Posted on by Nathan Riley

If It’s Fun, It Must Be Illegal

If it’s fun, it’s illegal—a common conviction of my youth. Often said in jest, in the 1950s as I grew up it was folk wisdom. My parents were 11 years old when Prohibition took full effect in 1922 and drank in their teens illegally and with glee. Hence the folk saying if it’s fun, it’s illegal was grounded in history.

By 1932 their rebellion became legal. Franklin Delano Roosevelt downplayed his support for repealing prohibition, and he suffered no backlash in his landslide victory. My parents never supported prohibition and spent little time justifying their view; prohibition made government do bad things. Virtually everybody in New York City agreed.

But the specter of prohibition stayed with my parents; they never thought marijuana should be illegal. They were quick to realize cigarettes caused cancer years before warning labels. My mom compromised and smoked 3 cigarettes a day, my father, whose willpower I found awesome, simply stopped. It was an individual decision. Government’s obligation was to do research and to dispute tobacco’s propaganda, but the bottom line, the decision was up to the individual.

My parents and I do not object to government expressing strong viewpoints about personal habits. My objection is to the use of government coercion. The application of punishment is rarely fair. Marijuana is illegal, but nobody bothered the fans at a Grateful Dead concert. They were clearly getting high and the police stayed away. The Dead, in turn, made sure caretakers were immediately available to help people who had bad trips.

Yes there was potential for harm, and the sensible response is helping people who are in trouble. It was manifestly obvious that most people were having fun and weren’t in trouble. The law was not enforced.

But these laws are aggressively enforced against spurned groups, especially the black and brown communities. White people with ties to the community skate when drugs are found, but the courts all too often bring down the hammer and police sweeps arrest thousands for doing the same thing that white people do without punishment. Even when it came to the tricky question of selling the illegal drugs, whites find legal exits that are denied to black and brown. There is no racial justice in drug enforcement or, for that matter, prostitution enforcement.

Forcing the law to accept individual choices would end these racial injustices. Clearly, imprisonment is unjust and doesn’t fit the crime. The push for legalization is a push for equal justice. Some people who do drugs need help. They should be able to get medical care, counseling, and other assistance without court orders insisting on little evidence that it is necessary. Medical care should not be guided by the Drug Enforcement Agency and the courts. It’s a private matter between the patient and the doctor. Doctors should be free to use their best medical judgment on the proper treatment. That would clearly include allowing patients to use drugs while attention is directed at other problems.

Legalization would bring additional medical impacts. The corporations making drugs would have to adhere to safety rules. Bad trips, fentanyl poisoning, and other ill effects would be reduced dramatically. Perhaps the most important benefit is that users will get safety information that stays the same because the product is uniform and its dose is standardized.

Under prohibition, unskilled people willing to risk arrest are forced constantly to change their preparations. Law enforcement in its fruitless efforts to stamp out drugs frequently bans an ingredient. These legal interferences mean drug users often are forced to take a new drug they are not used to. It is a dangerous form of government interference.

These legal strategies encourage additives like fentanyl, which have a big kick but often catch users by surprise. A little bit of fentanyl can produce a big high, but, as we well know, it also brings overdoses. The legal manufacture of drugs is a safety precaution for users.

The public is well aware it can buy dozens of different kinds of alcohol. But they only select drinks they like. The fact that the currently illegal drugs would be available and uniform would not require the public to buy them. We know for a fact that people exercise choice when it comes to getting high. Adding legal drugs to the list is not a big step.

It would be irresponsible to say drugs have no risk. Carl Hart, the Columbia professor who has spent his life studying drugs has found that 70% of legal users would enjoy their habits without ill effects. At the same time, he also clearly states that 30% have trouble. Making something legal does not mean it would be safe. Football is legal, but it is fraught with injury. Smoking is legal, but many smokers get cancer. Driving is legal, but hardly safe without drivers paying close attention and following the rules.

Making drugs legal will not make them safe unless the users exercise caution. But making drugs manufactured according to uniform standards would make the exercise of caution much easier and allow users to tell other users about safety.

And perhaps the most important benefit is racial justice. We don’t have to depend on police learning new habits; they will not be allowed to arrest gamblers, drug users, prostitutes, porn watchers, and other habits that are the private business of the individual.

I must renew my plea for somebody to offer help. Everybody I have approached has declined. I’m 83 and nearly blind and need a functioning adult to help me get this project off the ground. Interested? Contact me by email.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

So What?

There is nothing as unconvincing, as unbelievable as the assumption that a drug user, a sex worker, a gambler, or a drinker is a bad guy who lies or steals. In truth, you know nothing about a person when you learn they take drugs or do sex for money.

These falsehoods are pure prejudice. It is unreasonable and contrary to fact to assume you know something about a person’s character when you find out that they performed certain acts. Such conclusions are specious. After World War II, it became impossible to believe that a black or brown person was a thief or a liar, even though such views were common. These were prejudices, and thousands of soldiers, factory workers building airplanes and tanks during World War II demonstrated that skin color told us nothing about a person’s character. What we learned is that assuming the worst produced false conclusions.

