The Government’s Pipe Dream
by Paul Fallon
The federal government is cracking down on the sale of drug paraphernalia it refers to as “User-specific products”. In recent months Attorney General Ashcroft has launched two series of raids dubbed “Operation Pipe Dreams” and “Operation Headhunter”. This program has lead to selective prosecutions, contributed to intimidation of vulnerable elements of the population and generally missed the mark with considerable cost to the American people in both dollars and civil liberties. Furthermore it adds nothing toward solving one of the nation’s most pressing social issues.
In February the Justice Department obtained court orders seizing 11 web sites selling paraphernalia and arrested 55 individuals for operating these sites. Ashcroft claims that the sale of paraphernalia had "exploded" on the Internet. “Quite simply,” says Ashcroft, “the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has invaded the homes of families across the country without their knowledge.”
Not even old school heads have been spared. Comedian Tommy Chong is currently serving a federal prison sentence for selling autographed, hand-blown glass bongs over the Internet. To add insult to injury, Asst. U.S. District Attorney Mary Houghton wrote, “Feature films that he made ... trivialize law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking and use.” In response, Chong’s former partner Cheech Marin was quoted in the L.A. Times: “These are the same kinds of simpletons we were fighting when we made [Up In Smoke], in terms of a repressive administration.”
It is important to note that the government has not charged the web site operators or Tommy Chong with the sale of drugs, merely the sale of equipment which could be used in their transport or consumption.
A clearer example of the arbitrariness of this policy is seen in a recent Detroit Free Press article. Readers unfamiliar with Metro Detroit may not be aware of its subtler implications. Take the following statement:
“Federal and local law enforcement authorities … announce they are sending gentle reminders to more than 350 Detroit businesses that the sale of such items is a felony under federal law.”
The article goes on to point out the business in question are:
“[P]arty stores, gas stations, delis, smoke shops, record stores and any other outlet.”
(Note: “party store” is a regionalism for convenience store.)
Most of theses businesses are minority owned, mom and pop operations serving a market largely abandoned by major retailers. Their clientele are generally lower income minorities and the working poor.
An over-statement? Let’s examine the demographics. According to the 2000 census, Detroit is a city of less than one million people with a black population hovering in the mid-80 percentile. Average household income is $29,526. Some 26.1% of residents live below the poverty line. Compare this to neighboring communities like Bloomfield Hills: $170,079, Grosse Pointe Township: $114,486 or Southfield, refuge of the black middle class who fled the city in droves during the ‘80’s and ‘90’s: $97,719.
According to one article, 90% of Detroit’s party stores are owned by Chaldeans—Christian Arabs from Iraq—a group largely made up of immigrants and first and second generation Americans often forced to bear the familiar stigma of incomplete assimilation and “otherness”. This is a group for whom “gentle reminders” from local and federal authorities might seem less gentle than one may at first perceive. Sadly for retailers, a convenient synergy exists between Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick’s current campaign against liquor stores and the fed’s anti-paraphernalia campaign.
Lest we forget, from a market point-of-view storeowners would not be stocking these items were they not saleable to their patrons. The government’s argument throughout this controversy implies supply by itself creates demand.
The Free Press article also mentions selective enforcement pointing out that the letter sent to merchants targets those in the city rather than the surrounding suburbs. Subjective research reveals no shortage of suburban retail outlets openly selling an even wider variety of paraphernalia than listed in the article.
Within minutes of Dean’s World H.Q. sits The Station. You would probably have to drive to Ann Arbor to find a specialty retailer with a better selection of material dedicated to the serious stoner. On the eastside there’s B.D.T. Pipe & Tobacco Shops frequently rated as the area’s best head shop by the The Metro Times. In this author’s bucolic hometown of Livonia there are two stores specifically dedicated to sale of hydroponic gardening equipment. While I find the technology fascinating I doubt all of the stores’ customers are using it to produce prize-winning tomatoes in their basements. And it was to my wife’s considerable consternation that I recently adopted an air of mock incredulity while visiting a local garden center at the availability of materials which could be used for marijuana cultivation.
My ironic attitude belies true dismay at the absurdity of the government’s policy. According to a Salon.com article (cited at length here) ordinary household items like Vicks Vaporub, pacifiers, dust masks and glow sticks are now considered drug paraphernalia under certain conditions because of their associations with raves.
The government’s argument can be summed up as: “context is key”. After all, legally obtained items like guns, knives or cars routinely become deadly in the wrong hands. True, but all of the above mentioned items are still legally available. In the case of glow sticks there is no argument that they play any part in drug consumption. Merely that since some drug users find them entertaining when stoned, the government has used their possession by patrons as a means to harass club owners and promoters.
God knows drug users are very enterprising, even wily. A friend recently confided the best homemade bong she’d ever created came from the cardboard tube inside a roll of wrapping paper. Is Christmas paper the next item on the government’s hit list?
The bottom line is: users want drugs. They employ any means necessary to obtain and consume them regardless of the danger to themselves and others. Denying access to a safe mode of consumption does nothing to alleviate this. On the contrary, as we have seen with the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users who share needles, a solution to one crisis can often lead to another.
The government also attempts to make the case that the sale, display and styling of these items encourage their sale to children. A South Florida newspaper describes items seized in a recent raid:
“Several were decorated with cartoon characters such as The Cat in the Hat. And one kind, disguised as a thermos, was placed inside a Simpsons lunchbox.”
“They’re clearly targeting kids,” [Customs Enforcement Agent Anthony] Mangione said. “I don't know too many adults sitting down with a Cat in the Hat bong.”
Besides demonstrating law enforcement’s woeful ignorance of the intersection of popular culture and the drug world, the government must think our kids are so dumb they’ll become junkies if exposed to shiny things. On top of which—Is it really the government’s job to be so worried about our kids?
This country expends great effort shielding children from negative social influences and yet we’ve failed to eradicated pornography, alcohol and tobacco use or violence. Short of locking kids up until their eighteenth birthday or farming them out to the Amish it seems unlikely that we ever will. As a parent I take the role I play in educating my child about the use of alcohol and tobacco and respect for oneself and others very seriously. When my son turns eighteen his attitudes will have been shaped by the work his mother and I are engaged in now. While it is the height of naiveté to imagine the world we bequeath to him will be shaped by people who share our values, the job of deciding the influences to which he is exposed is ours to make. One of the flaws of the “it takes a village” philosophy is the implication that “the village” is a walled citadel constantly under siege and therefore must be ruled by marshal law. Ultimately all any parent can do is lead by example and trust that their kids aren’t stupid. That is a job the government is ill equipped to perform.
