“...why not just change policy to prohibit addicts from receiving tax-funded assistance?...”
It used to be that way. Unfortunately many became involved in crimes, such as burglary or muggings, to get money for a fix. Most couldn’t hold jobs, their families wouldn’t have anything to do with them, and so social services stepped in to provide support.
I am concerned that the critics on this post have ignored my main issue - that drug addicts are fueling our enemies with money while at the same time functioning like a cancer, destroying our nation from within.
And I think social services should now step OUT and let the addicts face the natural consequences of their own choices...including the consequences of facing an armed citizenry. It seems a better solution that increasing the power of the government.
I am concerned that the critics on this post have ignored my main issue - that drug addicts are fueling our enemies with money while at the same time functioning like a cancer, destroying our nation from within.
Why do you suppose that our enemies choose to make money from the sale of illegal drugs, and not from other addictive, harmful substances like tobacco or alcohol? Perhaps if drugs were not relegated to the realm of the unlawful, unlawful merchants would not enjoy an advantage in that market.
Right now the government seems to have a contradictory drug policy; drug use is criminalized, but drug users are subsidized. I think if the government started to just back out of the matter, both of your concerns would be addressed. Removing drugs from the criminal realm means that our enemies could no longer make money off of them, just like ending Prohibition reduced (if not eliminated) the involvement of organized crime in the alcohol trade. Removing government subsidies for addicts means the addicts can not be a drain on the taxpayer any more.
Less government is better.