Posted on by Nathan Riley

Drug Use Has Comparable Risks To Drinking A High-Ball

Freedom is tied to the discovery of new ideas, what we often call “truth.”

Freedom in the United States is a constant struggle. The most famous and obvious is slavery. Slavery was practiced all over the world, long before it was used to make sugar or grow tobacco. Slaves are a constant backdrop in the Bible. Between 20 to 40% of the Roman population was slaves. Supporters of slavery insisted that once freed blacks would do no work and rape white women. Slavery, we were told, was a pillar of civilization.

As freedom became accepted, slavery conflicted with changing moral standards. Making drugs legal is no greater a change in moral standards than when the United States abandoned slavery or allowed women to vote.

Appeals to freedom, frequently meant changing minds; what was considered “right” became “bad.” Conventional morality opposed a new freedom and then became accustomed to it, even insisting on it.

Freedom permits us to challenge existing ideas; slavery stopped being a “good” and became an appalling evil to many Americans. Freedom allowed reformers to challenge existing ideas and insist on a better reality. Today it is harder to accept that drug use is criminal behavior that good people should stop, an evil that harms us. It is simply untrue that poverty is caused by drug use, multiple reasons are tied to poverty: more people than there are jobs, education that doesn’t instruct many young people, and few programs that help people learn after they are 18 and start to recognize the importance of schooling.

Arguing that drugs are an evil is being challenged. If gambling, overeating and alcohol are addictive it becomes difficult to claim heroin has some special evil factor making it more addictive than other activities. Moreover, drinking, eating, and gambling are legal and most people do not become addicted to these pastimes. People get high at reasonable times in reasonable ways. They do it for the same reason people eat and drink to be merry and have fun. Users feel convivial, have better sex and more fun high.

It’s a pleasure that adults should have the right to enjoy. More and more scientists agree controlled use is possible. Much of the argument gets enmeshed in medical jargon about receptor cells and the way the brain works. However difficult the arguments, these scientific disputes are earth-shattering in their conclusions.

With the same caution that we practice with alcohol, being cautious about how much we consume and when we drink, scientists are telling us that the illegal drugs may foster fun and are just as safe as drinking, which has been legal for nearly 100 years. Many scientists, like Carl Hart in his indispensable book Drug-use for Grown-ups, are saying the public has the facts wrong. Heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, psychedelics, etc. can be used safely, and it’s possible to clearly explain this safe use to the public. In short, there is no scientific basic for making the drugs illegal. The law has got its facts wrong and is impinging on our right to pursue happiness. Freedom Democrats can help persuade the nation to support this reasonable policy. Drug legalization offers freedom to drug users and their suppliers. It is a good thing. It makes sense to weigh the opinion of the scientists; after all, their claim is a breakthrough.

A big mistake is assuming that an illegal drug has the power to control your life. Those of us who live happily with drug users know that people can get high on Friday and be energized for work on Monday. We see this with our naked eyes but public hostility leads us to remain silent. We protect users from the law by keeping them in the closet. This strategy has a bad effect, it prevents the public from seeing the truth. Drug users know that the risk of a highball and a snort are comparable. If drug users left the closet, the public would know that drug users should have the freedom to choose their highs.

A major implication of the scientists’ conclusions is that we overemphasize the dangers of drug use. Focusing on danger moves our thoughts into anxiety, making it easier to accept the false conclusion that this is a high risk activity. A major reason that people use drugs is happiness, a right protected by the Declaration of Independence. Not just protected but one of the three core values in our democracy, “the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Making drugs legal is a simple act of respect, recognizing that the millions of Americans who get high know when they are having fun, and wish to have that feeling again and again. Drinkers know the pleasure of that first drink after work. A decent respect for opinion should make it clear that if drug users say it’s fun they know what they are talking about. The argument for drug legalization is just that simple. Don’t believe it when they tell you drugs destroy your lives. It only happens occasionally and is usually not permanent but just a stage in life. It makes more sense to say, “You should be careful, and learn how to use the drugs safely.”

