You find the right argument but you failed to make the right conclusion.

Running a red light you are intentionally putting others lives at risk. If you run a red light on accident and you kill someone, it’s manslaughter. If you intentionally run a red light and kill someone its murder 2.

The harm is that you can seriously harm someone. Like driving drunk.

Are you for real?? Does this not make sense in your head?

It’s called risk, look it up.

Is it a crime to fire a legally owned gun in a built up neighborhood, even if it doesn’t harm or otherwise interfere with anyone? Is it a crime to to drive above the posted speed limit even if you’re the only person on the road?

Obviously it is currently illegal to expose bystanders to risk, and in the eyes of the law those exposed bystanders are the victims.

You can argue semantics and say that there’s no victim if they’re just being exposed to risk, but that’s contrary to the logic on which the rest of society functions.

Equally obvious, no such bystander is exposed to risk due to an individuals choice to smoke weed, ergo there is no victim (nor any argument presented that there is).

I get the feeling you just want to argue.

But assuming you’re serious, consider the question of what would happen if everyone did it: traffic would be severely impacted all the time, and/or a lot of accidents would happen, resulting in lots of victims. Contrast that with smoking weed: we’ve seen what happens when it’s made legal, and it turns out nobody gets hurt as a result except when the people smoking weed are committing some other crime, like DWI.