Posted on by Nathan Riley

Let’s Start a Movement For Freedom

All too often, people vote the way their friends and colleagues vote. When unions were strong and union halls were social gathering places, people voted Democratic and for unions.

Unions, of course, have declined, and the union halls play a smaller role in reaching voters. The kinds of people that join unions has changed over the years. Now, union members are usually white-collar workers—schoolteachers, professional athletes, and government office workers. Unions of autoworkers, steelworkers, construction workers, railroad workers, and other working class unions like apartment building employees are important, but they don’t dominate organized labor the way they did after World War II. Frequently, these unions work with their employers to stop foreign competition.

Freedom Democrats will organize a different group: sex workers and their customers, drug users, the LGBTQ+ community, porn watchers and the performers. By throwing weekly parties, Freedom Democrats hope to create a large group that supports personal privacy and seeks alternatives to the forever wars. The weekly parties will allow people of different backgrounds, regardless of education, to create groups of voters who can influence politics in their community and hopefully in Washington D.C. It is hoped that the weekly parties take the place of union halls as social gatherings for voters.

Freedom is critical to this group because all too often politicians impose criminal penalties, often harsh, that interfere with these people’s lives. The Declaration of Independence guarantees us equality and the right to pursue happiness as we choose. Turning these ideals into reality appeals to many Americans. In all probability, the people coming to the Freedom Democratic parties will include many who aren’t sex workers, lesbians, transgendered, or gay and prefer real sex to porn. They simply don’t care how other people live their lives, but they don’t want government interference. Adults in a free country can make up their own minds about how they get high or how they get off.

In a free country, doctors can treat patients without strangers, especially politicians and the law telling them how to do their job. The free choice that women should have with regard to abortion should also apply to people’s other personal habits. Doctors should be free to work with patients on a treatment plan that conforms to medical standards without the law or moralists telling doctors how to do their job. Most especially, doctors should be able to prescribe drugs that make users’ lives comfortable without judges or the DEA interfering.

Freedom Democrats are trying to turn the Declaration of Independence’s promise into daily reality. This idea is attractive to all kinds of people, including those who don’t take drugs or purchase sex. For this reason, it is hoped that Freedom Democrats will appeal to many Americans and give the group influence. If Freedom Democrats can nominate candidates, provide votes that help elect officials, it will have a chance to change attitudes and the law in this country.

I am 82, nearly blind, and eager to find enterprising people who want to start such a movement. I can only offer an idea. It is up to others to turn that idea into a reality.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Addiction, Everybody Does It

One of the strangest promises Donald Trump has made is stopping fentanyl. The notion that being mean will stop drugs has never worked.

Freedom Democrats would be familiar with the iron law of prohibition: a more aggressive enforcement brings even more dangerous drugs to the market. When oxycodone was widely available, its safety had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That many users would experience withdrawal was an unfortunate side effect. That the drug was widely available also meant many persons used it who had received no prescription.

Freedom Democrats believe that the relationship between doctors and patients should be respected, especially by politicians. They have no expertise, and the doctor and the patient should develop their own course of treatment. No drug enforcement agency. No rules about dosage or where the drug’s may be used. That is up to doctors, their patients, and agreements about best medical practices.

Freedom Democrats, had they been in charge, would not have blood on their hands. The politicians who played the blame game are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Lawmakers blamed the pharmaceutical companies for trying to expand their market. In this one sided view, the users had no responsibility; they were simply victims of addiction, had no intelligence, and no will power.

Elected officials accepted the discredited idea that drug users aren’t citizens, have no rights, and are trapped. A nefarious evil captures the user’s soul and deprives them of choice. It’s malarkey; similar ideas have existed for centuries. Witches after all were supposed to exercise control over their victims. Back then, the witches were killed.

Centuries later Democratic and Republican politicians adopted policies that killed the users. They were denied any moral culpability; the drug users were trapped by their “habit.” The politicians dismissed the possibility that drug users were rational and able to control their lives. The way they handled their habit was comparable to the way millions respond to alcohol, food, and caffeine.