Before drawing a conclusion about a person’s character, the courts, the employers, and the neighbors had to know the facts. Opinion leaders in the United States worked hard to bring this truth to the public. Stars like Jackie Robinson were “most valuable players;” the dignified opera singer Marian Anderson made whites look foolish when they tried to stop her from singing at the Daughters of American Revolution Constitution Hall. Then the decisive change: desegregation of the schools.

Clearly, the recognition of black and brown achievements didn’t end prejudice or stop nasty people from hostile acts, but anyone found to be a racist or making false accusations faced public shame. Many did not give up their prejudices, but they now put their good name at risk. For example, a woman in New York City falsely threatened a black man with a false accusation of rape and then lost her job.

At one time, the black man faced arrest and trial for a similarly flimsy accusation.

It is the contention of this writer that just because you learn someone traded their body for money, gambled, watched porn, or drinks every night, you know nothing about their character. In big cities, the stories are legion about women who trick with men and use the money to pay their rent and care for their children. Carl Hart, a Columbia University professor, insists his habitual use of heroin has not stopped him from meeting his professional responsibilities and social obligations. Anyone who knows drug users realizes many are plumbers, bankers, and lawyers who work every day and enjoy the respect of their peers. Hart, who has spent a lifetime studying drug use, insists that 70% of users of illegal drugs are fully functional.

Prejudice in the form of irrational laws and legal surveillance pose a far greater risk to these people than the drugs they consumed or the persons they tricked with. Gamblers in recent decades have found relief from laws making their activities illegal. It became obvious that “Johnny’s father” or a baseball fan are not criminals just because they liked to bet. The reason for these legal changes is significant. Gamblers were people everybody knew. They didn’t live secret lives and efforts to claim their activities were immoral became preposterous.

Queers faced similar damnation, especially in the dark years after World War II. The federal government fired them on the false grounds that they were security risks. After his dismissal, Frank Kameny, an astronomer, went to court, and found friends to picket against this clear violation of his rights. Homosexuals were common in every large city and have been throughout history. Despite the disparaging attitudes, only rarely were people alarmed by what they considered a common vice. When the Stonewall Riots demonstrated the homosexuals’ anger at the legal hostility imposed on them; city after city created safe spaces for this new political force.

A New York court stopped police entrapment by reaching the obvious conclusion that the undercover officer was not surprised or harmed when a gay man invited them back to their home. The sage judges remarked, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” With this homespun wisdom, the court deprived the police of their chief weapon for entrapping gay men. A few years later, the state’s highest court resolved the issue with the declaration that men had the right to love men and women the right to love women. Same-sex sex became legal in New York, and a few years later the Supreme Court made that the law of the land.

Clients and sex workers and consumers of drugs should pay attention to this history lesson. They are good people and there is no reason to be scared of their habits. In fact, use the word “sex surrogate” and sex workers become angels of mercy and admired. We forget that often clients are people too old, too fat, too callous, or ashamed of their sexual peculiarities to go out on dates. The sex worker is a performer, satisfying the fantasies of their customers. There is nothing remotely criminal about these practices.

Freedom Democrats are dedicated to making the public aware that fear rather than reason, prejudice rather than a willingness to say “so what?” about how other people live their lives is the major obstacle to reform. If legal, sex workers can live lives of respectability, drug users will have access to drugs manufactured with their safety in mind. Doctors can treat patients without the interference of foolish laws.

Freedom Democrats will unite in the common purpose of defying moral rigidity, which thinks it can make a hard-and-fast rule that taking drugs, selling sex, or watching porn is a moral failing. Freedom Democrats will give despised groups their full legal rights in a free country.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Freedom Solves Problems

Supporting freedom offers advantages that make it a wise policy choice.

The most obvious: it keeps people out of jail. If we can buy safe drugs legally, then the Mexican drug cartel suffers a disastrous defeat. The United States buyers stop sending millions of dollars to the violent groups that supply drugs north of the Mexican border. Since no good deed goes unpunished, Mexico will have to adjust to a major change in its economy and social organization. But even this problem has a sunny side. These adjustments will have an ending. The smuggling of drugs to the United States has no ending. Americans have made it crystal clear that they will use drugs no matter what laws politicians write. Bringing the law into alignment with human behavior is a basic benefit of freedom.

Instead of saying “No, don’t.” We say “Work with your doctor, and buy drugs made safe for users.” Making it legal brings tax revenue, another benefit of freedom, at a time when budget deficits present a seemingly insurmountable problem.

To make it obvious, freedom slams the Mexican drug smugglers, ends or dramatically reduces fentanyl use since the legal drugs will offer safety and a consistent high to consumers, allows doctors and patients to work harmoniously, and eliminates the threat of jail to the millions who have used illegal drugs.

One big policy change solves problems that are caused by the flawed policy of telling Americans they can’t use certain drugs when they have demonstrated they will use them no matter what public opinion, judges, police, and politicians say.

The justification for this dramatic change is written into the nation’s founding document: The Declaration of Independence. The men who told the monarch to get lost—so the United States could separate from England. They listed their grievances and specified a plan to make the United States a free country. One of their principles: governments are “instituted” to protect “the pursuit of happiness.” If there is one common theme to the reason why drugs are used it is, “It makes me feel happy.”

