All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 23, 2005 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
37:03
26 The Drug Wars Part 1

What is the real purpose of the drug wars? - Part 1 (If you think the State doesn't like drug users, you might be surprised)

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, good morning everybody.
It is the 23rd of December.
It's 16 in the morning.
I know it's crushingly early time for me to be actually going to work, but I sort of woke up early, so here I am off on the road.
So I was sort of listening to one of my podcasts last night as I was dozing off.
And I realized that, of course, I have some overused phrases, which I will attempt to scrub from my vocabulary.
Among them, are, you know, I mean, er, um, and in other words, and you know, just so I can sort of restate the same thing about 15 different ways, So, I will do my best to sort of mix that up a little, alter it around a little, and what I'd like to talk about this morning is drugs.
Actually, I promise I won't do any more hippie voices, although it wasn't too bad.
It wasn't too bad an imitation, but, you know, I was sort of...
The acting talent of a Cheech and Chong extra.
So, what I'd like to talk about this morning is drugs.
Hard drugs, illicit drugs.
The drugs that make you happy.
The pills that bring you up.
The pills that bring you down.
The pills that make Alice feel like she's ten feet tall.
And the reason that, of course, it's interesting to talk about drugs is it is such a fascinating study in the exercise of power.
The reason I'm speaking a little more slowly this morning is I had trouble following my own language yesterday because it's like watching sort of Alvin the Chipmunk on speed or listening to Alvin the Chipmunk on speed sometimes and you know if I'm having trouble following my own thoughts because I'm speaking so rapidly I'm sure that I'm not alone.
I do a lot of software demos as part of my job, and it has been mentioned, I guess you could say, that I have been known to speak a little too quickly.
So, we'll also try and figure that one out.
So, drugs is a fascinating topic in my mind, because It brings to light a large number of the power structures and power issues that are used by the modern state to control the population.
First and foremost, drugs is the result of us being pretty horrendous busybodies.
I mean, I don't know about you, maybe I'm just sort of missing something in my nature or in my life, but I really can't quite rouse myself to care if somebody is taking drugs.
I mean, I guess I would sort of look at somebody who got stoned every day and say, well, that's not really a great way to Spend this precious resource we call life, but, you know, sort of fundamentally, I just, I don't care enough to pass laws and follow them around and lecture them and, I mean, it just seems kind of like being a busybody.
You know, I don't like some people's taste in music.
I don't think that people should be overweight.
I think people should exercise.
I think people should, you know, do all these great things that I do.
But I really don't care.
Whether they do or not.
Because it's their life.
And I have my own life to live.
And I'm fairly busy.
I'm sure most of you are too.
And I just really... It strikes me as very strange that somebody would get so...
Get their knickers in a twist so much about what somebody else is doing in the privacy of their own home, you know?
It's like the people who rail against masturbation, or used to.
I mean, I know that's not so much in vogue anymore, but, you know, go back a couple of decades and it sure as heck was, or go to where the Catholic Church is teaching in Africa.
It's like the people who rail against masturbation.
It's a perfectly innocent physical activity and perfectly actually beneficial.
And I just I find it so strange that people would get so hopped up on other people's lives.
I mean, look, don't get me wrong.
I mean, I'm as keen on gossip as your next door neighbor.
But, you know, for me, gossip is sort of a low rent morality tale, right?
I mean, like Nick and Jessica, Simpson breaking up.
I mean, it would be a little tough to bear for me if you could be, like, talented, rich, famous, and beautiful, and, you know, that's all you needed to be happy.
That would be a bit of a blow to us sort of geeky philosophers who don't have those things.
So, you know, it's sort of I guess it's some sort of comfort that you know that that being famous rich beautiful and talented is not enough to make you happy because if it were then I'd sort of be wasting my time and I would say well you know develop your talents get plastic surgery and you know good luck to you that's the only chance for happiness.
So there's a certain amount of gossip that I enjoy but just getting really worked up about the minutiae of other people's lives I just think is it's just strange.
Now it's not Entirely unexpected that something like the welfare state would turn us into busybodies, right?
Because I don't resent anybody who lives in their parents' basements and You know, smokes, drugs, because, you know, life's too short, right?
You can't get involved in sort of fixing everybody's problems and, you know, you really can't fix people's problems anyway, so it's sort of, you know, pointless.
