Who's Afraid of Balls on the Beach, Gay Marriage, & Drug Legalization?

"What would happen if there was a Republican nominee who wants to legalize heroin running against Barack Obama - who's cracking down on the war on drugs?" asks Reason's Matt Welch.

"More than for any other reason," says Welch, "that's why it's going to make me sad that Ron Paul probably isn't going to be the Republican nominee."

Welch joins Reason.com's Nick Gillespie and KFI DJ Kennedy for a free-wheeling discussion about who will be the last person to die for the mistake that is the drug war, the growing and seemingly unstoppable recognition of gay marriage, and Los Angeles County's bizarre ban on beach football and sandcastle-digging.

About 5 minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein, Meredith Bragg, and Josh Swain, and edited by Epstein.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates whne new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RoboCain||

    Actually, I do think heterosexual marriage should be up to the states.

  • o3||

    no kidding and vasectomy's...

    ...plus puppies

  • Fatty Bolger||

    ?

  • Paul||

    Be thankful Aught Three believes in brevity.

  • ||

    Not me.

    I'd think I'd throw my lot with the Feds than with States.

    States are run by locals -- and I'm very familiar with the mindset of the locals....

  • ||

    Aren't all marriages up to the states? I had to go take some weird blood test mandated by the state, then get a "license" at a town hall.

    I don't recall the feds having anything to do with my marriage - other than upping my income taxes.

  • ||

    yup. Although it would probably be best if neither the feds nor the states were involved in marriage. We have all kinds of interference in marriage by the states, not just the gay/not-gay thing.

    State laws can trump prenuptial contracts. Here in Florida it all happens according to a formula, regardless of justice or contracts. Forcing couples to draw up a written agreement for distribution of assets at the end of a marriage would be a vast improvement over the current situation where nobody in the marriage transaction really understands the contract they just entered into with the state.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Not a bad idea. Either way you're entering into a contract, might as well make sure that all parties understand what they are agreeing to.

  • oliver||

    Looking to bring more bisexual passion to your life? Welcome to=== Datebi.C/0/M ===, the world's largest bisexual community for no strings attached encounters. Hundreds of thousands pretty girls and handsome guys eager for hookups, bisexual stands, and discreet affairs are active here. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! u_u

  • ||

    but I am not pretty or handsome - I am grotesque, like fell out of the grotesque tree and hit every branch on the way down, and than fell off the last branch into a pit of acid, which ate away most of my skin, with the remainder infected into an oozing, smelly pus oozing ooznormous pus sack.
    So how do you screen grotesqueries like me out????
    OH, I see what you did "hundreds of thousands good looking" - and you are so clever because you don't mention the - billions of gretesque members!!!

  • *||

    1) John & Ken get taken off the air for a week for calling Whitney Houston a crack whore, Kennedy fills in for the coveted LA drive time slot, and Reason gets 15 hours of free plugs in the state's biggest drive-time radio station.
    2) ????
    3) Profit!

  • MrPlow||

    Heh, I was just about to ask why Reason seem to be pimping Kennedy so much of late. I vaguely remember her from MTV in the early 1990's, and she made a mostly negative impression on adolescent me. I'm glad to learn of another libertarian, but have no idea why I should really care what a former VJ has to say about politics. Were Martha Quinn and "Downtown" Julie Brown unavailable for comment?

  • rather||

    So, what you are saying is her tits did not appeal to your teenage standards, so she should STFU?

  • MrPlow||

    Nope, that she was really unfunny and grating. Never noticed her tits one way or the other.

    Projection much?

  • MrPlow||

    Has anyone found out what Adam Curry thinks of gay marriage? I bet Rikki Rachtman has some shit to say about the PATRIOT Act that we just NEED to hear.

  • Wait A Minute||

    Are you saying that libertarianism can survive without its pop-culture philosophers personalities?

  • MrPlow||

    Hold on, I'm trying to see about getting the guy who wrestles as "Kane" to write an article on non-interventionism.

  • Wait A Minute||

    A+.

    You must be purged.

  • Sudden||

    Being that I live in L.A., I'm currently working on a screenplay for Vince Vaughn to finally don the golden monacle. The working title is Starving Poor Children Make Me Laugh.

  • rather||

    "she made a mostly negative impression on adolescent me..."she was really unfunny and grating. Never noticed her tits"

    Lie much?

  • MrPlow||

    "Negative Impression" is clearly boobs related. I'm so busted. (SWIDT?)

