Gay Marriage, Pot and Stem Cells
There has been lots of talk about the election but only sparse discussion of state ballot referendums. Basically, gay marriage and pot were the big losers and stem cell funding was a winner.
11/11 states voted to amend their constitution to ban gay marriage. I am opposed to this however I am open to being convinced that it is the right way to go. I just need someone to give me a justification that is not based in some religious belief. I want to know how 2, or even 3, gay straight or otherwise, people being married is going to destroy my marriage?
Alaska voted against legalizing pot. Well I don’t smoke it but I think it should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco. The war on drugs has been a dismal failure. I am not sure why it was thought that a prohibition on drugs would turn out any different than the prohibition on alcohol.
Oregon voted against expanding their medical marijuana laws. Not sure what this was really about.
California said screw waiting on federal funding for newer stem cell lines we shall do it ourselves. They will create a 3 billion (this is more than the feds currently provide) fund to advance stem cell research. This will be a huge boom to the UC and other school systems in California.
There are other issues that were decided but I am not as interested in them. Check out the full report here
November 10th, 2004
If the war on drugs is a “dismal failure”, and that we should discontinue it as a result, how do you propose to control distribution of drugs, or should we make them all available to the public without restriction?
November 10th, 2004
I’d restrict them the same as alcohol and tobacco.
November 11th, 2004
All drugs, up to and including pharmaceuticals Dilaudid, Darvon, Darvocet, Demerol, Mescaline, Morphine, Amphetamines, LSD, etc? At which point do you draw the line? Do you allow antibiotics, cholesterol medication, and anti-viral agents to be dispensed without medical intervention (allowing patients to cut out the medical middleman, which would also lead to an interesting natural selection process), or are you just endorsing the elimination of restrictions on mind/mood altering chemicals?
Are you including additional impact of:
1. Impaired driving (we know what a rousing success alcohol is on the roadways)?
2. Loss of productivity at work (alcohol seems to be a major player here too drugs are a more minor player as their abuse is less pervasive and more debilitating)?
3. Impact on families, mental health, and rehabilitation facilities?
November 12th, 2004
I’m actually a little surprised that so many people support a ban on “gay marriage”.
I’m yet to meet the first person who can provide any argument for disallowing it on basis other than “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman”. This is an argument totally devoid of thought or reason.
My thinking is that people are personalizing the marriage vow as a part of their religious and/or moral values. The fact of the matter is that marriage is a predominantly a religious ceremony and most religions believe it should be restricted to heterosexuals. I feel this is a valid point and I do not think anyone is trying to force any religion to accept homosexual unions. The argument also points out why the government should not be allowed to legally recognize marriage, for it is primarily a religious institution.
1.I believe the government should recognize only “civil unions†regardless of sexual orientation.
2.To save money the “civil unions†they recognize should be called “marriageâ€. I find on the whole, people do not realize the cost that will be imparted if you suddenly make two different standards by which you apply unions. Millions of forms will have to be created or changed, just to say “civil union†instead of “marriage†wherever applicable. Laws will have to be re-examined to see if the new standard will be applicable in the same ways as the old standard. The door will also be opened to preferential treatment of one union standard over the other. Making two standards just doesn’t make sense logically or financially.
3. I’m not sure on what to do with individual companies. I’m leaning toward allowing companies the same room to decide as I allow religions. Since the relationship within the company is with the employee, and any benefits extended to “partners” is between the company and their employees. But I am entertaining debate on the point… ;-)