Exact numbers for the cost of “Operation Pipe Dreams” and “Operation Headhunter” are not available. However one estimate puts the cost of the War on Drugs at $14 billion plus this year alone. Operations against “user-specific products” likely represent a mere drop in the bucket. There is no evidence citing their effectiveness.
Even though the government has failed to make its case as to why targeting paraphernalia is necessary or how exactly it stems the flow of drugs into the community, one thing seems clear: harassment of small business people is not an answer. Campaigns like “Operation Pipe Dreams” and “Operation Headhunter” exist to give the illusion of a solution. They rack up convictions and fill the jails so it looks as if the government is doing something.
Most of the casualties in this drug war remain the users, many of whom are caught in a fatal web from which they cannot extract themselves. They are not criminals for what they foolishly do to themselves. They need help. Unfortunately, the current system is not set up to provide that help.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are some truly evil people involved in the drug trade. People who are willing to use any means at their disposal—including but not limited to murder—to conduct their sordid business. The government has my permission to go after them with all the legal means at its disposal.
In 1990 a friend of mine died of a heroin overdose. After a long search for answers I am forced to admit that neither zero tolerance nor legalization could have quelled her demons or brought light to the dark corners of her soul which led her down the path she chose.
Ultimately, a rational debate needs to be carried out free from rhetoric, ideology and empty gestures. We have seen what doesn’t work. The time has come to find out what will. I am among those who think this issue might be better handled from a public health perspective rather than a law enforcement one. For example consider the government’s efforts to eradicate polio versus that “great experiment” Prohibition. One freed us from a crippling disease that cost millions in lives and resources, the other left us with a legacy of organized crime and a bitter object lesson in failed social engineering. But that is a topic for another time.
Principal References:
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/drug6_20040506.htm
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-dbong04may04,0,6046743.story?coll=sfla-news-miami
http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,562130,00.html
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/276/paraphernaliacrackdown.shtml
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001045/news
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/276/paraphernaliacrackdown.shtml
http://data.detnews.com/census/2002sort.hbs?sort=hhincome00
http://www.detnews.com/2002/census/downloads/1602622000.pdf
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0402/24/d01-72659.htm
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/party11_20031211.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/paraphernaliafact.html
http://www.poppies.org/news/99319779810192.shtml
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/04/16/rave/index_np.html
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2003/business/0306/25/b01-202163.htm
http://www.metrotimes.com/BestOfDetroit2/2001/Blowingawad.asp
Nice info. Way to take blogging from mild commentary to real research.
Bravo Dean, bravo.
"Chong pleaded guilty in May[2003] to conspiring to sell drug paraphernalia and pleaded guilty on behalf of Nice Dreams Enterprises, which did business under the name Chong Glass. "
Source Fox News
Sounds like he committed the crime and is doing the time.
I would suggest that people wait until the laws are removed from the books before they the imbibe. But, I'm just an uncaring, fascist bastard that thinks that potheads older than 18 are worthless wastoids.
Hey Notme,
What about potheads that are under 18?
I've seen some enterprising people fashion bongs from empty soda cans. Maybe Coka-Cola sales are a violation of federal law, too. Hey, they're available at convenience stores, too, where stoners are likely to buy snacks when they get the munchies. I might be on to something here...
Good work, with lots of reference links. Thanks.
Since most teenagers have no legal, social or family responsibilities [not that they really want them (yes, I am generalizing)], what does it matter if they are worthless wastoids or not. I was a worthless wastoid until I turned 18, but I have since matured and have no desires to relive my youth and I do have legal, social and family responsibilities.
And since I've already called myself everything I was called last time I participated in a pot discussion, can we forgo it this time?
An excellent article. Thanks for posting this.
A high school debate topic nationwide a couple of years ago was the war on drugs. I have a couple of students who will very much appreciate this post and the references that follow.
CS
Very well written, and I actually concur with the Paul Fallon's assertions. So where did this actually come from Dean, did he write this for Dean's World, or did you find it somewhere else? Inquiring minds want to know! :)
This federal "War on Drugs" has become a war on the Constitution. I'm against drugs, but I'm against this federal government "War on Drugs" even more. Give the government time and it will be a War on Guns before you know it.
I have trouble finding a great deal of sympathy for people who break the law and are then brought to face the consequences.
As to the supply/demand argument, it is certainly true that demand for drugs exists, and government actions and regulations to limit supply will not eliminate it. Limiting supply, however, does reduce demand by increasing price and/or decreasing availability. Does anyone honestly believe that drug use would not go up if you could buy pot at 7-Eleven for 50 cents a hit?
The argument becomes more serious regarding children, as there is tremendous evidence supporting the fact that drug use has tremendously damaging effects on people's lives. Children are, by legal definition, not mature enough to evaluate the full consequences of their actions and therefore decide for themselves. As adults, we have a responsibility to protect them from harming themselves. Certainly this should primarily be the job of parents; however, we must also recognize that there are many times when parents are unable or unwilling to fulfill that role. Should we ignore that problem and do nothing?
Many people criticize the War on Drugs as being useless, foolish, and/or expensive. It's easy to attack an existing policy and point out its failures. What, however, would the situation really be like without the War on Drugs? It is difficult to truly say. What would be the cost to this nation in the loss of productive workers due to the destructiveness of many drugs? Would the increase of that cost be higher or lower than the cost of the War on Drugs?
Certainly there is a price to the War on Drugs. I would even argue that it causes an increase in crime as junkies often resort to crime to feed their addiction. There is the cost of the programs themselves, as the cost to people who are punished by the laws. However, how many people honestly look at what the cost of not having the war would be?
Prohibition is a fair place to begin for such a look, but not a completely equal one. Alcohol, while destructive, is not nearly as damaging nor as addictive as most drugs; the level of harm that unrestricted alcohol consumption by our society is far lower. It is also a more extreme case, since alcohol was legal for a great deal of time. It was even somewhat socially acceptable. The government was attempting to cut many people off from an activity that they had been allowed and had expected. We are not in the same situation with drugs. So while it is not an unfair comparison, it is also not an equal one.