You can give them some general principles and then if they're interested they can, you know, fix themselves and I'm, you know, more than happy to give advice to people who are sort of struggling to better themselves as I myself have benefited from advice as I continually struggle to better myself.
Actually, I shouldn't say I struggle.
It's kind of fun, actually.
I'll sort of hop down off this little self-improvement cross.
So, I would say that I don't care about these people.
I mean, I wish they would do better, and if they want sort of advice on how to kick the habit... I mean, not that I know, because I've really never done any drugs in my life, but...
You know, I'd sort of say, well, you know, talk to Narcotics Anonymous or, you know, get on the web and get some resources.
I mean, I'd certainly be happy to spend, you know, 20 minutes sort of talking to them about the joys of seeing life through clear eyes.
But, you know, I'm not going to sort of dig in and stage an intervention every morning because I'm sort of busy.
And, you know, in my view, you know, virtue or, you know, a productive life should not be enslaved to everybody who's made a bad decision.
So I'm not going to sit there and Follow around people who are overweight and nag them to stop eating and I'm not going to nag smokers to stop smoking and I'm not going to nag the inerts to start exercising.
You know, life's short and I'm not going to spend my life running after people who make decisions, even if those decisions are objectively bad in the long run.
Obesity is not good for you in the long run.
You know, these people do get the short-run pleasures of, you know, chips and chocolate and cake and cookies, the four C's that have been my bedevilment low these many years.
And so I'm not going to argue which pleasure they should weigh.
I mean, maybe for a smoker, you know, like only one out of six smokers dies of smoking-related illnesses.
It shaves an average of a couple of years off your life.
Well, maybe that's perfectly valid.
You know, maybe a smoker has a family history of Alzheimer's and nicotine is one of the things that helps with that.
Or just maybe they're a sort of live fast and, you know, live fast and loose and die young kind of guy who just doesn't really relish the idea of saving his lungs to wheeze around in an old age home.
I mean, I'm not going to make that kind of decision for someone.
It would be ridiculous.
And so, you know, the welfare state has turned that all around, though, insofar as, you know, somebody who is inert and a drug smoker or whatever is... Oh, that's another term I need to get rid of.
Or whatever.
Work on that one, I promise you.
But now they can be taking my tax money.
And that is a very different matter, sort of psychologically.
Charities have to get involved in people's lives, and so government charities force everyone to start watching everybody else, you know, and so somebody who is living an unproductive life, where formerly they would be sponging off the voluntary, like parents, friends or whatever, Or they would be, you know, just sort of doing some low-rent job that gave them enough weed to keep them satisfied.
You know, sort of passing their life in a vaguely beatific haze and, you know, more power to them.
You know, Pink Floyd sounds great on headphones and, you know, maybe that's how you want to while away your life.
But now that's different because now they're hanging off my neck and now they're taking my money.
And so I have a sort of different opinion about those habits.
Now, of course, as a libertarian, I don't care about those habits.
I care about the transfer of income, but that's not the case for most people.
Most people, when they hear about somebody wasting their life, they sort of feel the clammy hands of the state groping around in their pockets, and not in the way we like.
So that's something that has changed quite a bit, and I don't think it's any accident that after the introduction of the welfare state, relatively quickly, you got the introduction of anti-drug legislation.
Now, the story that is generally told about drugs is that we want people to stop taking drugs, or we want drug use to be lessened or minimized or eliminated, and therefore we need these $100 billion budgets, and therefore we need these $100 billion budgets, and we need these amazing search seizures, seizures.
Seizures.
Search and seize warrants.
And we need eminent domain and we need to snatch any piece of property that may have been even remotely or inadvertently involved in drug smuggling.
And it's all because we want to lessen the use of drugs.
You know, which is a perfectly, you know, plausible theory to put forward.
But, you know, like all plausible theories, you simply have to look at the facts.
I mean, I've never had any luck, and I doubt anybody in the history of the world ever has.
You can't argue opinion.
You just can't argue opinion.
You know, is Britney Spears a good or a bad singer?
Well, it depends whether you like her music, her style, her songs.
There's no objective test for a better or a worse singer, you know, except in the outtakes of American Idol.
It's, you know, at the recording level, it's a matter of style.
You know, Bob Dylan, good or bad?
Well, you know, for a sort of folksy kind of pseudo-philosopher, he's, you know, he's got the right kind of voice.
