-the-street deals. This is not a reasonable justification.
The claim, just to reiterate, is that drug use, in and of itself, is victimless. It harms nobody but the user; the user can take on that risk if they so choose, just as those who drive, or go rock climbing, or ski, or fly, accept the risks of those activities. The argument to the contrary that I am saying is fallacious is that drug use, in and of itself, generates organized crime and human trafficking. It does not. It is only the fact that one cannot sell such drugs legally that generates these crimes.