The simple truth: all the drugs can be used safely by adults, and in fact in the majority of cases drugs are used safely. Professor Carl Hart has “published numerous scientific and popular articles in the area of neuropsychopharmacology and is coauthor of the textbook Drugs, Society & Human Behavior (with Charles Ksir).” After a lifetime of study, he concluded that “recreational drugs can be used safely to enhance many vital human activities,” (Carl Hart. Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear (p. 9)).

A major reason why we fear drugs: no freedom. Harsh laws have prevented users from discussing their pleasures with friends and neighbors, “Stop worrying. I’ve done it, and it caused no more problems than drink.” Hart offers a practical remedy. He wants drug users to come out of the closet and ignore the laws that force drug use into secret corners. It stops evil moralists from creating scary stories without fear of contradiction. Anyone who has worked for drug reform, realizes that policymakers and well-intentioned people falsely claim the illegal drugs have magical properties. Although merely chemicals, the peddlers of pathology state that illegal drugs overpower the human will, forcing people into a life of desperation.

In this way, millions who have used drugs silently acquiesce to those whose one-sided focus is exclusively and misleadingly on the problems caused by drugs, while ignoring their positive qualities. “Research shows repeatedly that such issues affect only 10 to 30 percent of those who use even the most stigmatized drugs,” (p. 11).

Professor Hart practices what he preaches. In his book, he cites his own experiences: “I am now entering my fifth year as a regular heroin user. I do not have a drug-use problem. Never have. Each day, I meet my parental, personal, and professional responsibilities. I pay my taxes, serve as a volunteer in my community on a regular basis, and contribute to the global community as an informed and engaged citizen. I am better for my drug use” (p. 14).

Freedom solves this problem, allowing truth to flourish. Drug users may freely speak of their own use of drugs and expose this truth to the light of day. Your friends and neighbors have used drugs and suffered no lasting harm. In fact, some of the happiest moments of their life are drug related.

Freedom lets truth flourish. It is the enemy of drug stigmatizers, which is often circulated even by fair-minded people like Senator Bernie Sanders, who accepts marijuana but damns harder drugs.

Today homosexuals are active players in government. Only rarely will we find a person who knows no one in the LGBTQ+ community. They became accepted as people learned their friends and neighbors were gay or had gay experiences. If we had freedom for drug users then we would know that they are responsible, average people like you and me. Freedom would stop the lies, allow truth to flourish.

A supermajor benefit of drug legalization is the defeat of racist practices. It stops the ugly record of arresting black and brown Americans in large numbers. Drug use no longer becomes a false explanation for poverty.

This change draws on the basic American principle: the pursuit of happiness.

I am still seeking an organizer who would bring life to the Freedom Democrats. At 83 and nearly blind, that person will not be me. I need help.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Who Won? Israel or Iran?

July 4th was a significant news day. Finally, there was hard news about who won the Israel-Iran War.

Seymour Hersch, who has a distinguished record writing about the U.S. military, had just made an extraordinary journalistic  prediction. On the Friday before Israel attacked Iran, that is, the day before the attack began, Hersch, in his Substack post, predicted the start of the war.

On July 4th, Hersch answered the question, “Did Israel and the U.S. destroy Iran’s nuclear preparations?” According to this veteran journalist, the Iranians moved their “more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas… [to] at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan…[that] was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine.” Trying to safely store its enriched uranium, Iran mistakenly moved it to a site that was “pulverized.” In Hersch’s view, the Iranian attempt at safeguarding its enriched uranium failed completely.

Most of Hersch’s article discussed the Defense Department’s leaks reaching the opposite conclusion. It hinted that Iran’s enriched uranium remained a threat. Not so, Hersch wrote. The United States and Israel denied their military success. They were inflating the Iranian threat.

Also on July 4th, the Financial Times looked back on the war and reached this conclusion: “Saudi Arabia sticks with Iran after Israel war.” The Saudis and Iran follow different branches of Islam. This led Saudi Arabia to lean towards the United States, but this changed in 2023 after China brokered normal relations with Iran. The war did not disturb these changes.

On Sunday, the New York Times concluded that China and Russia did not rush “to aid Iran during its war with Israel or when U.S. forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites.” According to the Times interpretation, Iran did not receive the support it should expect from an ally.

 The Times was not exploring an equally obvious conclusion. China and Russia refused to escalate a hot war between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. If this interpretation wasn’t brought to the public’s attention, it certainly registered with keen international observers. The Times article embraced the idea that China and Russia should have joined the war if they were true allies of Iran. That is hardly obvious. Their choice to diffuse tensions is clearly reasonable and arguably in Iran’s best interest. Had the war gotten hotter, the damage to Iran would have been greater.

The current issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sketches the extensive damage done to Iran. Water supplies, the petroleum industry, and shopping centers were attacked. It seems likely that the Gulf states, China, and Russia will help Iran rebuild.

China, Russia, and North Korea, in all probability, will help Iran replace missiles and drones destroyed in the war. Tehran did not beat Israel, but its government was uplifted by demonstrations of support from Iranian citizens. Israel remains the most powerful nation in the region, but Iran demonstrated its ability to damage Israel.

