One of the biggest complaints I hear from proponents of the War on Some Drugs is the health-care costs attributable to substance abusers. It's a valid concern: consider how much abuse of alcohol and nicotine is costing Medicare.
But, they are inextricably linked. The government's involvement in health care is why the government feels they have the power to tell you what is and isn't healthy for you. And, the voters support that view, especially for behavior they don't approve.
We have already had the war on the cigarette manufacturers. They lost (or rather, the smokers did). The CDC tried to use the same approach on guns, treating it as a "public health" problem. They got slapped down by Congress, but that hasn't kept them from trying again. We have already heard the first shots fired in the War on Fast Food.
I believe that the government's involvement in health care is also trampling on freedom. By low-balling how much they will pay for a procedure or treatment, it inflates the cost for the rest of us (to make up the difference). And of course, there are the taxes extracted from us to pay for it.
So, it's an interesting negotation point: what if we were to deny tax-funded medical treatment for illness and injuries caused by substance abuse? That takes that issue off the table, and it's usually a smokescreen anyway.
I will support the war on drugs so long as I am the one expected to pay the bills of the losers who engage in such behavior.
I really don't think I could give a clearer answer. The use of drugs by these folks affects ME. I have to pay the bills in the form of higher taxs. Therefore drug use under todays conditions does NOT stop at a persons front door. So long as it affects me against MY will, then I see no constitutional protection.
Pull the social safety net I am compelled to support, then we will talk about the user's "rights".
GOD!, when will my generation grow up?