The only difference is this group isn’t stigmatized and dehumanized. The effort they put into controlling their habits receives positive reinforcement and often drug treatments.

But the closed-minded lawmakers offered oxycodone users no support; in fact, their one-sided view simply killed hundreds of thousands of users. It should take no brains at all to realize that if a person regularly uses oxycodone you don’t simply say, “You can’t have it. The law says stop.” The law offered habitual users no comfort and legal ways for changing their habits at their own pace. All too often, judges thought it reasonable to tell users you must stop now, a decision that should be made by doctors and their patients.

To nobody’s surprise, Stop Now was a gift to cartels and ingenious people who created alternative illegal supplies. History had repeated itself. Banning marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines had produced illegal markets. In fact, they offered economic stimulus to criminals, and more work for the police. The criminal justice system will thrive.

Not so the drug users. They were too often conned into believing that a pill was oxycodone when in fact it contained a strong dose of fentanyl. The number of victims of the politician’s callousness soared to over 100,000 a year dead from overdoses. More people died in one year than died in the Vietnam War. Freedom Democrats would damn lawmakers for their callousness and cruelty.

This time the witches didn’t die; it was their victims.

Trump displaying the ignorance that is a trademark simply argued that drugs were reaching America because we weren’t really trying. He slammed tariffs on Mexico.

The iron law of prohibition suggests that fentanyl will be replaced by even more dangerous drugs that kill quickly. That drug has already surfaced—nitazenes. Being mean kills drug users.

The very idea that a societal habit like ribald humor can be banned is a joke. For one thing, and Freedom Democrats are an example of this, there is no agreement that drug use is criminal. Another problem is people make money selling banned substances. Banning alcohol in the 1920’s made many fortunes.

Trump’s effort to try harder in the silly hope that the drug will stop reaching the U.S. doesn’t recognize that law enforcement and drug smugglers all too often find ways to share the wealth. Mexico is famous for its ties between law enforcers and drug cartels. Nothing Trump does will change this reality, but we do know that a new drug is here—nitazene.

Democrats of course join Republicans in chasing the impossible goal of stifling the drug trade.

We are still looking for the charismatic and verbally fluent political leader who will support doctors being able to treat drug users without strangers violating their privacy and setting rules that harm a successful treatment.

Obesity is universally recognized as a major U.S. health problem. Doctors understand that many people eat for pleasure; in other words food acts like a drug. It was my habit and mastering it made my weight drop from 270 to 195 and brought a happier life. Dr. Peter Grinspoon’s book Up in Smoke and website makes sensible arguments for allowing doctors to treat patients who use drugs without outside interference.

He makes the point that using drugs is normal. We refuse to recognize that gambling, eating, and caffeine also have addictive impacts. In my case, my addiction to food started in elementary school. I fit Dr. Grinspoon’s theory that “suffering, often alone, feeling bad about myself, in the shadows” drove my eating and explained why diets did not work.

When I was grossly fat, I used to tell people I was addicted, and it was completely visible. Only a few people recognized that I was speaking about my eating habits. People didn’t associate eating with addiction. Addiction is the all-too-common habit of confronting other problems by repetitive behavior that brings no real relief.

Freedom Democrats recognize that drug use and overeating are sister phenomenon. This humane response is alien to Trump’s angry “stomp it out” mentality. It is one reason why Trump is malicious and cruel.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Fighting Stigma Against the Transgendered

One inspiration for starting Freedom Democrats is queer history. Gays and lesbians were subjected to active hostility after World War II.

The Lavender Scare was more than a moral panic; it fed popular feelings of disgust about unnatural behavior, frequently summed up in the notion of “sin.” By the time the Cold War ended in 1990 and a treatment was found for AIDS, the dismissals from  jobs and hostile verbal attacks had become signs of bigotry and backwardness. The last decade of the 20th century marked a transition in queer history. More and more of the public came to accept lesbians and gays.

