For this week’s topic, we are joined by returning guest Tony Miller, who helped us defeat the anti-gay Marriage amendment last year (yeah – it was totally us). This time he joins us to talk about victimless crimes. We start by talking about laws governing drug use (especially marijuana) but we also consider blue laws, marriage laws and blasphemy laws in a lengthy and interesting conversation. Then Tony gets to ask us five questions and they are, as one might expect, pretty insightful. Enjoy our indictment of everyone’s legal systems!
As we discussed, the US Government has announced they will not prosecute legal use of marjuana in states that have legalized use.
In case you don’t remember the Terry Schaivo case, here’s the Wikipedia page.
We tried to put up the official NASA Earthrise picture but the NASA site is currently down because of the government shut down. So that sucks.
“It’s not oppression, but it is suppression. We are expected to suppress our atheist beliefs and the way we think about things because it’s not ‘fair’ to other people and it makes other people uncomfortable.” – Molly
This struct me. It’s something I already kind of knew but to hear it out loud just made me go, “Wow, that’s right.” It’s hard to express atheism when it’s easier to nod instead of shake your head no, but those two sentences – along with all that you guys have said – have helped me realize how important it is to speak up.
Thank you for saying that.
I like the sophistication of the examination of how ending the highly profitable economy of illegal drugs will impact the poor in other nations.
The next step beyond that is the examination of what legalizing drugs would do to bolster the power and wealth of the existing pharmaceutical industry. Imagine a future where Pfizer advertises their brand of ecstasy on television, in between Philip Morris ads for marijuana…
Re: polyamory – As a polyamorous man trapped in a monogamous body, I have long urged that ALL marriages be treated akin to how businesses are treated. Not IDENTICAL, I realize the two are different things, but similarly.
Nobody ever asks how many people are partners in a business, or what their genders or orientations are, or who on the Board of Directors is sleeping with whom. It is not considered relevant to the government’s interests in overseeing the orderly conduct of business.
Just so polyamory. One of the things that greatly offended me about the gay marriage discussions was the constant assertion that anyone has any right to discuss what goes on in the bedroom of a married couple. The argument that heterosexuals engage in sodomy as well as homosexuals is entirely beside the point because consensual adult bedroom activities are nobody’s business and the whole topic ought not even be introduced into the conversation.
And while determining how a poly family might handle finances in divorce might be more complicated than a binary marriage, businesses do it all the time when partners enter or exit a business. In a business a new partner might need to buy their way in, and a departing partner might be given a check for a fair portion of the value of the business they are relinquishing.
Just so with polyamory. Not THE SAME: you can’t ‘value’ children, and figuring out visitation in a manner that does not harm the children will be tricky. But there’s no justification in restricting people’s rights just because something is difficult or complicated.
If the world treated marriages with the same expectations and deference that are shown to businesses, we’d be a long way towards increased freedom.