Drug WarRant

Cincinnati is trying to figure out why their homicide rate is up this year.

Police say cutting the supply of illegal drugs may be the cause locally.
The national cocaine supply out of Latin America is dwindling due to tighter border control and stricter laws, police say.
“Our intelligence says there is quite a shortage on crack cocaine right now, and that has the buyers frantic to buy based on their addiction and the sellers know their livelihood is threatened based on supply and demand,” said Lt. Col. James Whalen, Cincinnati’s patrol bureau commander. “When you get involved with buying and selling drugs, unfortunately you run into violence.”

I’m not so sure how much I buy the shortage argument. I think the supply is reduced somewhat (although that’s probably more a result of the tanking of the dollar than laws and border controls, and I suppose there could be some localized pockets that are experiencing a shortage.
If that’s so, then I’m betting it’s not the shortage of one drug per se, but rather the change of status quo in the black market that’s causing a re-organization (which, unlike shifting markets for Pepsi and Coca-Cola, are resolved through guns rather than lawyers and TV ads).
Lt. Col. Whalen is at least right in noting that supply and demand are a factor in drug war violence (and a pleasant surprise it is to hear that). He’s on the right track, but the analysis is incomplete.
Of course, some people are not too happy with Whalen’s notion.

“The way it usually works is the more dope on the street, the more fellas on the street, the more competition for corners on the street, the more gun violence,” said Michael Levine, a former 25-year DEA agent and a police expert on drugs, currently located in High Falls, N.Y.
“So what are we supposed to believe, that we should import crack to Cincinnati to stop violence? We’ll have the Red Cross do a peace mission of crack cocaine drops,” he said.

Funny. But no, Michael. What you do is to legalize and regulate the drug trade to get it out of the hands of the black market’s business model.
But Michael is also right. If there is a glut of drugs on the market, then you have too many people selling them, and there are fights over territory.
Basically, drug war violence can come from any imbalance in the supply and demand chain (or even in a balanced market, from a power play attempt to control the market).
In my neighborhood was a chicken restaurant called “Atlanta’s Wings and a Prayer.” It was open for a very short time and then recently closed. Why? Maybe it was the economy. Maybe people preferred Popeye’s Chicken. Maybe people didn’t like going to that location to get chicken. Maybe their chicken wasn’t that good. But there’s a shift in the market.
Stores open, stores close. Starbucks takes over the world, and then scales back, and Mom and Pop coffee shops open near Starbucks to take advantage of the new interest in quality coffee. Pepsi and Coke shift their emphasis to bottled water while continuing their war against each other.
Sure, people are hurt in the legal market. Business owners lose their fortunes. Some people have to drive further to get chicken. But there are generally no shoot-outs over territory. You don’t have the manager of Starbucks bustin’ a cap at the barista of the Coffee House Bakery over the Cinnamon Dolce Latte market (which is, quite frankly, a lot like crack).
In a legal market, shifts are constantly happening, and some people succeed while others fail, and the lawyers haggle over the complex issues. But it’s largely done without violence.
In the black market, however, violence is the way disputes are handled, regardless of whether there is a shortage or a glut.
The only way to stop that is through legalization and regulation.

Via Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy comes Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic with The McCain Comeback Plan: Taxes, Crime, Associations And Real Reform where he suggests that one of the McCain tactics will be:

2. Obama’s record on crime. “Far outside the mainstream.” Crime record — far outside the mainstram…issues like gang violence and crack/powder retroactivity (which even the Bush admin supports but is not popular)… Are they skating close to the race line here? The McCain camp turns it around: since when is a black candidate given a free pass on these issues?

Doug Berman notes that McCain has an updated page on Fighting Crime, so I checked it out.
Wow! What a content-free page. For example:

John McCain Will Appoint Judges Who Follow The Constitution Rather Than Those Who Engage In Judicial Activism. In doing so, John McCain will provide law enforcement with the certainty and confidence required to make critical decisions knowing that their actions will be judged fairly by the courts in the context of recognized precedent and accepted principles of law.

