...why? I'm sort of failing to even grasp what you're talking about.
You seem to say:
That you agree drug prohibition is bad but you have problems feeling compassion towards those breaking it, and that it is somehow 'unrealistic' to work towards it ending. I fail to see how this means that the freedom to injest isn't a part of general freedom.
People in European countries have problems feeling compassion towards those caught with illegal .22 rifles in the same way, or towards the family of Melissa Busekros. This lack of compassion is not part of the solution.
You view drug use, prostitution etc etc as inalienable human rights. Many people do not. It's cultural thing. Because people hold those cultural views does not mean they are utterly hostile towards freedom. Those things are
less important than things like the rkba because they are recreational. I should have the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but it's obviously not as important as the freedom from crushing taxes or random warrantless searches.
Many people who might be willing to move in a pro-freedom direction on many of the important issues will be turned off from your cause by militantly picking fights over smaller issues. They just will. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but disliking the truth doesn't change it. I'd rather worry first about securing the most important issues before getting into pissing contests over lesser issues.
Here's a good analogy. When budgeting, I first make sure food, shelter, transportation, and utilities are paid for. Savings, 401k, entertainment etc are important sure, but if the basic needs aren't taken care of the rest are pointless. Same with liberty. I want to insure I can carry a pistol, not lose property to eminent domain etc
first, then I can start making sure no one goes to jail for stupid crap.
I don't like prohibition and helmet laws etc, but I can live with them. Eminent domain, gun control etc not so much.