Just my thoughts on the subject. ;)
Steven wrote:
This federal "War on Drugs" has become a war on the Constitution. I'm against drugs, but I'm against this federal government "War on Drugs" even more. Give the government time and it will be a War on Guns before you know it.
What? There isn't a war on guns already? A so-called 'War on Some Guns'? What about the 'War on Tobacco'? The new 'War on Fatty and Junk Foods'? How about the 'War on those homophobic Boy Scouts'? And don't forget the 'War against Some [read Christian] Religions'!
Excellent post Dean.
Paul wrote it FOR Dean's World. He and his wife are good friends of ours.
He'd have to be - how else could he know about my wrapping paper tube bong? ;-)
Man, I miss college...
So, if I know how to make a water bong out of a two liter bottle of Coke and a cooler filled halfway with water, can the arrest me for having these items? Even the water?
I have to be honest, pop culture or no pop culture, I have a head shop 2 blocks from my house whose merchandise is clearly targeted at the high school and below audience. I have never seen anyone over the age of 19 or 20 there.
Hell, we used to take 8 feet of 3/8 ID aquarium hose, coil it up in an empty coffee can, fill the can with water and freeze it. That makes coffee cans and aquarium hose paraphernalia, doesn't it?
I suggest everyone take a trip here : http://www.drugwarfacts.org/
"The argument becomes more serious regarding children, as there is tremendous evidence supporting the fact that drug use has tremendously damaging effects on people's lives. Children are, by legal definition, not mature enough to evaluate the full consequences of their actions and therefore decide for themselves. As adults, we have a responsibility to protect them from harming themselves."
I agree, protecting children is important. Most, if not all, the people who want the Drug War ended would still like government to regulate drugs similarly to how alcohol and tobacco are handled, if not even stricter. Which would you feel safer with - the dealer on the corner trying to sell pot to every passerby(essentially putting it in your face and the face of your kids) or the guy at the 7/11 who has to check ID and will not be pushing it? Will this stop kids from getting to drugs? No, the current system doesn't do that though. Should drugs be legalized I would also push for stricter standards concerning checking IDs and increased punishments for selling to/buying for/giving minors drugs of any sort. Getting the drugs off the streets just seems more effective to me, because if the cops bust some dealer there's always another dealer round the corner. Drugs are pretty easy to get.
Moving on, legalization of drugs would also decrease our taxes, and not just because the spending on the War on Drugs would cease. Because drugs would be a legal good(which again, should be sold only in places where it can be regulated and IDs can be checked), there would be a sales tax on them. Also, all the new drug manufacturing companies(due to legalization, manufacture of the drugs must be declared rather than keeping production underground) would have to pay taxes on their income. And the CEO's of those companies(who would get filthy rich) would have income that's now taxable. Because of all these new tax revenues coming into the government, the average Joe may need to pay less. Since Joe now has more money, he can pump that extra money into the economy through purchases, send his kids to college, or save for retirement. I'll grant you this is all theory, but I think it's sound and I'd enjoy some opinions on it.
John Dibble,
Good points, but I have a couple of questions.
Considering the our law enforcement is currently completely unable to prevent drugs from getting into the hands of children with the strong anti-drug laws we have now, do you not think it would be even easier if drugs were legalized to adults? While drugs are fairly prevelant in schools, they are still less common than alcohol.
Woudln't there still be a rather strong illegal drug trade among children and perhaps stronger as the poilice would have to prove not just the selling of drugs to get rid of an offender, but that he was selling to minors?
Would drug legalization really decrease our taxes? Certinaly your points are valid. We could generate tax revenue from drug sales, and we would lose some of the cost of the war on drugs(though retain some of it for the protection of minors). In addition there is the reduced cost of prisons since we would be housing far fewer drug offenders. On the other side, however, there would be increased social cost in the form of drug treatment and rehabilitation centers. There is the loss in revenue from workers and potential workers reducing their abilites through heavier drug use. Finally there are the increased medical costs associated with drug users.
In addition to the financial cost, there are other costs to consider. Drugs harm people. Is it right for the government to not only allow, but to profit(through taxes) from products that cause harm to their users?
"In addition to the financial cost, there are other costs to consider. Drugs harm people. Is it right for the government to not only allow, but to profit(through taxes) from products that cause harm to their users?"
Drugs may be a tool by which people harm themselves, but Prohibition gets people killed. Our homicide rate staged an impressive drop after prohibition was repealed.
It is not an acceptable tradeoff to get people killed in order to stop other people from hurting themselves. I don't give a damn how many users we're talking about here.
I don't think our law enforcement is completely unable, but that's a problem that might never go away no matter how hard we try. You are correct that illegal drugs are less common among the drugs kids use, but that's true with adults, and probably would be still even if legalized. The stronger the drug, the less people who will use it. It would probably stay the same. Also, I don't advocate getting rid of drug education programs in schools(though I do not think these programs should not demonize drugs as they tend to do, they should be realistic about them and discourage use, demonization makes kids who do try drugs view these programs as lies rather than sound advice). As I said, stricter enforcement of ID checking laws should help keep kids from being able to attain drugs. Also, selling drugs on the street would probably be less prevelant and less profitable, so hopefully kids would be less exposed to drugs. Encouraging parents to have a talk about drugs is also helpful, as parents are the biggest influence kids have. Ultimately though, there's no such thing as a fool proof plan, and there will probably always be an illegal drug trade among kids, but I feel getting the drugs off the street would effectively reduce it.
On to taxes. You raise good points. Consumption of drugs will increase with legalization, this is a fact, the deterrant of jail time won't be there anymore. However, I do not think the increase will be to any great degree. Most people who want drugs badly enough to overuse them are already doing them, legal or not. I suspect any increase will mostly be casual users using the more benign drugs such as marijuana. My uncle used to be a casual user until a couple of years ago, and he's been running an extremely successful business for as long as I can remember. Most drug users are casual users who do not let their habits affect their work(after all, their bosses would fire them if they came in high). I have serious doubts that increase in consumption would have too many detrimental effects. But I could be wrong. It may be the case that the cost of legalization will even out and we'll pay about the same. It may be a good idea to end the Drug War slowly so we can find out with minimal risk - start by legalizing marijauna and go from there if it proves relatively harmless to do so.
