That's because you don't have a handy-dandy secret decoder ring found free in specially-marked boxes of Malt-O-Meal. ;)
Many libertarians don't mind the fact that drugs are illegal, so much as they mind the fact that the government goes way outside its constitutional authority in its efforts to "ban" them [actually the real efforts are usually to get as much money and power as possible from drug bans].
Many liberarians' biggest problem with drug laws is that they require the police to actively and intrusively seek out criminal violations. This is quite the opposite of the normal police role, which is to respond to criminal complaints.
If a drunk is staggering down the street and making a nuisance of himself, most libertarians would not object to his arrest: he is bothering people, and police don't need to intrusively search him out: his actions are readily observable to all. The situation is much different, however, if someone is smoking dope in his house and waits inside until he sobers up. In that case, the only way the police could ever find out that a "crime" was being committed is by using intrusive surveillance.
Many libertarians would have no objection to the police shutting down a drug house which is creating a clearly identifiable public nuisance. What they object to is intrusive police surveillance and raids on people's homes on the suspicion that they 'might' be dealing drugs. If nobody's complaining, why should the government care?
Last time I looked "commerce among the several states" meant people exchanging goods and money across state lines.
Wrong document slacker American.
Rights are in the adeptly named "Bill of Rights". The preamble of which doesn't limit it, or us, to enumerated rights. No need getting into Monroe, Jefferson vs. the Federalist arguments with you. Too over your head/knowledge base.