Thank you. :D
How do you answer the outright burglary and other crimes committed by users trying to get money?
Castle law doctrine and prosecution for the actual crimes committed.
Regardless of how the regulation is implemented, by employer or government, addicts still need money to buy their substance so they will steal and harm others (and yes I lump alcohol in with other drugs when it comes to driving or other crimes like killing someone while intoxicated and getting off on a lesser charge than murder). Does the tax payers get to foot the bill for those drugs or worse yet the endless rehab trips? Why should I pay for their behavior?
Why should the government operate/fund rehab centers? Why should it be involved in the medical industry/profession at all (save for the obvious malpractice suits)? Why should it be in insurance at all? If governemtn weren't involved in these things there would be no issue on rehab at all.
Are you seeing a pattern yet?
In short, why should government dictate all aspects of our lives? Why should its realm of authority extend everywhere? Is there any portion of life that it does not have jurisdiction? (Of course the government wants jurisdiction everywhere, that is its power.)
How do you protect the unborn from an addict mother?
Now there's a rubber meets the road
question. I would think that it is best addressed on a personal-level, not the state, most drug-abusers I've seen are trying to cope with deep hurts that only the Great Physician (Jesus) is really equipped to deal with. (I would also draw a distinction between use of alcohol, cigarettes, etc with the abuse thereof.)
I can say I prefer the states in control over the feds, that way if you like dopers you can live in a state that allows whatever level of behavior you can tolerate as long as the fed does not step in a sue states that crack down for civil rights violation since in a libertarian world the individual can do whatever he/she wants.
That's a completely different topic, the War on Drugs is, at it's core, an assault on State sovereignty. Look at the commerce-clause they [ab]use to justify it: the States appear in between foreign countries and Indian nations (which might be thought of as Domestic/Native Countries)... if the federal government were to assert its control over commerce in a foreign country like they do here that would be an act of war (and the enforcing thereof the waging that war).
So, it naturally follows that the War on Drugs in nothing less than Treason as defined by the Constitution.
Well, I bit the hook and asked a few questions.
Thank you.
If we could guarantee that no government programs would be established or continued to handle the rehab and community outreach BS then I am on board. However, I know that will never happen in our current environment. As long as the government has the ability to spend our money at will the cycle will continue and I am afraid we have passed the point of being able to reset it without some sort of conflict. The lib powers are deeply entrenched.
The only guarantee would be sweeping changes in appropriations and how the Congress can pass these bills without a vote from the people. We would almost need to micro-manage them by voting on everything where a certain value threshold was met. Talk about nothing getting done.