  • rather||

    Survey:

    I vote you are full of sh*t

  • Nope||

    There is no universal suffrage when it comes to understanding how men think.

    The vote count is currently 0 in favor, 0 against.

  • Gosh.....||

    ....Is this why they are so rude to you?

  • Paul||

    Were Martha Quinn and "Downtown" Julie Brown unavailable for comment?

    Yes, they were, but what came out of their mouths was wholly incoherent.

    See the difference?

  • rather||

    A Texas Judge is refusing to perform heterosexual marriages; I hope this catches on
    http://www.phatmass.com/phorum.....marriages/

  • wareagle||

    this is bullshit, right alongside the pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions because of some alleged moral issue and the soldiers who suddenly discover an aversion to guns and bullets. The job entails what the job entails and, for judges, part of that is doing marriages.

    Take that judge off the bench, and do likewise with the one who refuses to perform gay marriage where IT is legal. I have had my fill of self righteous fuckers who think their vision of morality trumps everyone else's. Here's a thought: let them put some principle behind the belief - if asked to do something objectionable, resign and find a job where your delicate sensibilities will not be offended.

  • rather||

    Wrong Libertarian of you;
    "Judge Parker released the following statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.
    I faithfully and fully perform all of my duties as the Presiding Judge of the 116th Civil District Court, where it is my honor to serve the citizens of Dallas County and the parties who have matters before the Court.

    Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court. It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies"

  • Sparky||

    So it's a big deal that a judge isn't doing something that it's not part of their job to do?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    If it's not part of his job as a public official, then that's fine.

  • Tonio||

    I believe that you're technically married when the license is issued, at least in Virginia. Not sure that having any sort of officiated ceremony is necessary. Anyone know more?

  • ||

    I have also noticed that when anyone disagrees with me it is because they are AFRAID! If they were not such cowards, they would clearly come around to my point of view.

  • rather||

    Really, that's a problem? Anyone who disagrees with me uses my name, email, and website to post racist and harassing comments all over a thread that I never commented on
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/02.....a#comments

    And the male cowards portrayed above are unwilling to post the spoofer's IP address

  • ||

    While I wouldn't normally reply to you, this is just terrible. Perhaps if you stopped posting here they would leave you alone.

  • Censor||

    Yeah, rather, SHUT UP IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!

  • Griefer Troll Aggrieved ||

    *

  • Johnwarty Episicasmic||

    We all need a scapegoat.

  • Time Machine||

    Anyone who disagrees with me uses my name, email, and website to post racist and harassing comments

    Have you seen the latest character assassination? It's a gem.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/02.....l-freebies

  • rather||

    My only commhttp://reason.com/archives/2012/02/24/school-freebies#comment_2864361ent

    rather|2.24.12 @ 12:11PM|#
    John, you know as a lawyer your statement is inflamatory; retract SVP

  • Johnwarty Episicasmic||

    Our anonymity provides us with the perfect cover. We can say as we please without consequence. If this be cowardice, make the most of it.

  • rather||

    No it doesn't; your IP address will be subject to a federal subpoena, and everyone else's too.

    If you have used your employer's computer; they will be included.

    Reason's failure to protect my privacy by allowing sugarfree to post comment inviting readers to peruse false and inflammatory information, leaves them party to any legal action suit too.

    I've repeatedly requested that Reason post the spoofer's idea so I can respond to the harassment and they have failed to to their due diligence

  • Johnwarty Episicasmic||

    We should probably ignore you like Commissar SugarFree demands, but gosh darn it, it's so much fun, and besides, showing up at this place day in and day out to insult you sure beats facing the cold realities of our pathetic little lives.

  • WanT||

    I can't tell if your joking or you if really don't understand the internet...

    The internet requires thick-skin because of it's generally anonymous nature.

  • Johnwarty Episicasmic||

    Indeed. Being a dick also helps.

  • ||

    Reason's failure to protect my privacy

    Is only actionable if they have a duty to protect your privacy. Where, pray tell, does that duty arise?

    by allowing sugarfree to post comment inviting readers to peruse false and inflammatory information,

    How does a third party providing links to false information invade your privacy?

  • rather||

    Sugarfree wrote to Reason to have me banned, they are included in the action.

    I've requested they remove slander, and comments that invited violence on my person; invaded my privacy, caused harassment, they refused to remedy

    Do you need case law, honey?

  • ||

    lonewacko used to threaten supoenas.

