[robertpaulsen]

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.

[VaBarrister]

Right so you're arguing that the existence of welfare and social departments, in your opinion, should give the government the right to prevent new people from entering into these programs? In order to end these programs, you have to prevent people from becoming even more dependent on them and therefore you have to dictate behavior as a means to end the programs.

[bassmaner]

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.

Glaring omissions from your nanny-state list: the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, i.e. the "Drug Czar".

Neither of which have any constitutional basis for their continued existence, just like the others you mention.