I know that you are mocking, but I was serious.
-Expensive housing you saw with Carter/Clinton/housing bubble bursting.
-Without the war on drugs inflating prices, indirectly encouraging crime, directly giving power to organized crime, and encouraging the use of dangerous contaminants, the problems that come with drug addiction would look very different than it does today.
-Without the government's monopoly on force and subsidizing the risk of criminals, people would then be able to handle the problems that homeless crazy drug addicts bring to their doorstep (literally, in the article) themselves.
-Without the government's welfare systems, these people would have had to live more responsible lives from an earlier age, and society would encourage the same, possibly preventing such a downward spiral in the first place.
-Without government's incest with big pharma, people would be free to come up with alternatives to addictive drugs.
-Without the government's heavy taxation and regulation, people would be wealthier, and drugs would be dirt cheap and as available as the market demanded. People that were going to overdose would do so more quickly, and die off. This would provide fine examples and create a fine polarizing effect in society that made people shun such behavior, ultimately lessening it.
-Governments also have a hand in mental illness, since they actively strip rationality from beginning education onwards.
-Government involvement in social engineering, such as marriage policies and laws, would disappear. This would in turn make for healthier environments for families, which would create mentally healthier children.
Government is so large, and affects so many aspects of everyone's lives that it would be impossible to predict all of the positive outcomes of getting rid of it, including its effects on the problems of drug addiction. But, I've given at least some.
uch:
