Ethical in the sense of rightful property.
You own yourself. Exercising your self-ownership, you can acquire existential property by either exchanging (another person gives you his property) or homesteading (being the first user of unowned property.) Owning a piece of property, gives you exclusive control over it. Thus, if another person tries to user it, without your permission, he is violating your exclusive control.
Form the concept of exclusive control, the non-aggression principle (NAP) can be derived. That is, any initiated uninvited force ("aggression") against either your person or property must be unjust. And therefore you have the right to defend your person or property by use of ("responsive") force.
This invalidates the concept of majority rules. A majority imposing it's rules on you, enforced by police, is an aggression against you'r person or property (e.g. taxation, drug laws, etc.) The argument that democracy is practically good (e.i. utilitarianism,) doesn't hold ground. For democracy to be ethical, the ends must justify the means. The theory of exclusive property control doesn't support this claim.
On the practical side, I agree, a society must have rules. But these rules can simple be implemented as private law, being contracts or property rules. For example, say that you wish to buy a house in a community, the purchase contract, to "outlaw" drugs, would simple state just that: "If you're in possession or effected by drugs at anytime in this community, a fine of $X must be payed to Y agency".
Things as murder, theft and rape would be illegal by default, as that violates the NAP.