"In addition to the financial cost, there are other costs to consider. Drugs harm people. Is it right for the government to not only allow, but to profit(through taxes) from products that cause harm to their users?"
Good question. We do that now with alcohol and tobacco, but it's still a good question. I don't really think it's a bad thing, those people are willingly subjecting themselves to the harm, it's not being forced upon them so their civil rights aren't being violated. Also, something I forgot to metion - should drugs be legalized, it would probably be a good idea to use a Surgeon General's warning label like the one used for cigarette packs. This would tell the consumer the risks of using the product, and would hopefully reduce consumption. Also, people under the influence of drugs should be treated the same as those influenced by alcohol - if you consume in a safe place and harm nobody, you will not be punished, but if you, say, get behind the wheel of a car, thus putting other people at risk(thus possibly violating their civil liberty of right to their own life) you should be punished as such(DUI). Drug users are still responsible for their behavior when they are high, whether a drug is legal or not.
John,
Again you make good points. I disagree with a couple of things, however.
"Most drug users are casual users who do not let their habits affect their work."
This has not been my experience; many of them simply get fired and keep getting other jobs, end up on welfare or end up on the streets. While I am certain there are large numbers who can use drugs with little apparent effect, there are a great number, and I suspect even a majority who cannot.
That also discounts the long term problems that arise from drug use. If someone is unable to maintain a good job later in life because they suffered brain damage of one for or another from their earlier drug use, is that not harm to society (since they become a productive worker for a shorter time of their life)? This also discounts the loss of productivity from drug users who die young from drug related causes.
"We do that now with alcohol and tobacco..."
I will certainly concede that the government does profit from allowing people to harm themselves with tobacco, but I think that alcohol is not as clear. Abuse of alcohol certainly causes harm, but consumption of alcohol in small quantities has even shown to have some health benefits as opposed to detriments. It's harder to justify outlawing something that causes harm only with it is abused.
You are certainly right that we are doing it with tobacco, and I don't personally like it. Not that I would support making tobacco illegal (no death threats from smokers out there please. ;), but I am uncomfortable with the government profiting from it (even if all or most of those profits go towards offsetting the costs to the government of the activity). Still your point is valid and I must concede that this is something I would call a necessary evil.
My main resistance would be in knowing the actual cost that would result from legalizing drugs. Since the apparent cost would be lower, I would be more open to legalizing marijuana than other drugs, but I am not sure that even that would be a good idea.
Overall I'm not convinced that the cost to society, even in purely financial terms, would be less to legalize drugs than it is to maintain the war on drugs. Still, it is difficult to know.
Does anyone know of a serious cost-analysis study of the subject?
My experience is exactly the same as John's: the vast majority of drug users are employed full time, are not criminals (except for their drug use) and are contributing members of society. Most don't become profound addicts, either.
Studies have actually confirmed that this is the typical patern for most drug users. Stanton Peele's web site's got plenty of references on that.
Those of us who question the drug war also continue to point out that the costs of law enforcement and incarceration are huge. This is not counting the opportunity costs--that is, the law enforcement opportunities to go after thieves and violent criminals while they're busy wasting their time going after drug users, most of whom are harmless.
By the way, our welfare system now includes time limits and work requirements, which would make it pretty hard for drug users to become lifelong dole-recipients.
You make good points too Aaron, I'm glad to be debating with someone who's not just a 'drugs are evil' type guy. You seem to have a realistic view on drugs, what they do, and the problems they pose. What we disagree upon is the solution.
Just so you can have some info on estimated drug use in the U.S - http://www.drugwarfacts.org/druguse.htm
Go to number 3 in the link above, and you'll see that the stronger the drug, the less people tend to use it. It may have something to do with price and availability, but surely some of it has to do with the inherent dangers of stronger drugs.
Now, long term problems drugs cause. First off, this depends on the drug. Here's some info:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
http://www.drugaccess.net/Marijuana.htm
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/heroin.htm
http://www.drugaccess.net/Heroin.htm
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cocaine.htm
http://www.drugaccess.net/Cocaine.htm
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/alcohol.htm
http://www.drugaccess.net/Alcohol.htm
http://www.drugaccess.net/Amphetamine.htm
http://www.drugaccess.net/LSD.htm
Most of the above are rather brief, but factual. As we see, certain drugs have higher risks than others. Some drugs have little or no long term effects, while some have many, while some only occur with heavy use. The effects of each are different, so each should be treated seperately. For instance, marijuana is easier to quit and less harmful than crack, as well as possibly having medical uses. As you said, the long term effects could harm the work force(the ones who do drugs anyhow). However, also consider that the violence caused by the War on Drugs often kills or injures innocent bystanders, so those people die, so those workers are taken out of the economy too. From a pure, cold economic standpoint, we'd just need to analyze how many extra people would die/be unable to work should drugs be legalized versus how many die due to the violence caused by the Drug War to decide what tradeoff we would make. However, my way of thinking is that I'd rather have less violent deaths and let those that are stupid enough to overuse drugs live with the consequences of their actions. My father was killed ten years ago by a member of the Crips(who have gained power through selling drugs illegaly), and I can't help but wonder if the Drug War never started if it would never have happened. Because of this I'm obviously biased towards decreasing violent crime rather than victimless(I don't count self-inflicted injury as making someone a victim) one, so please take that into account, I'm always welcome to taking in another point of view.
Now, moving on to taxing tobacco. You know all that stuff about tobacco being a gateway drug for teens? Turns out it's true. Tobacco use does indeed increase marijuana and other drug use among teens. Tobacco companies argue that increased cigarette prices would make teens substitute cigs with marijuana. Truth is the opposite - by artificially increasing the price of tobacco 10%(through taxes), studies have shown a 4% overall decrease in consumption and a 12% decrease in cigarette consumption among teens, as well as a decrease in the consumption of marijuana among teens. So, there are actually benefits to government taxing drugs. Because teens have less money than adults, taxes affect their demand at a much greater rate. As long as the taxes are kept low enough to prevent a black market(which would have lower prices rather than higher in this case, either by self-manufacture or illegal attainment of the product in question) then taxing harmful drugs may prevent teen drug use. Also, since most drug use begins early in life, this helps stem overall drug use.