  • A. A. Wolk||

    I would like to help you, rather. This bunch of Nazitarians need to be litigated to death.

  • GILMORE||

    I've repeatedly requested that Reason post the spoofer's idea[sic] so I can respond to the harassment and they have failed to to their due diligence

    So not only are you insane, a douche, a compulsive poster of inane vulgarities and vacuous pseudo-intellectualism under false handles... you're also a knee jerk litigious cunt who resorts to authoritarian threats when you're wittle feewings get hurt?

    Why am I not surprised?

    Look, its not that complicated = no one likes you. Things like this happen when no one likes you. You can't sue the world into you not being a cunt.

  • ||

    ...is that why they are so rude to you?

  • KOCH BROS||

    Welcome to our website. Everyone is welcome, spoofers too. We hope you don't shit in the kitchen sink or put your cigar out on the carpet, but what the fuck.

    Don't even try the same thing over at Daily$oros. They WILL ban you.

  • sarcasmic||

    It makes for a great straw man.

    Accuse someone of being afraid for disagreeing with you, and the only possible way they can prove that they are not afraid is to agree with you.

    Fallacies are awesome!

  • rather||

    If woman would stop wearing vaginas, they wouldn't get raped!!!

    Why would they make Angelina Jolie a humanitarian spokesperson, when you have all the great ideas?

    Wait, do you have a brilliant idea fro anuses too?

  • rather||

    Wait, spoofer. How did you know I have a fro anus? Are you spying on me with your Male Gaze?

  • Johnwarty Episicasmic||

    Who you calling a spoofer?

  • o3||

    dont BAN stuff.

    instead allow ONLY white people stuff.

    my work's done here.

  • Paul||

    We know ¢. ¢ is a friend of mine. You sir, are no ¢.

  • JR Hager||

    The only real change is TIME, and when TIME takes the prohibitionist and the gay-haters and buries them, then this country will have it's liberties and freedoms back. Be patient, laugh at those who don't want you to succeed, and hold on to your happiness, and hold on to your medicine. PEACE.

  • cynical||

    gay haters, maybe, but prohibitionism is here to stay.

  • ||

    Yes, the cherished freedom to have the state bestow upon you its wonderful gifts of graft, tax credits, exemptions, privileges, and health benefits (and a handsome certificate to boot!) because you've decided to spend the rest of your life having sex with the same person. VIVA LA LIBERTE!

  • Killazonthrun||

    A little thin in the article selection today. Two suggestions:

    US Appeals Court Upholds Suspect's Right To Refuse Decryption

    http://it.slashdot.org/story/1.....decryption

    Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US

    http://www.techdirt.com/articl.....t-us.shtml

  • Joe M||

    So, exactly how many old MTV alumni are libertarians?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Probably all of them. Apparently libertarianism is the last refuge of the over-the-hill hipster.

  • sarcasmic||

    Kennedy is host of 98.7 FM’s Music in the Morning in Los Angeles and has an emotional allergy to latex.

    Who really likes rubbers? Seriously.

  • Lone Wolf McQuade||

    Never trust a broad who ain't into rubbers. Your wee wee will thank you later.

  • ||

    Looks like those guys are having a lot of fun!

    www.Going-Anon.tk

  • Jeff||

    With gay beach balls and drugs, who wouldn't?

  • The J-Meister||

    Don't swim in the ocean you'll get balls in your mouth?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.

  • el Commentariosa||

    next they'll have to identify their race. wouldn't that suck, slappy?

  • Dan||

    I personally like DJ Kennedy on here... I dunno. Nice to have a vagina in the room or something.

  • Sparky||

    And look at how much better she looks when you put her between Matt and Nick.

  • Dan||

    I'm attracted to her without the juxtaposition... ;)

  • Proud Coloradan||

    I forwarded this to about a dozen people, including my mom.

    Just doin my part for the cause!

    Gonna fire one up now (legally y'all).

  • Ring||

    "that's why it's going to make me sad that Ron Paul probably isn't going to be the Republican nominee."

    You know why? Because he isn't a Republican! Tired of reading how Libertarians are pissed that the majority of Republican voters have the audacity to not throw away their principles and vote for Paul over a more Republican-like candidate even though you get a case of the vapors over the very suggestion of Ron Paul compromising his wackier principles that might actually get him to be Republican candidate.

