“The big problem with that is that none of us live in a vacuum. If addiction only affected the addict and no one else, I’d be all for letting people do whatever. But the problem is that our society will not stand by idly while people become more and more dysfunctional through their addictions. We’ll keep on feeding and sometimes housing them long past the time their brains no longer function. We’ll keep sending them to ineffective rehabs and spending all kinds of money on them. We’ll repeatedly revive them after overdoses and will not let them die. Since this is the case, we cannot talk about addicts’ personal liberties as if that is the only consideration—we are talking about the taxpayer’s liberty to go where they want without being confronted by drug addicts, about their liberty to keep as much of their own money as they can and choose to spend it the way they want, etc. Although I lean more libertarian than anything else, I also recognize the fact that our society is not based on each person for himself, acting in a vacuum, and that such a society may not be possible in the real world.”
So if I understand your diatribe correctly, the nanny state is ok with you except when you decide it shouldn’t be. “mostly libertarian “? Puleeze :)
Typical of the GOP. We don't like big government, unless it's OUR big government. Then it's perfectly ok!
So, let me get this right: you think it's perfectly okay to raise my taxes and put up with high crime rates so that you can spend your days higher than a kite, living off "government" largess. On the other hand, I strongly object to having the bulk of my taxes go into the welfare system, especially when they're supporting drug addicts.