So, I would say that opinions are useless to argue, which is, of course, why the Middle East is the way it is, and why, when religions come into conflict, they tend to explode.
And so, not being able to argue opinions is pretty important.
So, when people say that, you know, the drug war is good because, you know, we don't want people to smoke drugs, then, you know, you say, well, that is an opinion, right?
I mean, you recognize that that is an opinion and you don't know if it's true or false unless you bear it out with the facts.
Now, the facts are as follows, and I'll sort of just go over a few of them, just so that, you know, we get a sense of how we can evaluate these sort of opinions, like, you know, the DEA is around to minimize drug use.
Well, you know, sort of fact exhibit A is that, you know, in 1950s, early 1950s London, for instance, you could buy three hits of heroin for 25 pence, which I guess back then would have been about 60 or 70 cents.
Three hits of heroin from a drugstore for about 25 pence.
And I think there were about 100 or 200 drug addicts in London.
And I'll sort of get into the economics of it in a moment.
But, you know, in 1980 or 1975, when, you know, a single hit of heroin cost 50 pounds, you know, there were 20,000 Drug addicts, heroin addicts in London.
So, of course, the intervening time is when the anti-heroin laws were enacted.
So, it would be a little tough to make the case that the purpose of the drug laws was to reduce or eliminate drug use when, you know, in fact And that's fairly important.
In fact, not in propaganda, not in fiction, not in opinion, not in what the DEA tells us, not in what I would like to happen, not on how I think the government should work, but in fact, drug use goes up enormously after drugs are made illegal.
Now, this of course would seem a little counterintuitive.
I mean, but a lot of the great truths in human life are counterintuitive.
As I've mentioned in another podcast, the world looks flat but it's round, right?
The sun looks like it's moving but it's not.
You know, the moon and the sun look the same size, but they're not!
So, you know, don't worry about if something is counterintuitive.
If it's logically provable and consistent with experimentation, then, you know, sorry about your opinions, but they really have to go because we really should try and believe the truth and not just sort of believe what people tell us or make up stuff for our own comfort or avoid the truth because it might make us It might put us into a situation where we have to make a difficult choice or two, but, you know, if you want to be happy, you have to accept the truth.
For a variety of reasons, which could be another podcast, perhaps.
But, you know, the fact is that, you know, much like prohibition, that not only does the use of drugs increase enormously rapidly, When you have anti-drug legislation in place, but the harmful effects of drugs and drug use and drug trafficking go up.
I mean, not even exponentially, because they simply don't exist before.
You know, when a reputable drug company could make heroin and sell it in a drugstore, there were no gangs.
You know, there are no Prozac gangs brewing Prozac in their basements and, you know, charging 50 bucks a pop, you know, for some mellow feelings.
And so to me it seems, you know, obvious, and not even just to me, but just in fact it is obvious that not only does drug use increase enormously when drugs are made illegal, but the harmful effects of drug use, drug trafficking, drug growing, drug distribution, drug Well, sorry, it's a net negative, but that doesn't mean there aren't any positives.
It's a net negative.
I think we can be fairly safe in saying that by any standard.
Well, sorry, it's a net negative, but that doesn't mean there aren't any positives.
For bullies who are drawn to law enforcement, there's an enormous positive.
If I think that it's bad for my neighbor to use drugs, I can't smash down his door with a battering ram, you know, scare the living crap out of him.
And force him to, you know, kneel in front of a toilet and tie his hands behind his back and go through his house and steal his possessions.
But, you know, there's lots of people who really get off on that kind of stuff.
You know, people who've been raised by brutal parents who are sadists or who are, you know, bullies.
They really enjoy having that kind of power.
They love having people cower before them.
They love the stammering and the nervousness.
It gives them a sort of Thrill of primordial ape-like dominant power.
And, you know, it's completely evil.
But, you know, we really do have to deal with the facts of reality that, you know, police states are never short of people to do their bidding.
I mean, I don't remember a time when, you know, they said, we need, you know, people to work for the CIA, but the problem is that nobody's showing up.
I mean, even when they're even only about 10% off their recruitment goals for Iraq, when the country doesn't like the war, you've got a good chance of getting maimed or killed.
I mean, forget about the 2200 people who've been killed by insurgents, but, you know, instead focus on the, you know, 30,000 people who've been maimed or killed in just the general accidents of being in the military and in this sort of sphere of action.
So, people are always willing to bully others.
It is a fact.