In turn, it is our obligation to recognize that allowing drug users to pursue their habits is an act of respect. Users should be able to buy drugs conforming to strict government standards. A pill taken to get high should be as safe as a pill prescribed by a doctor. Obviously, there would be restrictions. You wouldn’t want pills that look like candy, you don’t want your children to eat a whole box full. The pills should be child-safe. When it says 60mg of whatever drug, it damn well had better be 60mg. At the same time, the legal drug industry should have the right to recognize that their products are used for pleasure. They should have permission to advertise that people enjoy their products, just as alcohol is advertised with people enjoying themselves.

A debate surrounding the legal sale of drugs that get you high and happy should help protect the users and minimize harms. Legalizing drugs means putting to bed the nightmares that surround the myth of addiction. If gambling and overeating can be an addiction, then it is improbable that there is something especially malevolent in a psychedelic or heroin. Sometimes addiction happens; usually it does not.

Freedom would stop the police from interfering with users’ habits. A decent respect for drug users should recognize their heartfelt plea for civility. We will not harm your children, but we will save the young from the harms of harsh criminal penalties. Instead of threats, we insist on respect and recognition, telling the public, “We will listen to you if you will listen to us.”

{If you think ideas like these can become important by showing how many people think this way, then please contact me. I am 82 and nearly blind and looking for an enterprising person to launch Freedom Democrats.}

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will Ukrainian War End Like The Civil War?

I certainly don’t know when the Ukrainian war will end. The ignominious end of the 30-day ceasefire proposal reminds us that the Iron Curtain still separates the West and Russia. It is not going away.

But we do know how one war ended. In the United States, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, never surrendered. The fighting stopped when General Ulysses Grant and General Robert E. Lee agreed on terms of surrender.

In September 1864, General Sherman captured Atlanta. Republican spirits soared, and Lincoln became the first President since Andrew Jackson elected to a second term.

After Atlanta, Jefferson Davis left Richmond, Virginia and rallied the South with promises of victory, claiming “I see no chance for Sherman to escape from a defeat or a disgraceful retreat,” (McPherson, James M.. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States Book 6) (p. 807). Oxford University Press). The world, of course, saw the occupation of Atlanta as proof that the Union was close to victory. But the war wouldn’t end for nearly eight months.

Confederate politicians insisted that victory was possible. General Sherman agreed the war wasn’t close to ending: “We cannot change the hearts of those people of the South, but we can make war so terrible . . . [and] make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it” (p. 809).

After his famous march through Georgia, Sherman attacked South Carolina, the state that ignited the war. Until late 1864, the war had left the Palmetto State untouched. With a vengeance, the North attacked. The state’s long, Atlantic-Ocean coastline made it the last place for the South to receive supplies. The Navy stopped that. The fort protecting South Carolina’s port was captured, and traders were driven off. Town after town was burned. Livestock captured and fed Sherman’s army. Homes were looted for supplies. The state could no longer supply the thousands in General Lee’s divisions.

From there, Sherman’s army marched through North Carolina towards Virginia, preparing to join General Grant in attacking Lee and his army. The long journey was an engineering marvel. Roads under water during the wet winter were restored, bridges built, and the South’s hopes that these natural obstacles would stop Sherman were dashed.

So the war continued.

In Lincoln’s December 1864 annual message to Congress, he rejoiced in the victories but cautioned that the South would only end the war with a demonstration of its hopelessness. However obvious the South’s defeat appeared, it continued to fight.

“In this climate of opinion another movement for peace negotiations flared up and then fizzled out,” Professor James McPherson commented in his extraordinary history.  Lincoln met the Southern delegation and told them bluntly that peace would happen when the Confederacy recognized the restoration of the National authority throughout all the States, no receding on the Slavery question, and the disbanding of all forces hostile to the government (p. 822). The Southern peace feelers failed.

Lee’s army crumbled. Every night a hundred or more soldiers deserted. Soldiers were in bare feet. Men and horses were weak from hunger. When Southerners attacked, the North won. It captured the soldiers and drove Lee’s men back.

