Replies

Glad to be of assistance.

Here are the libertarian talking points on drugs:

Drug use shouldn't be encouraged, but it's not the government's business to tell us whether or not we can grow, own, or carry a vegetable around if we please.
The "Drug War" has done tremendous violence to the Constitution. There's no disputing this. The Asset Forfeiture laws are an affront to the 4th and 14th Amendments, and to the idea of Due Process generally.
In the 1920's, we believed a Constitutional Amendment was required to ban the manufacture, sale, and importation of a mood altering substance, but the government had grown so intrusive by 1936 that the Congress believed it could do this under statutory authority, and by the 1990's, a single bureaucrat (named David Kessler) believed he could completely outlaw an entire class of substances (Tobacco, among several) on nothing more than his own personal authority. Sometimes there are slippery slopes; we've been on one since alcohol prohibition.
The "Drug War" is a waste of resources: $40 billion / year to interdict and convict for substances which in many ways are far less dangerous than alcohol.
Prohibition only makes gangsters rich and gives them access to people, for example, terrorists and children, and money they would not otherwise have. Our southern neighbor is about to go the way of Columbia in the 1980's. That's going to be a serious problem for us that wouldn't exist if drugs were decriminalized.
Prohibition insures a diluted, impure product that unnecessarily burdens the health system.
If adults want to kill themselves, we don't care (at least politically.)
Crimes committed by people on drugs are no more a reason to ban drugs than crimes committed by people with guns are a reason to ban guns (L/libertarians are strong RKBA supporters.) People need to be held responsible for the things they do, whether with guns or when they're intoxicated. People committing real crimes should be dealt with: but it's the crime that matters, and the person who commits it, not the drug or the weapon.
No drugs of any kind--and in fact no services of any kind except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution--should be paid for by taxpayers. As a matter of fact, some of those, like post offices and post roads, could be handled a lot better by somebody other than the government. Another story, for another day.
There are medical uses for some drugs, which, contrary to lies told by government bureaucrats, are far more effective than the "acceptable" (read: nanny-state approved) alternatives. People dieing from cancer, for instance, should have access to the best pain management available.
If you want to help drug addicted people, poor people, sick people, or criminals, that's fine; libertarians will not try to stop you. But please don't ask us for help, and above all, don't send men with guns from the government to force us to help. It isn't charity when you have no choice.
If this offends your religious sensibilities or moral sense, tough. Nobody's forcing you to participate.
Many libertarians I know (I am one) are Republicans, because the Libertarian party is nothing more than a bunch of kooks, stoners, and utopians who don't know anything more about getting or keeping political power than they do about staying clean and sober. I don't take drugs, drink, smoke, gamble, or pay for sex. I don't think these are smart things to do. But if you want to, bon voyage! The species will be improved by your passing and the government that those of us who are left will have to contend with will be a lot smaller and friendlier to liberty.