And even if you don't have a very strong predilection to bullying people.
Once you join the army, and once you join the police, and you become a drug enforcer, and you work undercover, and you're in constant threat of danger, and you see people lie, and kill, and cheat, and steal every day, then you will very quickly become the kind of person who will bully, and harass, and intimidate.
It just changes you.
To be in that kind of situation, you know, where you are lying to people and being lied to and, you know, attempting to catch them in something that if you do catch them in, they're, you know, gonna be... go to prison or get shot.
I mean, it's a pretty, you know, kill-or-be-killed environment and that tends to bring out the bully in people pretty quickly.
So, there are people who gain because not only do they get to bully people, but they're paid for it.
And they get benefits, and they get a uniform, and they get respect, and they get a pension, and they can work overtime and make a fortune, you know, it's sort of rent-a-cop scenarios.
So, you know, on the whole, it is a net negative for society, right?
You have this gulag of harmless people thrown in jail, and you have hundreds of billions of dollars taken from taxpayers at the point of a gun, You know, the brutalization of an entire section of the population.
But, on the plus side, you know, bullies get to not only bully legally, but get paid.
And not only do they get to bully legally, they are the law.
So if they over-bully, the odds of them going to jail are almost non-existent.
I mean, if you're a cop, you can shoot a suspect in the back, and the odds of you going to jail are minuscule.
You might get a fine.
You might get suspended without pay.
You wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
But, I mean, the odds of you going to jail for a murder that would put anybody else away for life are almost non-existent.
So, you know, you get to bully, and you're above the law, and you get paid, and you get benefits, and respect, and a uniform, and friends.
I mean, it's a fantastic benefit for, you know, bullies.
And it's a fantastic benefit, of course, for the state, because the state has yet another ogre which it can shake at us to force us to turn out our pockets.
And it also is exactly what the government wants.
It is exactly what the government wants, insofar as it is a situation where increases in power require increases in power.
And that is the sweet, delicious caramel center of government growth.
If you can figure out a situation where, as you start to bully people, you will require that you bully more people, which in turn will require that you bully more people, then that's wonderful!
And, you know, much like a war, in the drug war, it's very important to focus on the real purpose of the drug war.
And the real purpose of the drug war isn't something that I'm going to make up for you, and it isn't something that you can make up for me.
It's simply to look at the facts.
You know, it is a social experiment.
We can look at the results.
It's been cooking around for, you know, 30, 40 years.
And we can see the results.
And so, you know, when you're trying to figure out the purpose of the system, you look at what continually happens.
And so, it's very clear that, you know, the drug laws have nothing to do with limiting drug use at all.
And it has everything to do with the increase in state power.
Now, the increase in state power is not primarily against the drug users.
And, you know, this is, again, this is just a simple logical fact.
This is not something that I'm sort of making up out of some sort of partisan or ideological bias.
I'm just looking at the facts.
Now, the fact is that there is no profit in locking people up.
There is no profit whatsoever in locking people up.
You know, if I need to get some additional income, I'm going to take a second job.
I'm not going to grab some stoner off the street and lock him in my basement.
Because that is a net negative to me.
That is a net loss to me.
I've got to feed the guy.
I've got to heat the basement.
I've got to keep an eye on him.
What a nightmare!
I mean, that's a terrible thing to do, even outside of the morality of it.
Just practically, it's just a nightmare.
So, people do not maximize their returns by putting people in jail.
However, the more people that they can pass laws against, the more people that they can, you know, have the need to arrest or the right to arrest, and the more that they can scare the general population, why, then, the more they can tax.
And that is the one thing that you see continually in any government prohibition against desired but harmless substances.
And harmless, I mean harmless to others.
That situation is one in which the government will always, always, always tax more.
And so...
There's simply no possibility that the government is actually interested in lowering drug use.
Because if they were actually interested in lowering drug use, then they would experiment with a variety of programs and a variety of laws and non-laws to figure out, you know, what is the best way to minimize drug use.
And they would also Make sure that they track the economics of the thing and they would make sure that they were as unobtrusive as possible and they would not just continually keep expanding their money, budgets, power and laws to sort of take more out of the general population.
Because the one thing that is constant is more and more money gets stolen from you and I In the course of the drug war, and if you sort of count the debts, it's absolutely that much higher.
So, the drug war is a great way to get money out of the taxpayers, right?
