Girl Scouts, Drugs, and Cookie Money
There was a feel-good story making the rounds last week in which a man, seeing Girl Scouts selling cookies in the cold, bought out their entire stock, all $540 worth, so the girls wouldn’t have to stand outside anymore. The sweet human-interest story went viral, complete with photo of the generous man and the smiling Girl Scouts. But it’s a complicated world we live in, and as happens all too often these days, the story took a turn for the negative. The benevolent cookie buyer, Detric Lee McGowan, turned out to be an alleged drug dealer. He was arrested a few days after the cookie incident and charged in a federal indictment with “conspiracy to import and possess with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine and fentanyl.”
So, did the money he spent on the cookies come from his illicit drug dealing enterprise? It is quite likely. As we have seen lately in the news, the feds do enjoy confiscating the ill-gotten gains (and even the non-ill-gotten gains) of criminal defendants. And while reports say that authorities seized “cash and other assets” from McGowan at the time of his arrest, there is no word yet on whether the government is coming for the cookie money. It does raise an interesting moral question: should the Girl Scouts keep the money, knowing its likely origins?
Of course they should. If the feds can confiscate “drug money” which ostensibly then goes into public coffers (and is quite often used on a local level to purchase equipment for law enforcement), why shouldn’t it go to a worthy program like the Girl Scouts? It is at least as worthy as that new push-bar they want to put on the front of a new cruiser. And drug dealers are just people, who spend their money at the grocery store and Target and all the same places we all do. None of these establishments rush to return their profits if they find out the money spent there had an illegal origin. Perhaps if McGowan had robbed a bank to get that money, a stronger argument could be made that the cash needs to be returned to its rightful owner. But in this case, I would argue that there is no other “rightful owner”. For their part, the Girl Scouts say they will cooperate with authorities however they must. (I will avoid the obvious joke about the addictive nature of Tag-A-Longs.)
This story seems to be a milkshake duck¹, but that’s because we can’t tolerate imperfection anymore. If something is problematic in any way, then it’s problematic in its entirety. This is the wrong way to evaluate the world around us.
Detric McGowan may be a drug dealer and a criminal. But he is also a man who saw little girls out in the rain and cold and did a kind thing. He could have taken his $500 in drug money and bought a watch, or clothes, or shoes, or other creature comfort. Instead he used it help out some children. Bad people are capable of doing good things; good people are capable of doing bad things. We can argue about which of these categories describe McGowan, but we don’t need to dismiss his act of kindness just because we now know the unsavory details of the man and how he probably earned that money. Had he turned out to be some sort of pervert or child abuser, we could justifiably look upon this story with repulsion or dismay. It would indeed take on a dirty hue, but mostly because of the ick factor of that hypothetical person’s interaction with children.
There are many ways that a person may earn money that are perfectly legal but which many find unseemly. Would it be a story to find out some cookies were bought by an exotic dancer? The owner of a liquor store? The CEO of an opioid manufacturer? A lawyer? While it can certainly be strongly argued that McGowan’s money was earned at the expense and misery of addiction, drug deals, while illegal, are a voluntary business transaction.
And if the government is intent on recovering the spoils of McGowan’s criminal enterprise, well, they can always confiscate the cookies. I doubt even the biggest Thin-Mint fan could eat 120+ boxes in just a few days.
¹A milkshake duck refers to the internet phenomenon in which a feel good story turns out to be problematic, such as when the go-fund-me for a homeless man who helped a young woman who was out of gas turned out to be a colossal scam.)
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
“I doubt even the biggest Thin-Mint fan could eat 120+ boxes in just a few days.”
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
…ummm, anyone got a 120+ boxes of thin mints I could have?…Report
According to the indictment, the guy’s nickname is “Fat,” although he doesn’t look it in the pics.Report
My daughter would be happy to sell them to you!
Side Note – The GSUSA now have online web portals for cookie sales, that come with shipping and delivery.Report
Do the cookies exist to support the Girl Scouts, or do the Girl Scouts exist to sell the cookies?Report
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
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
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
Why bother smuggling? I will testify that Trefoils ARE the drug.Report
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
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