The effects that drug addicts have on other people are pretty serious. With few exceptions, we do not allow people to engage in behaviors that harm other people. For example, you are allowed to drive a car, but only within the framework of a restrictive rule set. If government would not spend another cent on rehabilitation or even on treating overdoses--and addicts could be prevented from committing crimes to support their addictions--I really would not care what they do to themselves. I highly object to the increased crime rate and to having my tax dollars go into preserving addicts' lives.
Government spends on the dysfunctions of the obese - but that's insufficient justification for government banning fattening foods. (Or do you disgaree?)
There is no "good" food or "bad" food, and the notion that obesity could be controlled by banning "fattening" foods is ludicrous. The obese are obese because they eat too much, fail to eat properly balanced diets, and exercise too little. I'm sure that there are reasons that so many people fall into these bad habits, and there is quite a bit of research into the subject. Finally, they should pay their own health care costs.
Crime is already against the law - and crimes by addicts would be lessened when legalization lessened the cost of their drug.
Government spends on the dysfunctions of the obese - but that's insufficient justification for government banning fattening foods. (Or do you disgaree?)
There is no "good" food or "bad" food, and the notion that obesity could be controlled by banning "fattening" foods is ludicrous.
Marijuana in moderation, like high-fat foods, doesn't lead to dysfunction. And the idea that marijuana addiction can be controlled by banning marijuana has proven equally ludicrous.
Government spending on the dysfunctions of the obese is insufficient justification for government coercively intruding on American's food choices in any manner. (Or do you disgaree?)
Finally, they should pay their own health care costs.
As should addicts.