Like any war overseas, the primary enemy, the primary opponent, the primary person being threatened, is never the Iraqis.
It's never the poor.
It's never drug users.
It's never terrorists.
You know, the enemy of all government programs, the person that they are actually pointing their guns at, is the taxpayer.
Because the one thing that always happens with government programs is that regardless of what effect that they have, and they always have negative effects to the general population, regardless of the effect, they continually expand.
And that's pretty important.
The purpose of the system is what it continually does.
And what government programs, the drug laws sort of as an example, what government programs always do is they expand.
And they expand because by expanding they can take more money from the general population.
And there is a thrill, I guess you could say, for a lot of people, excuse me, There is a thrill for a lot of people in controlling and bullying others, and that's their thing.
However, if it's not profitable, if you can't make a living at it, if you can't be above the law by doing it, then it's really not something that people have, other than as a hobby.
Then they will, you know, they'll bully their own kids, or they'll bully their employees, none of which I consider to be moral, but, you know, at least they're not throwing two million people in jail.
Which I think is the current population of the US.
Now, of course, they're not all drug users, but to me a lot of them are.
So, it's not just the sadism that is the primary driver, because government programs do not expand in sadism in the absence of increased funding.
And so, the one thing that is always constant is that the funds and the powers increase.
And the powers always increase against the innocent.
The powers don't increase.
Like, the power of the state does not increase against the guilty.
And the reason that I say that is, I mean, of course, yes, they have sort of minimum mandatory sentences and this and that, but the mandatory sentences for drug users are simply there to ensure that more money can get extracted from the taxpayers.
The minimum mandatory sentences for drug users Have nothing to do with any hostility towards the drug users, or any desire to lower the prevalence of drug use.
I mean, that's, again, that's not something I'm making up.
That's just a simple fact.
Because, you know, the simple fact is that increased sentences do not lower drug use.
They do not cause people to use drugs less.
And so, minimum sentences and prison terms and so on, all of these things have been tried for the last 30 or 40 years.
You know, they do absolutely nothing to lower drug use.
And so, you know, obviously their purpose is not to lower drug use, and it's not because they hate the drug users and so on.
I mean, they might tell themselves that they do, and they're doing some righteous, noble, good thing by stuffing some skinny stoner into jail for 20 years.
But it really has nothing to do with that.
Because, you know, although they claim that that's their intention, that's not what this thing actually achieves.
And if somebody says, I want to do X, and what they do produces the opposite of X, and then they continue to do more of it, then obviously X is not their goal.
I mean, that's just a logical fact, right?
If I say that I want to lose weight, and I'm desperate to lose weight, and I will do anything to lose weight, And I, you know, eat nothing but fudge brownies and don't exercise, and I gain weight, and then I continue to eat fudge brownies and don't exercise, and continue to gain weight.
It's fairly clear for me, sorry, it's fairly clear that what I say I want is not what I want, right?
So, because, you know, we know what people want by what they do.
You know, actions speak louder than words.
You judge a person by what he or she does.
And so, you know, there's no hostility towards the drug users or a desire for drug use to go down because, you know, what they're doing is causing drug use to go up.
And so there must be some other goal that they have with these sort of minimum sentences and, you know, with this expansion of drug powers and sort of asset forfeiture and so on.
And, you know, the purpose of that, of course, is to increase legal power.
Now, of course, an increase in legal power in and of itself is not a benefit because, you know, I can sort of say that I've increased my legal power.
It doesn't really mean anything.
You know, what does mean something is cash in the bank.
I mean, and that really is sort of the fundamental goal of government programs is income transfer.
Now, there's two forms to this.
I mean, we can talk about this a little bit more this afternoon.
I'm fairly close to work now, so I probably can't sort of start and finish the whole topic.
But there are two forms of income transfer.
One is the income transfer to the state.
So this is the salaries for the drug enforcement agents, and the salaries for the prison guards, and the judges, and the clerks, and the politicians, and the people who manage the government finances.
They get the magic numbers in the bank account through taxation and budgeting.
And that is sort of the one area where in the uh... the economy is is altered in the sort of fundamental purpose of government programs is the transfer of wealth in the violent transfer of wealth the second and this is you know more true in democracies than in other forms of systems is there is sort of the leftovers of that the sort of pittances that are left over after the massive transfer of wealth to individuals within the government and to uh... to salaried employees within the government the second
A form of income transfer is from the taxpayer to the government and then to an underclass of some kind.
