Girl Scouts, Drugs, and Cookie Money

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

11 Responses

  1. veronica d says:

    I don’t think the government can demand a refund from a legitimate transaction. However, I suppose they could confiscate the cookies.

    Just be glad the guy didn’t buy out the stock of a donut shop.Report

  2. Oscar Gordon says:

    “I doubt even the biggest Thin-Mint fan could eat 120+ boxes in just a few days.”


    …ummm, anyone got a 120+ boxes of thin mints I could have?…Report

  3. CJColucci says:

    Do the cookies exist to support the Girl Scouts, or do the Girl Scouts exist to sell the cookies?Report

  4. Maribou says:

    I was all “hey, don’t go lumping lawyers in with opioid CEOs … some of the best people I know are lawyers” and then I realized who wrote this post.

    Nicely played, @Em Carpenter, nicely played.Report

  5. Doctor Jay says:

    I had never heard the phrase “milkshake duck” before now. Apparently, I am not aware of all your internet traditions.

    The Girl Scouts should keep the money. Good Lord. Pecunia non oletReport

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    Considering the recent SCOTUS case regarding assets, I don’t think the government will be coming out after this.

    Though I honestly thought your story was going to be about him using the Girl Scout Cookie boxes to smuggle drugs.Report

  7. dragonfrog says:

    I reckon not only should police not get to keep the money they confiscate, it should be required to go to stuff they (stereotypically) dislike. Funding public defenders comes to mind.

    You can pass all the laws you want limiting how and under what circumstances cops can confiscate money and good without a conviction – but if you let them profit from it, you’re constantly chasing abuses.

    Remove the profit motive, I expect it would fix the problem nicely – it’s still a tool for preventing criminal kingpins from using their ill gotten millions to escape conviction, but only when the police are confident enough on the importance of doing so that they’re willing to make it generally a little harder across the board to convict poor people.Report

  8. Philip H says:

    Why is he a criminal? Because there’s a demand for something he supplies (which is what good capitalistic businessmen do), and because, rather then legalize it and regulate it and treat people for addiction to it (like we do alcohol and tobacco) the good ole’ USA decided to make it illegal at some point. Probably because it was being marketed by a person of color. But I digress . . . .Report