Israel couldn’t deliver a death blow. Iran was fighting until the end and caused extensive damage, demonstrating that Israel’s vaunted missile shield could be penetrated.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst, prepared a map showing 17 sites in Israel that suffered extensive damage. Israel was as happy as Iran that the fighting stopped after 12 days. Israel has an edge over Iran, but it is no longer the undisputed military power in West Asia.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump the Statesman?

Does Make America Great Again mean Make Trump Great?

Trump ended the Iranian Israeli war quickly and one expects the warring nations sighed with relief. “During the conflict, Israeli cities sustained several hits from Iranian ballistic missiles, and Iranian military targets were subjected to widespread bombing. Neither side wanted the war to go on much longer, at least at that intensity, and both were eager for a way out that they could portray as a victory,” reported the Wall Street Journal.

Iran and Israel will return to their hostile coexistence. Such tension is frequent in international relations: the U.S. and U.S.S.R, South and North Korea, Cuba and the U.S. Even if you do not love each other, war isn’t necessary.

It is a stateman’s obligation to stifle war between hostile nations. A responsibility frequently lacking in the U.S. Congress, where war hawks play an important role supporting Israel’s use of force against Palestine and Iran.

Unlike President Biden, Trump recognizes that promoting peace and avoiding wars enhances U.S. influence.

After the 12-day war tested Trump’s loyalty to Israel, he said to hell with it and simply told Iran and Israel stop. In the process he stopped the spread of nuclear weapons by bombing Iranian facilities.

It is unknown if this no-war objective will remain a fixture of U.S. policy, but it should be. Joe Biden picked sides backing Ukraine against Russia and Israel against Palestine. He associated the U.S. with bloody crimes against humanity and did not stop fighting. Trump faces political headwinds if he tries the “stop fighting” mantra on Russia and the Ukraine. While Iran and Israel could both claim victory, such an ending has not surfaced in the Ukrainian and Russian war. There is no evidence that Trump is willing to accept a reality where Russia wins and Ukraine must cooperate with Russia.

But one thing is clear, Biden didn’t try to stop fighting, he picked sides, and the wars continued.

In West Asia, Trump stayed close to Israel but intervened only on the international principle of nuclear nonproliferation and then flatly told Iran and Israel stop fighting. An action that could lead to Israel backing off its hopes for a greater Israel and pave the way for coexistence between Muslin and Jew.

To take this position, the President acted alone without consulting Congress. According to the Wall Street Journal, a pro-Trump publication, he created “a new American foreign-policy doctrine focused on clearly defining national interests, aggressively negotiating to achieve them and the use of overwhelming force if necessary.”

A problem remains: Trump acted alone like a king. As the WSJ reported, “U.S. officials who would normally play a role during such a crisis were also left out of the loop, administration officials said, a sign of how narrow is the circle of advisers Trump trusts.”

It is possible, even common, to blast this President as a dictator, but one alternative receiving little consideration is for the Democrats to change their policy and support Trump’s posture. The Democrats could become the party of peace by avoiding dividing the world into liberal Democracies and authoritarian nations. The United States should be a party of world order and reject the misguided belief that it will only back countries who have governments approved by Americans.

Many nations reject U.S. political institutions but avoiding wars with them and between them is the path of wisdom and statesmanship. With one party backing the primacy of peace it becomes possible to reduce the threat that Trump becomes dictator.

Trump is hardly consistent, and his accomplishment in the West Asian war could easily be a one-off. But it is important that those of us who believe war is the evil and peace must be the object of policy to recognize that what Trump did reflects this principle.

This is not to say Trump is a good President or to ignore his attacks on immigrants, his requirement that people wanting medical care to seek employment, or his battle against an anti-racist program like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Trump is not the President trying to create harmony and fairness in the United States.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

What an Organizer Might Do

As we search for an enterprising person to get the Freedom Democrats started, imagine what their job would be.

Already, with a readership of less than 200 persons, legalize.blog has been banned from X. When I try to use it, this message appears: “SUSPICIOUS LOGIN PREVENTED. We blocked an attempt to access your account because we weren’t sure it was really you.” Controversy is a tried-and-true way to gain attention and attract interested people.

But the most obvious task of the organizer of Freedom Democrats is finding the sex workers, porn stars, and drug users who like the idea and want to lend their support to its development. The key selling point is that people in the “life” are organizing and asking their fellow citizens to vote.

The obvious objective is to expand until we can affect elections and offer public leaders support and comfort if they adopt our ideas.

This initial effort doesn’t have to be rigid. It might work best to have the first group of invitees to act as hosts with the purpose of setting up a more permanent group of supporters. The organizer would lead a discussion of the best structure. Are we talking about directors or a list of prominent supporters? Shepherding these choices is one obvious task for the organizer.

Another chicken-and-the-egg issue is using the initial supporters to raise money.

The organizer must also work with lawyers to devise a structure that is simultaneously decentralized, democratic, and coherent. Using the weekly party format for organizing local groups is an excellent way to get started. This project, I think but do not know, would involve tricky legal questions. For example, should the party permit alcoholic drinks? Does that mean young people can’t come? Does that mean the organization can be sued for, for example, a drunk driving incident?

