How can Libertarians be indifferent to drug use while claiming private property rights are biggest concern?

Question

If I understand Libertarians viewpoint on drugs, they would not have government make it illegal to do any drug. However, as their viewpoint was explained to me, private property (land, money, one's own body, belongings, etc.) should be the most protected thing. Drugs like meth are causing high rates of property crime in my home state. It seems hypocritical. Could a knowledgeable Libertarian or anyone make a good argument showing how they are not and how I see it is flawed?

Answer 1

then prosecute the criminals who commit the porperty crime

rather than prosecuting the entire group that give rise to a few criminals

Answer 2

you've just answered your own question:

the FIRST principle in Property Rights is the right of your own body, so Libertarians say put as much drugs or whatever you want into it, so long as you don't hurt anyone else, or in other words, infringe on the property rights of the body of another person.

but the flip side of that coin is Individual Responsibility, so that if another's individual sovereignty were breached in any way, the aggressor would be entirely responsible. we already have that kind of system in place, as imperfect and corrupt as it may be...

Answer 3

Libertarians are for individual rights in general.  They don't place personal property as the highest possible right as you appear to believe.  Second, meth doesn't cause property crime.  Thieves who use meth do cause property crime.  Why legalize television?  With all these tvs being stolen, they clearly cause property crime.  

Answer 4

if a person commits a crime on a drug, they should be convicted of that crime, regardless of the drug use.  many of the problems that come from drug use stem from the drugs being illegal. when drugs are illegal, people do not stop doing the drugs.  people just sell the drugs at highly inflated prices, up to 1000% of what the price would be if the drugs were legal.  then gangs fight over the turf to sell the drugs, and people and property get hurt or destroyed in the process.  since the price is so high, and since the government mandates drug testing in many jobs, it makes it difficult for people to afford the drugs.  this causes them to steal to support their habit.  if drugs were legal, people would be able to better afford drugs, being that they would a fraction of the price they are now.  and like i said before, if someone commits a crime, they should be tried and convicted for that crime.  but using, possessing drugs hurts no one in and of itself. it is a nonviolent activity.  that is like assuming since someone wore sneakers to make a bank robbery and quickly ran away after the robbery using his sneakers to avoid being captured that they should make sneakers illegal, since it "caused" him to rob the place, being that it was so easy for him to evade capture with the sneakers.  of course, that is non sense.   drugs dont make people commit crimes or hurt people, people commit crimes.  in the same way that guns dont make people commit crimes.