Do you agree? In principle: I do (see my tag-line).
What needs to occur, however, for libertarian pie-in-the-sky utopia to have any reasonble chance for success: dismantle ALL and ANY social safety nets and legal prohibitions of citizenry personal protection.
While I'm absolutely certain most TEA "party" afficianadios would be absolutely fine with that: as long as you don't mind 3rd world type ghetto / slums in YOUR neighborhood; allow the libertarian's goal of eliminating the war against drugs. That will be the end result of libertarian policy.
Moreover, it would most plausibly result in an environment rich for the recreation of the late 19th century high-plains / frontier.
Society has a right to protect itself from known dangerous threats to its own cohesiveness. Because comes next: the anarchist. We all know what comes after that.
It can be argued that driving a 1969 Plymouth Interceptor at 100 MPH through the residential streets is no foul if no offence (despite being 0.30 BAC), society has decided to protect itself from such behavior.
Anybody advocating liberarian philosophies hasn't seen the carnage of meth.
Libertarians do not consider the social ramifications of personal failures with respect to their views on personal liberty. How many independantly wealthy libertarians would take in a [fill in the drug of choice]-head into their household based on sltruist principle? Me thinks such would be SEP (or NIMBY).
I have long advocated for restoring this kind of judgment to doctors and pharmacies with the same kind of controls and supervision normally expected for any other medication. So woes associated with "moonshine meth" are simply not applicable to such a discussion.