During the ‘90s as local governments across the United States recognized that LGBTQ+ people were active in public life and had tens of thousands of supportive friends, queers lost their stigma.

So great was the acceptance that the public shrugged its shoulders and accepted the truth that it is nothing unusual. Some people are gay or lesbian; others aren’t, so what. The well-read came to accept that this was a fact throughout history.

The queer community was extended to include bisexuals and transgender persons. Medical advances that also made abortions safer allowed the transgender persons to alter their gender. While the queer community accepted the deep desires that led people to reject the division of humans into men and women, hostile people have attacked gender-bending.

Evangelical religious people and their conservative allies simply know too many lesbians and gays to feel comfortable attacking these queers, not so for the transgender. Phony issues like “strong men” joining women’s sports teams were used to incite hatred. Meanwhile, stories about the murder of trans people have become a weekly event. Clearly the trans community is stigmatized and must struggle to obtain the general acceptance, however grudgingly, offered lesbians, bisexuals, and gays.

 At the same time, queers whatever their gender choices, have insisted on supporting their gender-bending cousins. Elected officials offer support while others attack trans persons. It has become a political football frequently separating Democrats from Republicans. Just as they have done with abortion, the hostile officials try to interfere with the medical treatment available to persons who question their gender.

Although they often skirt the question, hostile politicians treat trans persons as mental defectives. Parents and physicians are accused of abusing trans adolescents. That teenagers sincerely wish to change their gender is considered foolish. Adults who help adolescents explore their gender are labeled abusers. Those who recognize these wishes as heartfelt don’t get credit for listening to and loving young people; they get treated like they were harming their own children. Those members of the public hiding behind the language of abuse feel no compunction about passing laws to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and forbidding parents and teachers from working with children in a positive manner.

Obviously, Freedom Democrats will support the trans community in its fight against violence and hostility. The trans community is not trying to allow men in women’s bathrooms or help men gain an unfair advantage in women’s sports. Nonetheless, these tropes are circulated widely, and trans individuals and their friends and family are forced to respond to invented issues. It is unfair and another chapter in the cruel history of prejudice and bigotry.

I have been rightly criticized for not highlighting the harsh views spreading across the country. For this, I am truly sorry; I have neglected what should be a main purpose of Freedom Democrats—welcoming trans persons and their family and friends and protecting their well-being, jobs, and livelihood.

Obviously, Freedom Democrats would welcome trans persons to their weekly parties and rise up in anger when trans persons are attacked. Parents should feel welcomed and able to look to Freedom Democrats for support. The medical community also deserves Freedom Democrats’ support.

Sad to say hatred keeps finding new ways to stay alive. The trans community, sex workers, drug users, porn watchers, and porn performers all deserve community support to end the stigma that too often forces them to feel shame about their identity.

Posted on by Nathan Riley · 1 Comment

Who Are Freedom Democrats?

In an earlier post, I described my life in self-imposed exile buried inside the closet, lonely and depressed.

If this was so terrible, then the question of “Why am I so happy?” should be confronted.

As I look back on my life, it becomes obvious that happiness was close, and it was only choosing the exile of the closet that caused an aching heart. The realization has struck that miserable memories could easily have been moments of joy and love. I recognize that I missed a high school love affair because I wouldn’t confess to a classmate that I was gay. He also never told me he was gay. But had I known Jeff was “that way” I could have had a high school romance with a man I loved. The past can’t be undone, but I find it comforting that happiness wasn’t impossible.

What happened is an introspective revolution. Painful memories are balanced by happy daydreams showing how close I came to living a happy and undepressed life. Having abandoned the despair of depression, I now dwell on the possibilities that were within my grasp if I had shared my gayness with others.

This revolution makes me happy. I see my life as marred by stupidity, and smarter decisions would have brought me happiness. Hence, I spend my days in a cheerful mood with comforting thoughts.

