Quote Originally Posted by Irving View Post
Sounds like we'll really have to flesh out specific arguments to discuss. To start I'd say that of course all the fees and taxes and such are going to be aimed at the largest, richest segment of the population, which is people who are gainfully employed. I know that's not specifically what you meant, but if the state needs to make money, it's not going to be from people already living off of state provided benefits.

I've been dealing heavily with people who are "disabled" a lot lately so I'm right there with you on that particular topic, probably.
Yes, I think you understand my rage.

Legit disabled I have no problem voluntarily funding programs to help, it's why we give to charities. This is probably less than 1.5-2% of the population and could be managed with death/disability insurance program. People who choose to be junkies? Nope. But gov is here to force me any way they can.

Quote Originally Posted by OxArt View Post
The libertarian and darwinian approach is probably the most flawed of all solutions. True, in time (say, 50-100,000 years) the problem would genetically resolve itself that way as to the current issue (opiates, etc.) although there will always be a new chemical that can do the same, or worse.

The problem with the libertarian aspect is it is taken from a flawed perception of a typical, mid-30's, "white-guy" with his shit put together, and with relative luck in his life, and little memory of his youth. It doesn't account for the reality of the human species, especially our anatomy and physical development.

[snip]
This was a really good post! Perspective is very important. Quoting and bolding a couple of great thoughts.

As a freedom/natural rights issue, this would sort itself out if we didn't have a welfare state and the hand-wringers didn't rule over us and our lives. The problem starts with the "concern" and then evolves into a moral panic. Because collectivists can never appropriately force the bad actor to be accountable, they can only redistribute the negative consequences to good actors.

They are turning natural consequences/biology 180 degrees and completely perverting it.

I don't think it's coincidental that they are trying to disarm us while doing this. I know I see a lot of things through the lens of gun rights but it would seem Coloradans should be asking for stronger gun rights with this change. Yet again, they are pushing it the opposite direction.