As far as the cost to society, I can't say, but I'd look for studies concerning Holland, Jamaica, or other places where some drugs are legal.
One of the effects of the War on Drugs is that it makes moderate mature use less visible. The so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free America runs ads on TV which offer up stoner burnout losers as the only role model, while people like myself must be discreet about offering up the lesson that using less and using less often can increase enjoyment.
I'm now into my 36th year of youthfull experimentation. I'm also into my 32nd year of marriage, to a non-user, and kept one job for 22 years, leaving of my own volition. I'm now working a technical job, doing more advanced tasks than what I was hired for, and having a few tokes when I get home does nothing to hinder my ability to do the data analysis earler in the day.
In all these years I have known a lot of people who didn't use drugs or had stopped using them. Not one of them did so because of the law and I doubt any of them would have started using had the law changed.
Great post Dean. There is a ton of information here to chew on. I can't help but think there are tremendous amounts of resources being wasted here.
I'm with Triticale. I know a lot of people who are good spouses, parents and hold full time jobs who occasionally have a bit of the weed.
I would much prefer that the money going to this crazy-ass drug war go to the real war that matters - the global war on terrorism.
I have seen, first-hand, many lives ruined because of possession of a very small amount of marijuana - too many young men, black and white, are in federal prison for crimes that probably should not even be crimes. Many of these inmates are pretty good people - or at least they were until they were thrown into jail with the dregs of humanity.
I am pretty libertarian when it comes to matters such as these. Smoking pot is probably less dangerous than drinking too much alchohol. Most stoners I know drive too slowly or are too paranoid to drive at all.
I can't stand Ashcroft - couldn't stand him when I lived in Missouri and he was Governor - always felt he was rather embarrassing.
I'm going on and on - sorry. Later.
I'll agree the government gets paranoid now and then, but I'm tired of hearing that banning drugs doesn't lower drug use.
Look, which is used more often, tobacco or illegal drugs? EVERYBODY knows where to buy tobacco. Can you say the same thing about marijuana (Holland doesn't count)?
Maor,
I don't think anybody here said that the banning of drugs doesn't lower drug use. Re-reading this entire thread I haven't seen a single person say anything to that effect. In fact, I believe I've been saying the opposite. Yes, by legalizing drugs we will decrease the price of drugs and therefore the demand. That's the tradeoff we would make for the benefits - lower crime, end to prison overcrowding, less or no tax dollars spent chasing down non-violent 'criminals', you know, everything that's been said above.
Excellent article. Nicely done.
Couple of points.
From an early comment by notme about Chong doing the crime and doing the time, it's important to note that of the 55 people arrested in the initial massive federal/state/local investigations on paraphernalia (based on a relatively unused-to-that-point federal law from the 1980s), only Chong got federal jail time (although he had no prior arrests). They threatened to arrest his wife and kids to get him to plead, and then the judge actually brought up his movie roles as justification for the sentencing.
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=442&IssueNum=26
Regarding access by children:
It appears that prohibition has had no effect on limiting drug availability to children -- in fact, it's quite likely that the reverse is true. The profitable illegal black market makes it a sure thing that dealers will target children as consumers. And while kids also find ways to get alcohol, you don't usually actually have alcohol dealers on the school grounds. Strong regulation seems preferable to prohibition. While children could die from overdosing on alcohol obtained illegally at their age, it's less likely that they're going to get tainted or poisoned alcohol (something that happened often during alcohol prohibition). Strong controls of drug distribution and safety could actually help (and when it comes to marijuana, it's much safer than alcohol).
Regarding assumptions of increased use with legalization:
Of course, this depends on the drug and the legalization scheme. We don't know for certain what will happen, but my belief is with marijuana legalization, for example, that there would be a spike in "curious" use that would level off, but no increase in "abuse." Various studies bear this out:
In 2001, lifetime prevalence of marijuana use in the Netherlands was 17% while in the United States it was 36.9%.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
According to the Connecticut Law Review Commission, "states and regions that have maintained the strictest criminal penalties for marijuana possession have experienced the largest proportionate increase in use."
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3381#point3
Also note my discussion at Drug WarRant regarding the new study comparing culturally similar cities of San Francisco and Amsterdam which not only shows lower use under decriminalization, but lower gateway effect as well (demonstrating that gateway is more an effect of prohibition).
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2004/05/09.html#a386
Comparison of substances:
Some commenters have made assumptions of use of drugs under legalization by comparing them to other unlike substances. For example, it's not really useful to compare marijuana with tobacco and assume the same level of use. Tobacco is addictive and marijuana has no addictive properties at all. Marijuana can cause mild dependency (different than addiction), which, as the Institute of Medicine found, is more akin to caffeine. There's no way that legal marijuana would reach the level of legal tobacco in use. In fact, the same study in the above paragraph also shows this by demonstrating that 94% of marijuana users had "overall career use patterns that did not entail escalation"
About 100 million Americans have used marijuana at some point in their lives. Do we imprison all of them? Or just the 750,000 who get caught each year? Or do we decide that we're wasting a lot of resources in enforcement (and in people's lives) and look for a better solution?
If we want some answers, the best thing we could do is eliminate federal involvement in the drug war (or just marijuana to start) and let states experiment. Then we could learn something.
John,
I certainly agree that it would be better to decrease violent crime, but it's a tricky thing to do.
Some drugs have very harmful effects, not only in causing death, but in long term disability, etc. I would have a hard time justifying the legalization of PCP, LSD, and Heroin on those grounds.
Marijuana is different.
Certainly, legalizing marijuana would have a limited negative effect on society, at least far less than the legalization of other drugs would. It would also have a much smaller impact on crime and a smaller reduction in the cost of the war on drugs.
Due to the ready availability and relatively low price of marijuana, it does not lead to significant criminal activity (aside from possession). So there would be very few lives saved from its legalization.
Now, I would be completely for making possession of marijuana legal, however, I am still uncomfortable with allowing legal distribution. That stems from the fact that the government would be allowing the profit of an addictive product.
I know, we already allow that in some cases. Of course, addictive drugs are allowed for medical use, but they are highly regulated and the distribution is illegal when not specifically authorized for medical purposes.
