[exDemMom]

That establishes a premise that we will be "on the hook" for supporting them and circumvents any debate about whether we should be, and carries an implicit assertion that the perception of "risk" automatically creates a government power to act on it.

I was simply stating the situation as it is. Whether you or I like this situation, it is what exists. We are subsidizing countless drug addicts already through welfare, food stamps, and generous disability programs and the push towards widely legalized marijuana can only result in more dependency.

Personally, I would like to see all of the redistribution programs scaled way back, but I'm afraid that won't happen until the entire economy buckles under the weight of all the give-away programs.

[tacticalogic]

I was simply stating the situation as it is. Whether you or I like this situation, it is what exists. We are subsidizing countless drug addicts already through welfare, food stamps, and generous disability programs and the push towards widely legalized marijuana can only result in more dependency.

Personally, I would like to see all of the redistribution programs scaled way back, but I'm afraid that won't happen until the entire economy buckles under the weight of all the give-away programs.

Indeed. We're presented with a conundrum. We have a situation where we have to choose between two possible courses of action to mitigate the problem. One solution will mean at least a temporary increase in human suffering and the political fallout from that, but less government dependence and a reduction in the size of the government in the long run. The other will mitigate the human suffering, and avoid the negative political optics in the short term, but at the cost of increasing the size of the government and acquiescing to more federal government authority and increasing control of our lives.

Choose wisely.