All of these questions give the organizer a chance to acquire specialized knowledge and meet thoughtful and creative people. This is a job that will help build a person’s reputation, even if the person already has years of organizing experience.

Drawing up a preliminary budget and scoping out the legal issues might well be an initial task. The people who are in the “life” will want to read a thoughtful proposal before lending their support. In turn, the reputation of the people we recruit will create access to initial donors. It’s another example of the chicken-and-egg dilemmas that the organizer will confront.

I am searching for a person who wants to be on the ground floor of this project. Contact Nathan Riley at legalize.blog

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Please Help: Looking For An Organizer

The most urgent need is the search for who will leave their mark on history.

This blog calls for political change, dramatic change on behalf of the millions who do drugs, gamble, watch porn, accept LGBTQ+ people, buy and rent sex, and want to say, “Enough already; stop assuming we are weak, immoral, even sick. In fact, draw no conclusions about our character from the pleasures that we share.” The person who gets this message started will become a player in American politics.

They will be starting a new movement and helping to create a new organized force. This impact is built into the proposal. This blog explains some of the ramifications and this article explains why it’s a near certainty that we can do this.

We build our program from the text of the Declaration of Independence. A foundation of U.S. political history. This justification announces the importance of our ideas.

Freedom Democrats want a dramatic change that should be compared to the new moral truth vividly portrayed in the hymn “Amazing Grace”:

How sweet the sound,
  That saved a wretch; like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
  Was blind, but now I see.

This new force spreads a new truth. All too often people who don’t like our habits damn us, turning us into wretches. The new view—“We are no longer blind.”—tells us we will stand tall and insist we are among the righteous.

“Amazing Grace” is history, a historic moment a gift bequeathed by the Age of Enlightenment: realizing that slavery was a horror and should be abolished. Freedom Democrats want to stop the pointing of fingers and silence the anger surrounding drug use, having sex for money, watching and performing in porn films etc. It will be our historic moment. Once we were blind but now we recognize the truth enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

It declared that the newly united colonial governments are “instituted” to protect equality and secure the “pursuit of happiness.” It is a core right that cannot be taken away. It is a BIG DEAL.

Insisting on this right for the millions who enjoy “vices” will be an historic event. Winning elections is predictable, influencing elections is a sure thing. This is something the Freedom Democrats can promise. The new force will be players in American politics. Doing politics builds pride, it says I am just a citizen, equal to you. I am no sinner; I am no wretch. Our arguments encourage pride. The very act of speaking to friends and government officials is an act of pride. It is something to boast about. In this way, the new force will change the attitudes of its members. Showing a new world to America will foster pride, it worked for lesbians and gays and it will work for drug users. We are not strangers, we are not moral defectives, we just live different lives. Freedom Democrats will expand the live and let live view.

People who want to stop a habit will be able to do so with the same pride as a person who loses weight. This example is important because the people who condemn addiction, believing the illegal substances have magical powers, ignore this obvious truth. A common addiction is eating too much. Addiction is an all-too-common human condition.

We will have truth on our side and banish prejudice. If the LGBTQ+ community can do this, so can we.

Getting  high makes many feel better and stop pretending that these feelings are false. Professor Carl Hart makes this argument cogent in a few sentences:

Opioids are outstanding pleasure producers; I am now entering my fifth year as a regular heroin user. I do not have a drug-use problem. Never have. Each day, I meet my parental, personal, and professional responsibilities. I pay my taxes, serve as a volunteer in my community on a regular basis, and contribute to the global community as an informed and engaged citizen. I am better for my drug use.

(Hart, Carl. Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear (p. 14))

Drug users are not the only group despised by a moral majority. Sex workers, gamblers, overeaters, the LGBTQ+ community, and porn watchers and performers are scorned. The test proposed by Professor Hart is worth emphasizing, “I do not have a drug-use problem. Never have. Each day, I meet my parental, personal, and professional responsibilities.” Professor Hart stresses that meeting responsibilities is an important test. Freedom comes with responsibilities. If a person meets their responsibilities, they are entitled to the pursuit of happiness. People who aren’t able to be functioning adults need help and are NOT moral defectives.

No judge should be able to tell somebody, “Get off drugs or stop renting your body, and then I will let you go.” Judges should have proof that the cause of their problem is tied to their habits before making that part of their sentence. It should be difficult for a judge to reach that conclusion because it is unlikely that a habit that offers pleasure or income is a bad thing.

This change will promote freedom and move the nation closer to the promises in the Declaration of Independence.

There must be a person who wants to start Freedom Democrats. I am 82, nearly blind, and clearly unable to be that person, but the articles in Legalize.blog explain how to start.

I will help. For example, I think that Stormy Daniels, whose testimony reflected the dignity that should be the right of every sex worker could possibly be an excellent leader. Reaching out to her would be the responsibility of the person I’m seeking.

It is a chance to make history and make the United States a better nation.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Mamdani: Anybody But Cuomo

Pollsters tell us the #2 guy seeking the New York City Mayor nomination is a Muslim, a socialist, and, in this writer’s opinion, using the best political commercials in decades.