My current project is organizing Freedom Democrats who welcome all people with all their peculiarities. It’s a political coalition that includes drug users, women grappling with choices after pregnancy, sex workers, and fans of pornography. People who support freedom and reject censorious government. Our neighbors may support the life of a fetus, but they should have no power to impose their beliefs on others. This I believe will unite Freedom Democrats and make them a new wing of the Democratic Party.

What we are doing is creating a home for despised people. Freedom Democrats welcomes drug users, sex workers, persons carrying the burden of criminal convictions, LGBTQ+ people, and those who please themselves with erotic pictures.

All too often we face thoughtless hostility from the misguided persons who believe our habits should be condemned even though they have never met us. It’s a battle against stigma. Freedom Democrats offer a home for the excluded, their friends and allies. It is an opportunity for us to mix with opinion-makers and say we are fully capable and as worthy of respect as anyone else.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Why We Need Freedom Democrats

A big issue in the presidential election is abortion. Democrats, quite correctly, want to keep the government from interfering with the patient. It’s up to the woman to reach the decision with her doctor. Should she choose, she can invite other persons to participate.

In this country, by custom and law, the mother must raise the child, and it is only fair that she also has the responsibility to weigh the pros and cons of motherhood.

This is a radical principle. It makes the individual consult a doctor before reaching a final decision. Before making that decision, the woman has sex, and we think it common sense that this decision doesn’t require a visit with the doctor. We don’t have to justify this privacy principle.

The problem is the Democratic Party doesn’t go far enough, and Democrats who believe in freedom need to stick together and persuade other Democrats that freedom works. If a guy or a gal says, “You want to fuck? That will cost you.” This contract should be private and legal. If you’re making love to your hand, it is only your decision about what pictures to watch. Don’t let false sympathy for the performers in porn allow you to bring government regulation into the pictures that get you hot when you masturbate.

Condoms prevent the spread of venereal disease, but history has shown that many men and women don’t use them; they are willing to take their chances about catching venereal disease. 20th century medicine stopped syphilis from being a lifetime ailment. Cures are available for other V.D.’s. However well intended, a requirement that sex workers use condoms is false sympathy because in truth going bareback almost never results in V.D. This is not the recommended health message, but it is factually accurate.

We can’t get rid of government, and we shouldn’t. Properly done, government does good things. In the case of condoms, a performer must have the right to say, “I want a raincoat.”  The maker of the porn must say, “Sure thing, no problem.” Once again, we are dealing with questions of freedom, privacy, and the right to choose. The X-rated industry is huge and poorly measured; $10 billion is a common guess for the total spending in a year.

These jobs don’t require a college diploma, a drug test, or a check of your police record. From this perspective, they are some of the most desirable jobs. Taking off your clothes and doing sex that a director selects is work that most people will not do. That is one of the undesirable parts of this job.

Freedom Democrats support porn and worry that diehard opponents of dirty pictures will be out to get porn. They will be endlessly creative in their efforts to make us suspicious and hostile toward pictures that the Romans put on their walls for decoration. Not everybody likes porn, but enough people do that they should be supporters.

Prostitution allows fat, old men to have sex with fine looking people. There is something perverse in saying, “This is wrong.” Shouldn’t older men, even widowers, be allowed to enjoy this pleasure? In a free society, the answer would be obvious. It seems reasonable to concede that turning this most intimate of acts into a business should provoke societal concern.

But it is difficult for sex workers to get good advice about separating their work from their love life. A sex worker or a john is going down a rocky road if he or she thinks that love is developing. A sex worker who had a hard life growing up can easily believe that life would be much easier if this person made him or her a partner. The benefit that a sex worker gains from going into another person’s fine home can include tidbits of knowledge. In fact it is fair to say the more willing the john is to talk, the greater the benefit from the visit.  The relationship doesn’t have to be full-time, and indeed it is more than likely that the sex worker and the john would be unhappy living together.

