Posted on 12/27/2020 6:43:25 AM PST by Kaslin
Should non-users have to subsidize the healthcare for “addicts”?
No, for all addictive substances; is the conservative conclusion to ban those substances?
If you want pot banned nationwide, the process is a constitutional amendment to the Interstate Commerce Clause.
If you want the laws as they have been, you are conservative on nothing but the war on drugs, because the WoD is just a tiny piece of the overall war on capitalism you are conspiring in based on Wickard v Filburn (1942).
If drugs are legalized, you have no more reason to conspire with the Left for the anticonstitutional Supreme Court-invented authority to ban anything at the federal level and you can let it go.
see 23
>Should non-users have to subsidize the healthcare for “addicts”?
Same argument about fast food, cigarettes, sky-diving, lawn darts etc. No conservative makes this argument.
If you choose to participate in a risk management enterprise at group rates, then yes, you will subsidize the cost of many freedoms. And the public may mop up many splats just enough to keep the neighborhood clean or keep it out of sight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.