Nobody calls Zohran Mamdani a fringe candidate. Simply put, he is #2 in the polls because he’s smart, and the New York City system of allowing voters to rank their choices for candidates from 1 to 5 offers outsiders the opportunity to be real competitors.

Besides his special commercials, his promises to voters are unique—they are achievable. For example, he wants to open city-owned grocery stores in poor neighborhoods and offer the cheapest prices. A little more difficult to achieve but well within the mayor’s authority is Mamdani’s promise to make bus rides free. The mayor influences the MTA but only has the ability to ask, not order, free buses. On the other hand, the mayor controls the Rent Guidelines Board, and when he promises no rent increases, he can deliver. Mayor Adams, a friend to landlords, has allowed annual increases. The mayor before him, Bill De Blasio, froze the rent three times.

Mamdani is not the only Democrat supporting rent freezes for the 1 million New Yorkers who live in rent stabilized apartments. Five other candidates make this promise.

But Mamdani is the only one doing it with flair. Every New Years Day, the “polar bears” swim in Coney Island. This year, Mamdani joined them for a swim in his business suit and then boasted, “I’m freezing…your rent as the next mayor of New York City.” Choose your media—Tiktok, Instagram, Youtube—a picture of a wet and cold Mamdani reached hundreds of thousands of potential voters.

Most of the mayoral candidates issued a press release, but Mamdani turned it into a visual event and provoked the crucial question, “Who is this guy?” The latest poll has Cuomo at 53% once his second and third place votes are counted, while Mamdani is second at 29%.

The numbers require explanation. New York City fights the power of big money with two special election features. Public funding empowers small contributors to make big contributions. For every dollar an ordinary citizen contributes, up to $250, the candidates receive $8. A $50 contribution puts $400 into the candidates’ bank account. But it was still a surprise when Democrat Zohran Mamdani announced he was the first candidate to reach maximum funding limit. The primary election is from June 14th to June 24th. The assemblymen from Astoria, Queens made his announcement on March 24th, months before the election.

Whatever the results of the mayoral primary, Mamdani reaches voters, a crucial skill in a democracy. He will be a player for the foreseeable future. His commercials attacking Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo were the most riveting I have seen in decades. Two New Yorkers are having coffee. One of them pretends to support Adams by suggesting Turkey is a wonderful place. Turks reportedly steered money and gifted fancy airline seats to the Mayor, who urgently wishes the public will forget his corruption investigations. After needling the Mayor, the ad goes after Andrew Cuomo for shutting down mental health facilities at a time when mentally ill persons are linked to disruptive and scary incidents on the subway. Cuomo who fancies himself a frugal politician was willing to save money by denying services to the mentally ill.

The commercial is a direct hit against two prominent Democrats running for mayor, and then Zohran Mamdani sits down at the table and promises to be the best alternative. He wants rent freezes, public-owned grocery stores, fast & free buses, and universal childcare. It’s a dramatically different vision of public service.

This only makes sense if we understand that besides public financing voters have a chance to be heard, even if their candidate loses. Under ranked-choice voting, the city’s second pro-democracy reform, voters pick candidates 1 through 5. Even with 37% first choices, Cuomo must still get second or third place votes to bring him over 50%. A Marist poll found that the former governor would reach 53%. Mamdani had 29%.

The candidates are fully aware that the second and third, even fifth place, votes could decide who reaches the magic 50% and becomes the nominee. Mamdani’s most recent commercial is an eloquent plea for donations to the campaign of Adrienne Adams, Speaker of the New York City Council. She entered the race late and is short of funds. Mamdani said, “We are all running together to defeat Andrew Cuomo.” He was using his popularity to help Speaker Adams and stop Cuomo. It is a remarkable example of how the ranked-choice voting promotes Democratic Party unity and makes candidates short of funds credible. Before this system was established in 2021, it would be unthinkable for candidates to help each other raise money.

Mamdani demonstrates that ranked-choice voting (RCV) allows little-known candidates to become players in a Democratic primary.

Mamdani has received lengthy news stories describing his platform and recognizing his electoral strength. This would have been impossible without RCV.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Don’t Let Cuomo Become Mayor

I will not pick one candidate for NYC Mayor: Andrew Cuomo.

He makes life difficult for everyone else. When he rejects an idea, he frequently leaves people furious. They had spent hours responding to his detailed questions and end up feeling used. They became convinced Governor Cuomo never supported the idea and did not ask questions in good faith. His attitude makes people feel like supplicants unable to satisfy him; he had no real interest in their proposal.  Like MAGA Republicans, he displays contempt for ideas that improve people’s lives and mocks idealists wishing to make life easier and diminish prejudice.

Think carefully about the stories told about Cuomo and you get a sense of the hostility that surrounds his life at the top of the political ladder. He is the son of a Governor, a member of President Bill Clinton’s cabinet (Secretary of Housing and Urban Renewal), former NYS Attorney General and Governor of New York. You will not find him riding the subway, and he leaves the distinct impression that people who do ride it are unimportant.

Given how often subway riders wait in a station while the MTA fixes a problem, it is unlikely he will be a mass transit Mayor.  Andrew Cuomo enjoys pleasing conservative Democrats by appearing to cut government spending. Spending billions on modernizing the subways will strain the City’s budget and make fiscal conservatives unhappy. Cuomo will bring a bad attitude to this thorny problem.