    I'm sure he could be the Libertarian candidate in a heartbeat, but you know full well that he has no chance of being elected so instead, you want to co-opt the Republican candidacy so Republicans have no choice but to hold their nose and vote for a Libertarian candidate over Obama and then you

  • Ring||

    (stupid char limit)

    Let me put it like this, as someone who hangs in (non-social) conservative circles, the other Republican candidates are no peaches, but Ron Pauls foreign policy isn't going to get him far. Santorum has his religiosity, Newt has his history, Romney has his centrism and Paul has his policies (and newsletters, just because you say its not an issue doesn't mean the media won't drag it out every week until the election).

    The problems with Ron Paul cannot be overlooked by the Republicans no more than the problems with Santorum can be overlooked by Libertarians, and the fact that you insist that Paul is right and Republicans should nominate him is like expecting you to overlook Santorums flaws and vote for him anyway, except the majority of Republicans are more in tune (rightly or wrongly) with those beliefs.

  • robc||

    Ron Paul is more like Calvin Coolidge than any of the other three.

    Are saying the best president of the 20th century wasnt really a republican?

  • Another Phil||

    Shorter Ring: No true Scotsman.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Have you seen Hercule Triathlon Savenein? There sure as hell ain't a character limit, unless it's really *really* new.

  • My Take....||

    The Obombsters love Sanitorium, Genuflect to Newtie, are nervous about Mitty and scared to death of the BIG COCK in the room, Ron Paul. He's ready to swing that thing into action to end the plundering of Americans for the sake of foreign military adventurism and crony corporate bailouts.

  • robc||

    Nick cant seem to decide on federalism...somehow marriage laws* shouldnt be decided by the states but the drug laws should be.

    *I will note that I dont think marriage laws should be decided by the state either, as I think they are unconstitutional. But ditto drug laws. However, I think the states doing either are less unconstitutional**.

    **Yeah, yeah.

  • ||

    Who are the least tolerant? Who force parents to have their kids sit through indoctrination with no opt out? Who forces down private adoption agencies?

    Libertarians should definitely fear the left wing nazis.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    You're crazy. The people in the video are for school choice and against such regulations. Just because one doesn't hate someone else because they react differently to male/female body odors and have a more complex left thumb print and have a different voice rhythm doesn't mean they're a part of some leftist conspiracy!

  • ||

    Who is all for taking away freedom of religion and speech under the guise of "hate laws"? Who has abused democracy to the breaking point using judicial activists to subvert the people?

    One can look north to see what is in the future: "Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexuality a sin in class says Alberta gvmt"

    I really don't know how Nick can align himself with these fascists.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    Like I said, the three individuals in this video believe in school choice.
    Just because someone is gay or doesn't hate gays doesn't mean they want to regulate education. I'm gay and I don't believe in regulating education. I believe in 100% privatization and deregulation of education and just about anything else.
    On a related note you're taking this way too seriously. Just pretend gays don't exist. It will do you and everyone else good. Homosexuality has zero effect on your life regardless of how paranoid you are.

  • ||

    Expanding the legal construct of marriage to include homosexual pairs is basically akin to the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's arguing for the continuation of separate buses and drinking fountains for blacks, but lobbying for the right of oppressed blacks to begin forcing hispanics and the mentally handicapped to the back of their own buses. How any so-called libertarian could be supportive of a massive expansion of the state's role in sanctifying particular types of relationships with the privilege of rent seeking is, once again, completely and totally baffling to me.

    Also, 8 states out of 50 currently recognize gay marriages, and of those, only half have been put before voters. Even California voted it down before it was forced upon them by the federal court system. So I'm not sure if there is a true indication of this broad new acceptance that the editors suggest.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    Gays are more open than ever and a lot of TV shows with positively portrayed gay characters have high ratings.
    It's not some shapeshifting freemason conspiracy. People just don't case as much about such trivial matters. Also most people don't vote. Someone being gay has absolutely no effect on your life regardless of how paranoid you are.

  • ||

    I'm not sure if sitcoms are a perfect barometer of public opinion. All I'm saying is that 84% of the country still doesn't recognize gay marriage, and of the 16% that does, 50% never put it up for a vote. I'm not sure if it's really the harbinger of a changing populace that the editors seem to think it is.

    If you're implying that I give a shit about whether or not someone is gay, I'm guessing you missed the first paragraph of my post.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    Again most people don't vote. Ironic you don't recognize that considering you're on a LIBERTARIAN (cosmotarian at that) website.
    Like I said most Americans don't give a fuck.
    They don't give a fuck about voting.
    They don't give a fuck about someone's sexuality, and to be honest, yes I think you do care. If you really didn't care you would have thought "so" and likely wouldn't have commented.