The right to choose should be guarded zealously in a free society. On this issue, the Democrats are likely to be on the side of the angels.  But when we move to sex work, porn, and drug use and apply similar principles, the Democrats need convincing.

This is the principal justification for creating the Freedom Democrats; they must convince other Democrats to respect private choice and freedom.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Diversity

Diversity is more than a left-wing buzz word meaning respect everyone, no matter how different they are from your family and friends.

Diversity is no panacea: political differences, war and peace, and horrible crimes will spark retaliation.  Being nice has its limits.

Diversity has its serious side; ignoring the need for it has caused gut-wrenching catastrophes. World War II and Hitler’s death camps attempted to banish diversity from Germany with genocide. American soldiers liberating concentration camps were stunned by the ovens mass producing thousands of executions and the ghastly sight of prisoners reduced to skin and bone because their keepers starved them. The ghastly pictures were convincing evidence that World War II was a battle against evil.

Hitler was exterminating Jews, communists, homosexuals and others on his list of undesirables. It was an extensive list including Gypsies and Jehovah’s Witnesses. A catch-all group was accused of “asocial” or socially deviant behavior. There was no judicial review.

This prodigious campaign in Germany to produce political and racial purity abandoned diversity and substituted hate. After the war, for example, it was no longer possible to think that antisemitism was harmless. Diversity demanded that ethical people recognize that we are all different but as humans we have common frailties and strength. This view was embodied in the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights. Rights no longer had a nationality; every human being should be protected.

If Hitler’s deadly campaign to create uniformity was crushed by the Allied victory in 1945, it has an idealistic cousin that is harder to recognize. The international principle of self-determination often promoted homogeneity rather than diversity. Dressed up in democratic principles, many thoughtful people tried to create new nations with minimal diversity, especially in the years following World War I. All too often, national boundaries were determined by a common language, even if neighboring peoples had spoken different languages for centuries. German speakers and Slavic speakers had lived cheek-to-jowl. Each preserved their separate identity but satisfied the pragmatic justification for diversity by living and working peaceably.

When Woodrow Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles insisted that these language groups form separate nations, they were creating problems. Differences that should have been resolved peacefully were manipulated to create political differences. Manufactured conflicts allowed Germany before World War II to justify annexing territory because people spoke German.

Diversity is the way people learn to live with each other and avoid hate and terror. It is part of the larger problem of protecting minority rights from majority tyranny.

Freedom Democrats seek to protect people who party, including sex workers and drug users. Groups that face government hostility especially from the criminal law and its agents. They are trying to banish behaviors that have existed for centuries. It is not complicated. These groups should live with others in the U.S. on a peaceful basis. A person who earns his/her living by charging for sexual favors can be just as good a neighbor as a person who leads a more conventional life.

Freedom Democrats believe a person has the right to chose how they get high. A morning pick-me-up from a cup of coffee is a close cousin to a person who uses the currently illegal drugs to get high. Diversity is advanced when people who use substances like opiates and amphetamines receive the same medical care as everyone else. Most significantly, working with healthcare professionals reduces the chance of overdose deaths and related infections.

Currently the law gives the formulations of these medications to criminals. The users have the same right as everyone else to medicine prepared by pharmacists in uniform doses. Do this and the health issues surrounding drug use decline precipitously. With respect for diversity, the drug problem becomes solvable and the health and well-being of persons in this nation will improve. Freedom Democrats offer policy choices while futile attempts to banish drug provide funds to criminals and magnify health problems.

By respecting diversity, we improve the life of people who party and increase the number who make positive contributions, making it easier for kind people to offer a helping hand. Diversity means we come to terms with the idea that some people party and others don’t. We can all live together.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

A Child’s Closet

Having Friends is what is most Important to a child

When Florida Gov Ron DeSantis and his allies assert they are protecting the young from groomers, drag queens, doctors and parents who accept that gender is not biology then it is time for us to seek protection from Gov DeSantis. His claims are false, even cruel.