And, you know, for instance, in the welfare state you have, you know, these sort of pitiful sums that people are expected to live on.
I think in Toronto it's like $800 or $700 a month.
You know, which is just ridiculously little to live on, and that's sort of 50 or 60 percent taxation.
That's all that's left to stave off starvation for those who are supposedly in need.
And of course, it's far below the poverty line that the government says is a bad thing.
But of course, the reason that this money is given out to the general population is in order to buy their votes.
And in my view, and I don't have any proof of this, but it's logical.
In my view, the reason that this money is given to the poor is not so that the politicians will stay in power, but so that the class of people who is stealing the money and redistributing it will stay in power.
In other words, the bureaucrats.
Politicians come and go, but if you are a sort of Mandarin for Welfare Canada.
Health and Welfare Canada.
It's your job that you want to maintain.
And you're going to need to maintain it for like 40 years.
And it's your job that gives you an income and a career and power and, you know, although it really is the income that is at the bottom of all of this stuff.
And so, the reason that this money is given out, and the reason that it's continued to be given out, is to maintain the class of parasites that lives off government funding, that lives off the money that is stolen from the taxpayers.
And so they have to redistribute the income so that people will vote for politicians, of course.
But the reason that people will vote for politicians is in order to keep this money flowing.
And it's the infrastructure that's behind the politicians that keeps the money flowing.
You know, from the police threatening the taxpayers, You know, to the people who control the money, to the sort of this infrastructure that is behind the politicians.
And the politicians in front of the infrastructure is the sort of the puppet show.
What they do is they say to the population, well, what do you want?
You know, I'd love to give you what you want because I'm a politician.
And the population, at least those who are the underclass who are being funded by the taxpayers' money, Say, well, by golly, we want welfare, we want benefits, we want free dental, we want, you know, all the goodies that the imagination can muster.
And so they say, oh, okay, well, that's great, then I'll make sure you get those things.
And so it's, of course, it's not the politicians who provide these things.
And it's not even the politicians who come up with people's desire for these things.
It is the addiction to your sort of blood money that this underclass is dependent on.
And that comes through the police and through the bureaucracies.
And those are the things which are more permanent.
And that's the main reason why the money flows to these people, so that those sort of hidden infrastructures remain constant, right?
I mean, there's an old anarchist saying that it says, you know, if you notice that no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
And I think what's meant by that is that there's this big infrastructure that's way, way behind the politicians, which You know, it's a little harder to see because, you know, we don't interact with it.
It's not in the papers.
It's usually not very photogenic, if you've ever been to a government office, and I've been to many.
You know, those are the people whose income and whose livelihoods and whose families and whose mortgages depend on this sort of bloody transfer of wealth from the productive to, you know, those who are dependent on government power.
And, you know, many of them are perfectly nice people.
They just don't tend to examine the source of their income particularly closely.
And so that is the real purpose behind government programs.
But, you know, to talk about the drug war in particular, those are the real reasons behind it.
I mean, that's the real reason.
It is the forcible transfer of wealth.
And that is the major motivator for, you know, all human power is about the transfer of wealth.
I mean, something you can't eat, prestige, and, you know, you can't sleep on sadism, but, you know, everybody needs food and a roof over their head.
And the way that they get that is to, you know, create fear in the general population, of course, and to ensure that there is a fight on wherein the application of force results in the additional requirement for the application of force, right?
this escalation of violence that occurs when you try to control people who are not immoral.
This is a natural progression, which is why all societies self-destruct on this sort of altar of endless taxation and state power.
And so that is sort of the real underpinnings of the war on drugs.
And that's why it's pretty important, I think, just to fight it at that level.
You know, you use the argument for morality, which we could talk about this afternoon.
But, you know, you really first need to understand the power structure, and to understand the principle that whatever a system does, and continues to do, and continues to grow in, is the real purpose of that system.
And it's important not to listen to, you know, all of the nonsense that sort of claims to justify that system.
So well, thanks very much.
I've actually been in my parking lot of work for a couple of minutes because I wanted to finish this topic up.
But I'm off for an exciting day of R&D coding and I guess closing my big deal.
So thanks very much for listening.
And this afternoon, I'd like to chat about the economics that go on in the in the world of drug distribution, because that's a good reason as to why it's a good reason or a good way to understand why Drug use expands when it's controlled.
▲
Export Selection