Tobacco is, of course, the exception that has already been made. It was allowed on the ambiguity of its addictive nature (and, I would argue, a lot of denial). In allowing tobacco distribution, we allow companies to exploit physical addiction for profit. I think that it is wrong to allow that, but I also think that it is too late to change.
Some argue here that the government has no business interfering in the personal choices of people. That is not, however, exactly how I see the situation.
Because of the addictive nature of these products, people do not always have a completely free choice not to use them. Certainly, all make the choice with the first use, and with follow-up uses, but as they become addicted that choice rapidly deteriorates. Should we allow corporations to exploit that human weakness for profit?
I am against government regulations that are not necessary; however, I believe that it is good for a government to protect its citizens from exploitation. I think that we have already failed to do that with tobacco, and I would hate to see us follow the same path with marijuana.
That being said, I also believe that there is not a "right" option. This is a choice of the lesser of evils. We cannot eradicate the drug problem without taking away too much freedom from the people at the hands of the state. We also cannot allow for the unrestricted distribution of drugs without taking away too much freedom from the people and putting into the hands of corporations. Instead we have to find a way to maximize the people's freedom from both the state and the potential exploitation of corporations.
Drug legalization would increase usage, but it would also make said usage less harmful. Compare prohibition - before, and after prohibition, the alcohol of choice in this country was beer, then wine. During, it was hard liquor or moonshine. Why? Easier to conceal and transport a "dose". Pre-drug war, using poppies for drugs meant opium - which could be destructive, but could also be used as "the seven percent solution" - there were a fair number of "high-functioning" users. Now, it means heroin, which is much more dangerous. Rush Limbaugh, for all his hypocrisy, was rather high functioning as a drug addict, so was Brett Favre. Why? Because the drugs they used were manufactured to standards of quality, so they could be sure of dosage. Your heroin addict, using a VERY similar drug (opium was among the first painkillers), isn't, because one dose could be pure, another cut, another mixed with coke or amphetimenes, and he won't know until he injects.
Most overdoses also come from uncertainty about dosing, or often unknowing mixing of drugs, both of which could be reduced under a legalized system. (Or are suicides, prevention of which are not the intended purpose of drug laws.
Addiction isn't the issue. Tobacco is addictive, so is alcohol. I'm an addict (caffeine). I still function perfectly well in society, as well as I would without the drug. Most addicts do, unless they are forced to use poor quality hits, and hide from the law, because of criminalization. If caffeine were illegal, my "dosing" would involve popping low-quality no-doze-like pills, which may or may not be real caffeine, rather than two or three 12 oz. Dr. Peppers per day. Surely that would be more harmful, even if most caffeine addicts quit rather than doing that?
Anecdotally, I can tell you that at my high school, it was much easier to find a source of weed than it was to find a source of alcohol. Obviously a lot of teenagers drink, but since alcohol is sold in stores where buyers are carded, most teens have to find an adult willing to buy it for them, which is easier said than done. With weed, however, any kid with enough money could track it down in less than an hour, no problem. And a lot of kids spent a lot of time stoned because of it.
One other thing not mentioned is the increasing reliance of local governments on the grants from Washington. Does or doesn't this tend to corrupt local law enforcement?
Just thought I'd stir the anthill.
Rich
Aaron,
I think Amy says things best. Through regulated distribution, we can better keep drugs out of kids hands. It won't be absolute, but it will help. Also, take into account that government does not make profits - the President does not get a bonus for having a surplus. Government regulates things in an attempt to make things safer and better, though sometimes they get carried away and regulate things they shouldn't. I think having government regulated distribution of legal drugs would be superior to having people do it, because that could end up in turf wars and such like we have now. Better to keep the drugs inside stores behind the counter than out on the streets.
"Because of the addictive nature of these products, people do not always have a completely free choice not to use them. Certainly, all make the choice with the first use, and with follow-up uses, but as they become addicted that choice rapidly deteriorates. Should we allow corporations to exploit that human weakness for profit?"
This is why I suggested putting government issue warning labels on drugs like we do with tobacco. Because the effects are listed, the user is ultimately responsible for his choices. Corporations wouldn't be shoving the drugs down anyone's throats. It's a sad fact of life, but people make stupid choices, and they always will. Remember, even if we somehow eliminated all drugs on the planet, people would find new ways to get high, so corporations only supply what the people want - as long as the consumer is told the effects and risks then it is the consumer who is at fault. However, should corporations put something in their drugs that does something bad and the consumer is not informed, then it is the fault of the corporation.
I think it would be better to compare the occurrence of cigarettes in schools to drugs as opposed to alcohol. The barrier to keeping alcohol is portability (though the point made above about the strength of the "hit" is also valid, but that works against cigarettes as well). I don’t know of any kids that find cigarettes difficult to obtain.
The problem that I have with simple warning labels and with placing sole responsibility on the consumer is that people who have never dealt with addictions have a very limited understand of what they are.
A case and point is the claim above that someone is addicted to caffeine. There are many degrees of addictiveness. Certainly caffeine is addictive, and many people who use it regularly (myself included) would have difficulty giving it up. That does not even remotely compare to the addictive properties of cigarettes, mush less those of most drugs.
I agree that if drugs were legalized, no one would be forcing someone to use them. However, it could be argued that what is being forced is continued use. If someone were to start using cocaine thinking that it was as easy to stop as it is to stop using caffeine that would be a tragedy.
Consider also the further possibilities. If it is legal to produce and distribute drugs, how long will it be before companies add narcotics to their products in order to take advantage of their addictive properties? It may not be as simple of choice as buying a bag of cocaine or buying a joint. It could be decided to buy the “regular” or the “special” brownies.
Certainly you can warn people, but can people that have never faced serious chemical addiction really understand the danger? I am not at all certain that I am comfortable with leaving it at that, especially when you have marketing involved to minimize the impact of the danger in order to sell the products. “Sure these brownies have marijuana in them which is an addictive substance, but we’ve never had anyone addicted to anything but the good taste of these brownies!”
You mentioned government regulated distribution. Do you mean allowing sale of drugs only in government owned and operated stores, similar to what some states do with alcohol in the south? That would limit some of these concerns, but also raises some other frightening ones (at least to me). You know place government organizations in a position to profit from addicting people. They would have less incentive to abuse that power than corporations, but I still would not trust that to be free from corruption. It also paints a dark picture of the government feeding on human misery (which is a bit over the top, but you know what I mean)
I realize that it is a bit of a misnomer to talk of profit in relation to the government, as yes they do not make profit, as such. What they to have is increase revenue that they can use to generate political power through expansion of government programs. It is a bit of a different, but it amounts to the same thing, at least in my mind.
