Mariner responds: And I don't buy this contention in the context I perceive that you mean it. The primary role of the federal government is laid out clearly in the Constitution and is principally to protect us from foreign invasion, to ensure all states "have a republican form of government" and to ensure no state or official entity infringes upon enumerated rights....
Look up the word "conserve," the root of the word "conservative."
The two primary definitions of "conserve" are 1) to protect from harm or decay, and 2) to use something sparingly.
mgist apparently defines his conservative philosophy under definition number one -- to use the Federal government to protect American society from harm or decay. That is "conservative" under definition #1.
Ironically, Democrats and socialists also seek to protect American society from what they see as harm or decay, and the Left views the civil, peaceful rejection of open homosexuality and the outlawing of abortion, to be harmful to American society. Otherwise, the Left is exactly like "conservatives" of the first definition in that they, too, want to use government to "protect from harm or decay."
Thousands of American conservatives, on the other hand, define their "conservative" philosophy by the second definition of "conserve" -- "to use something sparingly." When I call myself a "conservative," my meaning is that I advocate for politicians whose entire political philosophy is prioritized to using government sparingly. With alcohol/drugs and addiction, I advocate limiting government and giving the job helping people work through character weaknesses, BACK TO RELIGION WHERE IT BELONGS. God and Jesus, not the government, helped me overcome my own very destructive alcoholism.
That type of conservatism belongs to the right side of the political aisle alone. To apply "conservative" as code for "wants to use government force to promote Christian values" is a big mistake and I believe the single biggest obstacle to a united front to take down the Left.
When there is an epidemic, there is an health risk to society. It means a common occurrence with regards to health issues. It doesnt mean a moral weakness.
When there are illegal drugs on the street being sold out of McDonald drive throughs, and are the same drug killing people in unusually high numbers, I think it is safe to say we have an epidemic. There was no heroin around in the 80’s.
Evil people are inundating our cities with illegal poisons, as politicians look the other way. Those who believe it could never happen in their families are sadly mistaken. All it takes is a moment of curiosity, sadness, anger in a kids life and availability of the drug.
Especially vulnerable, are kids who were given ADD drugs as children. They have a propensity for addiction. It is not a kids fault if the people that they are supposed to trust (parents and doctors) give them psychotropic drugs in their formative years, changing their brain chemistry.
Anyone who thinks this is someone else problem has no idea about the crime associated and accidents with any and all drugs.