Finally, on April 9th, Lee recognized that surrender was the only option. He met with General Grant. His troops were fed, surrendered their arms, and were guaranteed that they would not be tried for treason. They began the long march home. The war was over. Jefferson Davis was not involved in this event, nor was Abraham Lincoln.

It’s entirely possible, even probable, that negotiations will not end the war in Ukraine. Unlike the South, Ukraine is guaranteed funds and supplies. But the country is war torn. Russia is far larger, and despite sporadic attacks, the nation hasn’t suffered the destruction inflicted on Ukraine. The Ukrainians will decide when they want the fighting to stop, and there is no sign that this will happen in the foreseeable future.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Obstacles to World Government

The rising death toll in Gaza should be linked to the tens of thousands of deaths in Ukraine. By the time the United States left Afghanistan, starvation had become a problem for the supposed victors of the invasion following the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.

Syria and Iraq and various states in Africa confront persistent violence.

In my last blog, I argued that world government was the best way to end the constant eruption of wars.

A major reward of turning the United Nations into a world government is historical greatness. The change is as drastic as going from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1787. From a system of voluntary cooperation to the establishment of a central government that had overall responsibility for preserving the peace of the new nation.

This has proved a daunting task: ending slavery with a bloody civil war demonstrates that the founders’ solution was far from perfect. Nonetheless, students of history still recognize the great achievements of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, to name just a few of the historically great leaders who turned victory over Great Britain into a system of united states.

Creating a world government would be just as great a historical achievement as turning the revolutionary victory into a permanent government. If you want the world to remember you for generations then you want to become a patriot establishing a functioning world government.

Overcoming the obstacles to world government will mark you as a great person, a maker of history. In this blog, we will look at what happens to U.S. power if the United Nations becomes the seat of world government.

Stated baldly, this means the United States and presumably its allies cannot go to war without the permission of the United Nations.

World government requires that before a nation can turn to mass violence it must first make its case to the lawyers and diplomats at the U.N. This system of resolving conflict is well established in the United States. Our courts are respected and there are dozens of ways that grievances can be heard without resort to violence.

Transferring this system to the United States and the world would be a stupendous achievement. To take the example of Palestine, Israeli soldiers would no longer occupy this country. Creating a safe border between Israel and Palestine would be the responsibility of the United Nations. U.N. soldiers would have the task of preserving peace along the borders between these two nations.

Recruiting troops and their supplies is expensive. If the U.N. had the taxing power to pay for an international police force, then presumably the United States would provide the cash and presumably have influence over final decisions.

Or an even more dramatic change, the U.N. has the power to directly impose taxes. The United States was broke under the voluntary system of the Articles of Confederation. Washington, Hamilton, and numerous generals constantly begged for money to buy supplies.

In the end, the United States depended on loans from European nations. Under the Constitution of 1787, the new central government was guaranteed the opportunity to raise funds, especially through the tariff and selling U.S. bonds. Revenue came from taxes and borrowing.

Making the U.N. the world government would require that it could raise billions of dollars every year.

The political problem is sovereignty or who runs the show. Right now the United States funds the U.N., but with world government it’s entirely plausible that the United States, China, Russia etc. would depend on U.N. funding.

The justification for this dramatic change in power is peace. In return for making every country, big and small, dependent on the U.N. these nations obtain the right to bring their complaints to U.N. agencies. The arguments would be settled by quasi-judicial rulings, without bullets or bombs.

What appears to be a loss of power by the United States becomes a boon to the people of the world. The risks of invasion, war, and tribal conflicts become minimized if the U.N. has the soldiers to stop another country from going to war.

Undoubtedly a major source of U.N. troops would be American soldiers who volunteered to serve as U.N. enforcers. Even with their sworn allegiance to the U.N., U.S. soldiers are unlikely to attack the United States. Thus the safety of the population of the United States can be assured. Similar considerations can be made for other large nations.

Taxes and soldiers, international cooperation to confront climate change, and using world wealth to build hospitals and schools in impoverished nations would clearly benefit from world government.

It is likely that world government would create tens of thousands of projects that would improve living conditions and put the world on the path to growth and prosperity.