We are not going to stop people from using drugs; that is certainly true. All that we can do is attempt to minimize the harm caused to as many people as possible without greatly infringing on freedom. I agree that our current drug laws go too far, but I am unconvinced that legalization is a better solution.
One thought I do have on your arguments that does appeal to me is the idea of limiting federal laws against drugs in favor of state laws. As I think more about it, I support that position. Allow states ban drugs, distribute drugs, or allow private distribution. Of course, I would still want some federal regulation in place similar to that of most legal drug products (FDA regulations, etc.). If nothing else, such an action would allow ideas, such as yours, to be tested in the US (assuming some states would enact those ideas, but I think there are at least a couple that would).
That does make it difficult for states that wish to prevent drug use, as they lose the cooperation of the federal government in restricting drug imports, but there are ways that could be dealt with(through either providing federal funding for states or by having federal laws supporting transport of drugs only to “legal” states.)
You have given me much to think about. I hope that I have done the same for you.
"You mentioned government regulated distribution. Do you mean allowing sale of drugs only in government owned and operated stores, similar to what some states do with alcohol in the south? "
No, that's not what I mean. I merely meant laws that say "you can do this" and "you can't do that". BTW, I've never heard of southern states doing that, and I've lived in Georgia all my life, could you give me an example of one? Georgia does however have a law concerning alcohol(and it's a stupid one based on religion if you ask me), the law says stores can't sell liquor and restaraunts can't serve it till 12:30PM on Sundays.
"If it is legal to produce and distribute drugs, how long will it be before companies add narcotics to their products in order to take advantage of their addictive properties? It may not be as simple of choice as buying a bag of cocaine or buying a joint. It could be decided to buy the “regular” or the “special” brownies."
I seriously doubt that would happen. We know how addictive nicotine is, however I only see tobacco companies use it(since nicotine is in tobacco). I'm unsure if there's a law prohibiting certain types of companies from putting nicotine in their products, but if there isn't I'm sure a law would be made as soon as one did. Also companies would be scared to do this because once found out their customer base will be disgusted with them, and who knows how many lawsuits they'll have to deal with. Also, any products like that would probably have to be kept behind the counter with the rest of the drugs.
As to consumers not knowing how addictive drugs are: This is why I support drug education programs. These have proven effective in reducing drug use. Realistically explaining the effects and addictiveness of drugs should help consumers make the choice.
"One thought I do have on your arguments that does appeal to me is the idea of limiting federal laws against drugs in favor of state laws."
I am somewhat in favor of this as well. Really I'm in favor of more programs being state based because states that want more programs can have them without imposing taxes via lobbying the federal government on states that don't. This too has it's problems though. In Georgia, it's illegal to buy and set off fireworks without a permit(and you have to be hosting a big event to do so), but around New Years and 4th of July, thousands of families go to the borders of Alabama, Tennesee, and Florida to purchase fireworks, and they go home and set them off. The same would probably be done with drugs. Not saying the idea of state control has no merit, but it does have it's problems. Once again something we'd have to analyze for cost and benefit.
An example of a state that has state run only liquor stores would be Oklahoma; where I lived for years. Other stores can sell beer, but nothing else. I don't know what other states have similar rules, but have chatted with other people who mentioned similar policies in other southern states. Perhaps I assumed it was more common than it is.
As for Nicotine not being added to foods, it is only not added because it has been blocked by the FDA. The FDA is unable to block nicotine distribution in cigarettes because the US Supreme Court has ruled that tobacco is out of the jurisdiction of the FDA. Companies do, however, still attempt to add nicotine to products (often marketed to help smokers quite). One even attempted to sell nicotine lollipops (http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.120/healthissue_detail.asp). There was another company, which attempted to sell water with Nicotine in it called Nicowater. The FDA blocked that as well. So far that has worked with nicotine, because our laws are simply bizarre concerning it. Essentially the FDA is allowed to prevent companies from exploiting nicotine addiction in any product except tobacco products. I'm not sure how that would work if you made drugs legal.
"Realistically explaining the effects and addictiveness of drugs should help consumers make the choice."
What happens when someone decides to sue to government for not properly educating them enough on the dangers of addiction? What happens when the corporations selling drugs manage to outspend the government in "education" to downplay the dangers?
As to state enforcement of drug laws (in the absence of federal enforcement) certainly states that banned drugs will still deal with a black market in drugs. They might have to raise taxes to increase funding for their drug enforcement programs, which would be the cost to the society of living without drugs. If they attempted to retain the same laws that exists now, but in a state form they would have the same problems we have as a nation. If they change them, they will end up with different problems.
I would be completely against any federal laws or regulations that forced states to make drugs legal.
"What happens when someone decides to sue to government for not properly educating them enough on the dangers of addiction? What happens when the corporations selling drugs manage to outspend the government in "education" to downplay the dangers?"
Well, depending upon the availability of government education(the aforementioned warning labels would count towards that, though it would be difficult to make a detailed explanation with one I would admit) would be considered by the court taking the case. Also, most drug education programs happen in schools, so eventually everyone who went to school(which is pretty much is everyone) would experience the programs. Also, since what's viewed in public schools is usually approved by a government agency of some sort, such as a school board, so no false or twisted versions would be allowed in. Corporations attempting to outspend governement on "education" will likely fall short - doing so would cost a lot of money and likely be drowned out by government, medical organizations, and organizations such as the anti-tobacco "Truth".
Also, I don't see why the FDA can't intervene in the case of things other than nicotine. Just treat THC, LSD, ect. the same as nicotine, and things should be fine.
"The FDA is unable to block nicotine distribution in cigarettes because the US Supreme Court has ruled that tobacco is out of the jurisdiction of the FDA."
The reason for this is that cigarettes are neither a food nor a drug(medical kind). If a company tried to put a drug additive in a food(such as lolipops or water) it would be in their jurisdiction to block it. I would guess cigarettes would probably be categorized as an entertainment product of some sort, as would most drugs.