A telling example of the hatred surrounding him is the fury that led to his resignation on August 24, 2021. The push came from his own party. In the 2020 election, Democrats, who controlled the Assembly, gained control of the State Senate. Within 8 months, these Democrats and an investigation by State Attorney General Letitia James forced him to resign. Those who knew him best showed him the door. Besides a State Legislative investigation, the Attorney General found 11 women who complained Andrew Cuomo would not leave them alone. When they were near, Cuomo made sexual overtures. Even with this evidence of repetitious behavior it still took President Biden’s intervention to force the Governor to leave.

Cuomo’s aides were powerless to stop his harassment—further evidence that he does not listen. Politico reported Federal investigators found Cuomo “repeatedly subjected” women in his office to non-consensual sexual contact, ogling and gender-based nicknames. Top Cuomo staff “were aware of the conduct and retaliated against four of the women he harassed,” the DOJ concluded. Like Mayor Adams, Cuomo staff includes loyalists who protect him even when acting illegally.

His current campaign suggests he learned no lessons from his ignominious ouster as Governor. The City public financing system has strict rules to prevent wasting public funds or obscuring the identity of donors who wish to exceed legal limits. In a filing, Cuomo’s campaign failed to comply and was denied his public funds. Then the city’s Campaign Finance Board found the campaign skirted fund limits by coordinating with an independent PAC that accepted large donations. According to charges, Cuomo’s supposedly independent body worked with the campaign. A fine of $622,056 was imposed and Cuomo’s campaign is fighting the charges.    

Cuomo’s departure from public life was ugly and my belief is Andrew Cuomo should never hold public office again.  I will not place my mark next to Cuomo’s name in the Democratic Primary Election in June.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

It’s Time for “Whatever” People to Unite

Freedom Democrats reach a cross section of America among  them are viewers of porn and its performers , are close to the LGBTQ+ community, sex workers and their clients, and drug users. They number in the millions and respect each other’s habits and do not tell other people how they should live their lives.

Political scientists tell us voters join their friends and become a stable voting bloc. A key organizing tool of this new group are weekly parties. The “whatever” people form the core of the Freedom Democrats.

Around 2015, many drug reformers rejected the idea that drugs are a problem. Millions like to get high, and they objected to a negative focus that fed shame. In truth and in fact it is absurd that the pleasures of drug use should be considered criminal. People having a good time are not committing a crime!

Marginalizing people with demeaning laws betrays our heritage; the right to the pursuit of happiness is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. So fundamental is this right, that the Declaration insists that governments are “instituted” to “secure these rights.” Laws prohibiting drug use directly conflict with the Declaration. For this reason, reformers rejected the idea that their drug use requires government management.

This blog hopes open minded people will unite and vote.

For years, arguments supporting drug legalization accepted the idea that drug use is a problem. Reformers made the case that criminalizing drugs was bad policy; it increased the danger of drugs and the risk of harm to users. In 1981, the futile fight against drug use cost $1.5 billion; currently, it costs $35 billion. Except in those states that made marijuana legal and collect tax money rather than spending it. As early as 1944, NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia issued a study backing marijuana legalization. In the eighty years since then, expert after expert voiced support for similar conclusions. What is new is the growing recognition that even “hard drugs” like heroin are used just as safely as marijuana or alcohol. These scientific conclusions buttress the arguments for the universal right to get high, guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.

Roughly ten years ago, and growing every year, drug users and reformers reject the notion that these pleasures are unmanageable. A vocal advocate for this change repudiated many of his earlier ideas. Carl Hart, a professor at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, when he started his study of drugs, thought drug use was a major cause of the crime and poverty infecting black neighborhoods like the one he grew up in. Over the years, Professor Hart’s research led him to repudiate this hypothesis; he concluded it was nonsense.

Drug use is often scapegoated as a cause of poverty, which is more closely tied to society’s neglect. Students in these neighborhoods often receive minimal encouragement at school, their families struggle and don’t earn a living wage, and government services are inferior to nonexistent. Explanations for downtrodden conditions cannot be reasonably traced to the bad habits of the residents. It’s an unworkable explanation. Middle class people use more drugs than the poor, they can afford it, and their lives don’t fall apart.

Those blaming the poor’s problems on drug use seldom mention that a half-a-million people are arrested every year, “to say nothing of the shameful racial discrimination in marijuana arrests,” wrote Professor Hart. In 2013, black people were four times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession. At the federal level, three-fourths of the individuals arrested for marijuana possession were Hispanic. Undoubtedly, the growing legalization of marijuana has improved this situation, but its main lesson is still in its infancy: society can absorb legalization without trauma.

Moreover, Hart’s years of research on drug use in a university setting dispelled the notion that crack, meth, or psychedelics were more addictive than marijuana. Other legal substances like alcohol, caffeine, or food most adults have no real problem handling but which cause some people real difficulty. The connection between overeating and obesity is a far greater health problem than drug use. But there is no call to wage war against food and make it illegal.