  • ||

    I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the obvious fact of American voter apathy, it was a marginal point. The fact is that the vast majority of states don't recognize gay marriage, and in several states where it has been voted on, enough of the apathetic American voting populace was motivated enough to go to the polls to defeat it. Forgive me for not being completely convinced based upon recent procedural moves in 2 state legislatures that the entire country is gung-ho about embracing gay marriage anymore than I think that Colorado and California are models of national feelings on drug legalization.

  • ||

    For the record, I am opposed to gay marriage, but only in the sense that I'm also opposed to straight marriage. The state shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning particular types of relationships by passing out goodies to particular couples, regardless of their sexual orientation. Bi-sexual polygamists who like to have gay orgies with hairy hermaphrodites shouldn't be treated any differently for tax, estate, or government benefit purposes than heterosexual couples with 2 kids and a dog and a white picket fence. Extending those special benefits to include pairs (and only pairs!) of homosexuals is not fairness or equality to all of the other people, including singles, who will still be excluded. Since you're on a LIBERTARIAN website, I'd think you'd have a better nose for bullshit.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    Most Californian's didn't vote either way on prop 8. More people live around LA than the total number of people who voted either way.
    As far as extending benefits is concerned that is only a pragmatic compromise because of the way the system is rigged. Ask Penn Jillette. He doesn't believe government should be in marriage either but he is legally married for practical reasons, and before someone goes on about how he has kids well many gay couples have kids.
    Don't try flipping "you're on a libertarian site" back on me because this is the big scary pragmatic Kochtopus not the Mises forums where people think we can achieve libertopia overnight. I don't obsess over the end. I like to think about the means too.
    This is like gays in the military. The military isn't libertarian but if you're forced to pay taxes on something shouldn't you have equal access to it?

  • ||

    So basically, you're fine with an immoral government just as long as you get to access what you pay for. I go back to my initial example of the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. Is there any policy you can't justify using that reasoning?

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    Government involvement in marriage isn't going to end any time soon, just like social security and medicare, even Ron Paul recognizes the former two.
    I'm a voluntarist/anarchist myself (though more David Friedman than Rothbard) but even I recognize that stateless is not going to happen in anyone's lifetime. The best we can hope for in the foreseeable future is a liberaltarian/Gary Johnson government, where most of the bad tissue is removed and the rest has heavy oversight and secrecy is looked down upon, and opposition to things like habeas corpus and miranda rights lead to ostracizing and social isolation. Essentially the ACLU coupled with Austrian economics.

  • Duderonious||

    "Someone being gay has absolutely no effect on your life regardless of how paranoid you are."

    Easy for you to say. I bet you've never been in love with a lesbian!

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    I'm a gay guy and i've been attracted to plenty of straight males. I know how you feel.

  • ||

    Ahhh. Well, that explains your, er, "pragmatism" in terms of the philosophical implications of expanding an illegitimate state function. I didn't realize you had some rent to seek.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    You're illiterate. Didn't you catch my example of the heterosexual Penn Jillette? What about the pink elephant in the room, i.e. the pro-gay marriage Reason foundation? Specifically the three heterosexuals (?) (not sure about Kennedy because I think I recall her saying something about experimenting) who posted this article and video? Go complain to them! Don't forget to email all of the pro-gay people at the Cato Institute and the LP, and if you can try channeling the ghost of Harry Browne and complain to him.

  • Anarcho Cosmo||

    I almost forgot, you can also complain to John Stossel and Andrew Napolitano.

  • Tajik Man With Large Mussels ||

    I am attracted to that girl with the glasses on the Reason TV. She completes me.

  • Diamond Jim||

    Sometimes people say to me: "Diamond, The gays are stealing all our women!"

    I think this is what the panic is all about.

  • Henrique Vicente||

    DUDE, the doll has no pants. I think this video gotta be outlawed! There are kids on the internets tubes.

  • Beach Police Dept.||

    Barack Obama's DHS/TSA got us these new SWAT tanks and a bunch of military-style weaponry and said to watch for terrorists and protect the environment. So this is a warning to those that would attempt to pierce the pristine sand with a plastic shovel. We will get you.

  • cardboard displays||

    I don't recall the feds having anything to do with my marriage - other than upping my income taxes.

  • myfriend123||

    Great.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement