NANNY-STATE CONTROL IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE

EDITOR:

I'm writing about the not-so-thoughtful letter from Louise Van
Antwerp-Brown: "Drug cartels, local news rejoice over Prop. 203" (1-22-11).

I thought Ms. Van Antwerp-Brown was a conservative and that true
conservatives oppose nanny-state policies. Obviously, I was wrong.

What could be more pro-nanny-state than marijuana prohibition?

Beyond the fact that marijuana prohibition is counterproductive and a
complete waste of money, what about the right of adult citizens to be
left alone - especially in the privacy of our own homes?

We don't punish those who attempt suicide and survive. So why do we
punish those who consume the wrong (politically selected) recreational
drugs?

I don't want my government attempting to protect me from myself. I
want my government to protect me from those who want to harm me
against my will.

Today, our nanny-state government tells us which recreational drugs we
may or may not consume. Note that Viagra is OK, but marijuana is not.
Note that nicotine is OK, but marijuana is not.

Tomorrow, our nanny-state government will tell us which foods we may
or may not eat.

Those who oppose the use of marijuana, medical or otherwise, can opt
to not buy it, grow it or use it.

Kirk Muse

Mesa