By propagating the myth that drugs made people dangerous, society gave new life to older racist prejudices enflaming fears that marginal groups like Blacks, Chinese, or the Irish threatened society. Myths about the danger of drug use spawn alarming headlines, increase media audiences, and justify increased funds for police, drug testing, and treatment programs. The true beneficiaries of drug prohibition. By casting it as an evil, politicians were relieved of the obligation to offer a helping hand other than making the only acceptable outcome: stop using the drug now.

Professor Hart’s fury and sense of moral failing was directed at himself and other drug users who showed little solidarity with the persons ensnared by hostile laws. In his radical book Drug Use for Grown-Ups, the professor clearly admitsthat he lived a happy life using drugs. It increased “affability, euphoria, and energy—all conducive to a party atmosphere.” If he was free to enjoy his life with these drugs, the Professor insisted that morality demanded solidarity with others captured by the criminal law. Adults who use drugs sporadically for pleasure, Hart insists, must come out of the closet for the same reasons that lesbians and gays made their habits known. Once people realized that their friends and neighbors were gay, it became difficult if not impossible to believe that it was a problem. Hart makes a convincing case that users will also change people’s attitudes.

He describes delightful moments with his wife, often with enhanced intimacy and sexual pleasure. Drugs accompanied him in many special moments in their marriage. Hart’s pleasure is not pot, he likes heroin.

The conclusions from his research reinforced his politics. He eloquently dismantles the 1980’s crack scare. It was a successor to previous racist lies that this or that evil drug made blacks insanely dangerous criminals. Today we laugh at the absurd tales in the movie Reefer Madness, but these mean-spirited tales led to a degree of police intervention that has no justification in a free society. At the height of the crack scare, Governor Mario Cuomo called for life sentences even for small amounts of crack worth $50 while Congressman Charles Rangel “advocated for the deployment of military personnel and equipment to rid cities of the drug.” These mythic drug scares are a reoccurring part of American life. They have no scientific basis and are dangerously totalitarian.

In the ensuing panic, Congress passed “legislation setting penalties that were literally one hundred times harsher for crack-trafficking than for powder cocaine–trafficking violations. From a pharmacological perspective, Professor Hart notes, crack is no more harmful than powder cocaine. “They are the same drug.”

The obvious and racist difference between powdered coke that is snorted and crack that is smoked is the color of the user’s skin. Decades later Congress stopped ignoring these criticisms, but even then they could not bring themselves to make the penalties for crack and cocaine equal. Congressional reform reduced the sentencing disparity, but still in the throes of the dangerous drug nonsense, the “reform” reduced the disparity to 18:1. Thank you, but no thanks.

Policy-based arguments seeking reform but which accept the idea that drugs are exceptionally dangerous easily leads to compromises that make the 18:1 seem like an acceptable improvement.

It is far better to insist that drug use is legal and allow adults to control their use. Drinks during alcohol prohibition were often laced with dangerous ingredients. Once drinking became legal, whiskey became safer. Making drug use legal would make drugs safer and improve education on the safe use of drugs. Drugs would have standardized ingredients and users would receive sound advice backed by medical research. Such a plan recognizes that adult drug users like Professor Hart will manage their use successfully and doctors, friends and family will help those whose use cause problems.

Drug users are often a picky lot. Those who like opium understand that methamphetamines have an entirely different effect. The users and their community can sort out these problems without having their privacy invaded by strangers and the law. Driving is legal but often dangerous, and in all probability some users will find ways to make drugs dangerous. But most users will choose safe habits. That is why Professor Hart entitles his book Drug Use for Grown-Ups. Freedom requires that we allow adults their right to pursue happiness and society will work with users to enhance pleasure rather than promote danger.

Freedom Democrats will not only fight for adults’ rights to use drugs, but they will stop racist police practices. The opposition to drug laws is another chapter in stopping the U.S.’s history of terrorism against blacks.

Professor Hart insists drug users unite and demand the simple truth that in the United States getting high and happy is a basic human right. The Declaration of Independence guarantees the fundamental right to pursue happiness.

The professor has shrewd observations to encourage drug users unity. For example, he warns that there is a negative side to “the current popular psychedelic movement.” He cautions that it is “dominated by people who justify their use of these drugs by couching it in medical or spiritual jargon.” Their careful arguments avoid “the stigma associated with using these substances, so long as the reason for use is not to get high.” But the professor prefers the libertarian attitudes like those of a psychedelic icon like Jerry Garcia. Garcia—it should be added, but the professor doesn’t mention—was a heroin user, even if the Grateful Dead’s devoted followers preferred LSD they knew that drug laws violated their rights.

Professor Hart calls for all drug users to come out of the closet. Getting high is an inalienable right protected by the Declaration of Independence. This freedom should become a cornerstone of the argument for drug legalization.

Launching Freedom Democrats requires the help of smart persons who will join an old man like me. I’m 82 and nearly blind and must find activists who want to help.

Organizing Freedom Democratic requires no special skills. The starting point are weekly parties that invite sex workers, porn watchers, drug users, and LGBTQ+, the “whatever” persons who share a common attitude. They want a new birth of freedom in the United States. The weekly parties will give people who share common views the opportunity to work together and become a political force.