It's worth noting that Libertarians wouldn't legalize the theft, assault, or other infringement upon rights that typically go with drug abuse.

But also, I tend to reject the rigidity of the party. The EZLN, aka the Zapatistas, in Chiapas, Mexico, famous for perhaps the longest running autonomous zone of anarchists, do not permit the use of alcohol or drugs. This can be squared with ideas of freedom because free people have a freedom of association, and can choose not to associate with harmful practices, just as you might require that your children, or spouse refrain from using drugs while in your home.

It's important to remember that for as much as we can talk about the ins and outs of specific crafted policy, human existence is rarely so black and white. Rather than the minutiae of policy, the overall focus of anti-aggression should remain our guiding principle.

Personally as a libertarian (no capital L for me), I'd oppose a national ban on drugs, however, do believe that it being left up to communities to decide for themselves in a grassroots approach how they should treat them. No one should be forced to be in the presence of drugs, or even guns, if they choose to avoid them. How communities choose to organize themselves and make these decisions is likewise up to them, though I do support a consensus oriented approach as opposed to a simple majority rule.