There is nothing new about boys who act like girls or girls who act like boys. The young always bent gender limitations. How often has a girl boasted to a boy that she can throw a ball further and harder?

Malevolent conservatives wave the flag of parental rights and appeal to a daydream that parental influence will make children straight. Or even worse their goal is to bring back the days when heterosexuals were normal while homosexuals and trans persons were deemed immoral and sick.

In 1952, my mom caught me having oral sex with another ten-year old boy, warning me only fairies do that. Seventy-one years later, it remains a searing memory, a moment of terror and shame, I wished a trap door could open and let me disappear.

In a flash I knew I was a fairy. Accepting a negative identity came easily, and it is a warning that the “don’t say gay” crusade will not protect  children but could easily leave lonely children miserable. Making these identities a bad thing won’t stop the young from fooling around; it will only make them feel pain for doing it.

I achieved loneliness at an early age. In nursery school I would walk across the room and kick over other children’s building blocks. I did not play well with others. I was a troubled child, meaning I caused trouble.

I paid a heavy price for this hostile behavior. I didn’t have the support of friends. Where most kids went out to play after school, I headed for the library.  A bookworm who checked out a book and tried to finish it before bed.  Books like the Hardy Boys, sports stories by John Tunis. However entertaining, they emphasized my athletic weakness and failed to raise my spirits. They were reminders I was terrible at sports and physical activity; my insecurities deepened. There were no books written for boys like me.

The “Ban the Books” movement might bring back the pain I suffered as a preteen. I’m delighted that children can read books showing that it is ok to be gay. Books like this would have changed my life. Books are probably the only way I could learn that my dark secret wasn’t so dark. They would have quieted my fear that anyone who knew would shun me.

My fear of being found out shut me off from others and made me stupid. It stopped me from knowing what other people believed. My nightmares and anxieties went unquestioned and achieved the certainty of truth. Having no friends that I truly trusted stopped me from appreciating people who were supportive. Nor did I learn the smart answers to stop mean remarks that hurt. Stupidly I felt certain that I had to hide my inner self from everyone. Seeking a magic solution, I stopped using the word “suck.”

Looking back, I believe the banned books could have rescued me from the harsh conviction that I was disgusting. Only in books, in the privacy of my own room, could I have accepted the idea that my life had hope and that my loneliness was unnecessary.

My isolation meant I lost the benefit of early childhood friends; learning what banter is friendly and what banter is mean and should be ignored.

Books don’t make children gay. Parents don’t make children gay. Teachers don’t make children gay. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking children are malleable and informed by adults. Each student comes to school with his or her own needs and personality, paramount among these is finding friends.

In school, students have favorite teachers and others they resist. Even the young aren’t surprised that adults have disagreements. It is a mistake to think that teachers dominate children. Teachers constantly complain, “They just won’t listen.”

Florida’s Parent Rights law popularly known as “don’t say gay” is tone deaf to these realities. Good teachers watch children’s developments with a kindly concern.

Hard right conservatives who ignite parental anger ignore the social side of schooling. These adults make the teacher’s job difficult when they should be supportive of a teacher’s effort to make children happy.

END

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Freedom Democrats Must Keep Their Eye on Washington

Big changes in Washington can mean trouble for people who party.

The Speaker is the top Republican honcho in the House of Representatives.

Every member has an election every two years, so they think about raising money and winning elections all the time.  The Speaker must help the members of his political party win a majority every two years.

Mike Johnson of Louisiana is the new Speaker; it’s an important job. If there is a catastrophe where President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris both die, then the law makes Mr. Johnson President. In other words, he is a big deal, under the law and in politics.

But Mike Johnson is a devout Christian evangelist. He is against gay marriage, abortion and strip clubs.  In his new job, he may change his positions and stop insisting that everyone obey his religious beliefs. Much as I distrust him, he may prove me wrong and modify his views with his new responsibilities.