Here are some additional downsides to the War on Drugs, and what would be better in each case under some form of legalization.
Over $100 billion of Federal/State/Local spending each year on the Drug War could be reduced or redirected to violent crime enforcement, more trials and fewer semi-coercive plea bargains (aka 'more justice')
More equitable sentencing with the phase out of Mandatory Minimums
Far less corruption and increased property rights with the end of Asset Forfeiture
Decreased brutalization of prisoners AND their guards as overcrowding ended
Higher quality and job satisfaction at all levels of law enforcement as they will no longer be at war with a large minority of their citizens
Anywhere from $300 billion to $2 trillion annually (depending on who's numbers you use, and what drugs you legalize) stays in the legal tax base instead of the black market
You're sending those profits to American pharmas and farmers instead of to foreign terrorists, murderous criminals and despotic thugs
You will increase the respect for authority among the young, as we will no longer as a society be lying to them, as is done in anti-Drug propaganda equating pot use as being just as bad as all other drugs. Nearly all teenagers find out this is patently false, and discount any and all adult guidance on drugs, as it's dishonest propaganda. Pot use or Schedule 4/5 opiates or stimulants is NOT the same as using crack, meth, or PCP, so let's quit lying to our kids and get their respect back.
Removing the requirement for a prescription for currently approved Sched. II-V drugs (the legal 'dual use' one's that are also recreational) and theraputic drugs will restore the consultative role of the pharmacist, and leave doctors with more time for everything else, and unclog their offices. It will also greatly benefit the poor, you will be able to obtain treatment much cheaper and quicker for more maladies (as will everyone else).
Sched. I drugs are trickier. Pot would be very easily legalizable under the same regime as tobacco. No same person would legalize PCP. There are stonger Sched II synthetics than heroin, and they come in patchs; casual experimenters will be steerable by pharmacists to those in any event, if legalization is done via true, old-school OTC (literal Over-The-Counter, where you have to ask the pharmacist for it, who can be as stern as he sees fit).
Cocaine is the tricky monster of the whole bunch. It's Sched II already due to it's un-equalled properties as a local anesthetic. It's where most of the foreign exchange that's lost goes. It's not able to be administered as a pill, and patchs are only good for application of it as a local, hence it's harder to make safe, legal packaging. Controlled-does liquid inhalers would be the best bet in jurisdictions that would choose to allow it OTC.
Oh, did I mention that any legalization scheme I can fathom would include local choice over what level and type of drugs would be allowed, and where and how they could be sold, just like everyone did after Alcohol Prohibition ended?
Do something like allocate 1/4 of the taxes on legalized drugs to education and treatment, 1/4 to medicare, 1/4 to the general budget, and 1/4 to homeland defense.
Speaking of homeland defense, you can re-deploy a lot of those now superfluous prison guards to guarding critical infrastructure and the borders; that should keep the unions happy.
Judges will be less over worked, DA's will get to spend time on genuine bad guys, and the defense bar can get back some of it's self respect.
You might as well legalize Magic Mushrooms, as several dozen species grow on every continent. Hunters of culinary mushrooms already take their life into their own hands anyway. Why is risking one's life ok, but not one's mind? And maybe god (or darwin :-) made them for a reason.
LSD has no known toxic, let alone fatal, dosage, and was formerly approved as safe by the FDA. It and other 'formerly legal' Sched I psychedelics/exotics should be sold in rather more expensive, single dose packaging.
Just like liquor is more per amount than wine, which is more than beer, use price signalling as a guide to strength, and the concominant care required. Consumers are already used to this practice, and understand it's function.
Pharmas that already manufacture what would be legal recreationals will be able to under-write additional research into, and lower the prices of, theraputic drugs. This will benefit seniors perhaps most of all.
Legal pot will be a godsend to all those with cancer, AIDS, anorexia, and glaucoma at the least, and will facilitate additional research into the specific active compounds in regard to each ailment it helps.
Laws against driving under the influence of drugs are already nearly uniformly identical to driving under the influence of alcohol. Tax funds from legalization could also help fund road-side testing technology for additional drugs.
Increased revenues to agriculture should enable us to phase out many if not most ag subsidies, helping 3rd world food growers with increased business and American consumers with cheaper food.
The tobacco companies could be brought onboard, as they already have the manufacturing gear and distribution network for something like pot. They were all ready to go during the Carter administration when pot almost got legalized.
The alcohol industry is the one big loser. Just about everyone else can be benefited in one way or another with a sane legalization regime.
Alcohol has the most deadly withdrawl symptoms; heroin and even barbituates are almost NEVER fatal, while alcohol withdrawl often can be.
Screw the booze companies, damn near everything that's prohibited now is medically less harmful than hard liquor.
"As for Nicotine not being added to foods, it is only not added because it has been blocked by the FDA. The FDA is unable to block nicotine distribution in cigarettes because the US Supreme Court has ruled that tobacco is out of the jurisdiction of the FDA. Companies do, however, still attempt to add nicotine to products (often marketed to help smokers quite)."
And this is a bad thing? Why the hell shouldn't smokers be allowed to feed their nicotine cravings with products that don't give them lung cancer?
"One even attempted to sell nicotine lollipops (http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.120/healthissue_detail.asp). There was another company, which attempted to sell water with Nicotine in it called Nicowater. The FDA blocked that as well."
Gee thanks. Bastards.
"So far that has worked with nicotine, because our laws are simply bizarre concerning it. Essentially the FDA is allowed to prevent companies from exploiting nicotine addiction in any product except tobacco products. I'm not sure how that would work if you made drugs legal."
How does it need to work? You want recreational pharmaceuticals, you buy something that has them. You don't want them, you buy things that don't have them. Do you seriously believe that people would get away with putting mind-altering chemicals in innocuous looking food and drink without telling anyone?
"Now, I would be completely for making possession of marijuana legal, however, I am still uncomfortable with allowing legal distribution. That stems from the fact that the government would be allowing the profit of an addictive product."
The government doesn't allow or disallow profit from addictive products. What the government does is determine whether that profit will be made by corporations that settle their differences in court and are generally accountable for product liability issues, or whether that profit will be made by vicious thugs that have no way to settle their differences other than violently and no compunction about committing major felonies.
I'd much rather see that profit made by soulless corporations, myself.