So are you saying that the existence of the "nanny state" should allow the government to make anything illegal that taxes that system? What about cigarettes? They have been shown to severely tax federal programs. So long as those programs exist, under your logic, the federal government should be able to prevent people from making any choices that would add further cost to the system. Maybe there should be a federal law that doesn't allow people to run with pointy objects because that would prevent us from having to pay for their injuries.
The nanny state may be wrong, but it is not an argument that the government can control conduct because people aren't responsible enough and will cost the rest of us money.
A nanny state is not a state that dictates our behavior. You have the wrong interpretation. A nanny looks after and cares for her charge.
In my post #108, I listed some functions of the nanny state: The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, for starters.
If people are willing to rid thenselves of these agencies, then perhaps they're willing to take on personal responsibility. As I said, then we can talk about drugs.
You legalize drugs first, you're just going to add people to the welfare and healthcare systems and we'll never get rid of those federal agencies.