But we can’t be certain, so it makes sense for people who party to get organized and protect their rights.

Johnson’s opposition to abortion reflects a simple fact. When he was born his mom was 17.  People who support a women’s right to choose would probably tell his mom to stop the pregnancy and wait a few years.  If the Speaker’s mom had followed this advice, Mr. Johnson would never have been born. His family history makes him a foe of abortion. People who party should allow women to consult their doctors and make up their own mind. If you live in a free country, then you have a right to choose.

Mike Johnson’s history has to make people who party nervous. Louisiana is a party state. Bourbon Street in New Orleans is famous worldwide. Shreveport, where Johnson started his political career, is a casino city. Riverboats have casinos to attract tourists. It should come as no surprise that people who gamble for fun also visit strip joints.

At the start of his career, Mr. Johnson tried to shut a strip tease bar. According to the Washington Post, Johnson claimed, “I have done an exhaustive legal research.” It was the start of his career and “he told municipal lawmakers in April 2002.” The arrival of another “‘sexually oriented business,’ or “SOB” as he called it, would spread sexually transmitted diseases and other social ills,” the Washington Post reported.

As might be expected, Louisiana permitted “gentleman’s clubs” and Mr. Johnson’s campaign failed as the State’s courts rejected his arguments.

Clearly, Mr. Johnson’s history suggests he might attack the pleasures enjoyed by people who don’t share his strict religious beliefs. Even though the law permitted strip clubs with few restrictions, Mr. Johnson tried to shut down the Déjà Vu club in Shreveport, and failed.

The Post concluded that this “enhanced the power of religious conservatives and propelled his political career.”

In other words, Mr. Johnson needs to be closely watched if we are to protect people who party.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Medically Supervised Injection Rooms

When it comes to offering help to drug users job one is an elementary obligation used all over the world—giving drug users a safe place to do drugs.

Such a place should be calm, germ-free, and supervised by a specialist who can step in if a person starts to overdose. With safe-injection facilities, users are no longer shooting up on the streets and in back alleys. They have a place to dispose of used needles and paraphernalia. And brings this dramatic benefit: nobody dies of a drug overdose in a safe injection facility. In other words, drug users are no longer treated as a nuisance but find a place that welcomes them.

It doesn’t send a “bad” message. If messaging works, the users would never have acquired a habit. In the United States and all over Europe, people were using drugs when George Washington was President, and they are still using them 240 years later.

Drug users and their allies in the public health community deserve relief from the falsehood that they are solely responsible for their problems. It’s a chance for the users to learn about health tips and find comfort.

Creating this environment is a political problem. Medically supervised injection rooms involve a political choice. Who do you want in charge of providing services? Former users, health professionals, and sensible loving people or judges and cops?

A person has a right to choose how they want to get high, constantly harassing them should be unconstitutional. Drug users are citizens who deserve the same rights as non-users.

We are still in the middle of a crackdown on oxycontin, which is addictive. Private corporations were blamed, and the supply was cut. As a legal drug, the supply of oxy could be cut simply by changing the laws and bringing lawsuits. But in a thoughtless display of callousness nobody offered help to the men and women who had made oxy part of their lives.

With a little prompting anyone over 15 could predict the outcome: some people would stop using, others would use occasionally, and some would buy drugs illegally. This isn’t rocket science.  Users went to the illegal market; remember, the politicians offered them no other choice-stop using or buy illegally-no other options were offered.

Guess what? Drug cartels and fentanyl makers had a larger market and drug overdoses skyrocketed. Every year accidental overdoses of drug users take more lives than the U.S. lost in the Vietnam War.  That is what happens when we ignore the needs of drug users, who are friends, lovers, and often desperately trying to please. Their wishes and needs are ignored. A harsh reaction making drug users into lepers.

Only a political change can make government abandon its belief that drug users cause their own problems and don’t deserve help unless they give up their habit.  It has never worked in the past and it isn’t working now.