???
…or this:

John McCain Recognizes That The Men And Women Of Our Law Enforcement Community Serve On The Front Lines Of America’s Struggle Against Crime. The federal government has the responsibility to support state and local law enforcement by handling those responsibilities that federal law enforcement is uniquely qualified to address, by providing the tools and technology that law enforcement need to be effective in the 21st century, and through consistency in the law by appointing federal judges who will follow the Constitution.

Somehow, I don’t see anything on this page that would indicate that McCain is even willing to talk about crime policy, let alone go up against Obama directly on it.
Hey, I’d love to see the discussion, and I hope it happens. But I think I agree with Grits for Breakfast in comments at the Sentencing Law and Policy post:

If all McCain has to attack Obama with are the votes in the linked item, stick a fork in the GOP nominee, he’s done. Crime is declining and that’s just not what the public cares about right now. We’re in “it’s the economy, stupid,” mode. I do think the blogger correctly outlines McCain’s likely attacks, I just don’t think they’ll resonate.

Exactly right. It’s the economy, stupid. If a McCain crime policy attack surfaces, it’ll be merely a passing jab in a series of flailing efforts to change the subject. And it won’t show up in the debate unless the question is asked directly (and even then all we would see is dancing).
…
Note: One bizarre bit in the old piece from The Hill was this reaction by law enforcement to Obama’s votes:

State law enforcement officials who worked with the senator at the time were hesitant to criticize Obama, saying only that while he sometimes voted for ‹individual rightsŠ rather than for facilitating law enforcement, in other areas he was very supportive and was ‹alwaysŠ open to discussion.

Yeah, what a disappointment when a politician goes out and occasionally votes for… individual rights.

Every time I think I’ve heard every low-down, stupid, mean, insane, or evil story that could possibly come out of the drug war, I get another surprise.
I’ve known Mona online for awhile. She’s been a vocal opponent of the drug war — I collaborated with her for Prison & the War on Drugs: Just Say No at Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory a couple of years ago.
Mona’s gone through some very tough times. In a calmer state of mind, and knowing what she already knows intellectually about the drug war, she probably would have taken a different road than I Inanely Took on the Drug War Ö And Lost.
But, my God, aren’t the cops supposed to work… for us? What kind of sick dysfunctional system allows this?

Margret Kopala, The Ottawa Citizen, with her article: How to win the drug war

There has been little mention in this election campaign of the most pernicious evil of our time. Yet recent reports from a UN agency leave little doubt that the war against drugs is being won and that, with full engagement, victory is if not possible, then very nearly possible.

…little doubt that the war against drugs is being won? Now that’s first-class delusion.

The World Drug Report 2008 launched in June by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reveals how opium and cocoa cultivation, whose heroin and cocaine extractions are the scourge of Canada’s inner cities, are now largely confined to rebel-held areas in Aghanistan and Colombia. It also reveals how worldwide deaths from illicit drugs at around 200,000 a year pale in comparison to deaths from legal substances such as cigarettes (five million a year), and alcohol (2.5 million). “The drug problem was dramatically reduced over the past century,” says UNODC executive director Antonio Maria Costa, “and has stabilized over the past 10 years.”
In other words, prohibition works.

Well actually, the reason that most of the heroin and cocaine comes from Afghanistan and Colombia is that we’ve made it very profitable for the black market to operate out of those two locations and that they are able to supply most of the demand in the world despite all the drug war efforts. If we actually cut down the supply enough in one of those areas, it would pop up somewhere else.
And it’s pretty bizarre to assert that the fact that less people die from illegal drugs than legal ones is a result of prohibition.
Then Margret gets real ominous:

We’ve come a long way since then but signs are surfacing that new kinds of vested interests are seizing the drug control agenda. Blogging on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside Enquirer, for instance, reveals the menacing ascendance of the medical industrial complex. Serviced by numerous medical organizations, it works in tandem with a burgeoning poverty industry that residents call the “povertariat.”

Translation: there are horrible people out there who think that drug addiction is a health issue that is exacerbated by poverty.

Daily drug busts demonstrate that Canadian police forces are doing their part to control supply. Their efforts, however, are being undermined by harm reduction initiatives which merely serve the vested interests of the Taliban, drug dealers and Canada’s burgeoning medical industrial complex while addicts remain victimized — first by their habit and then by those exploiting them.

Classic Up-is-Downism.

The Big Question: Is it time the world forgot about cannabis in its war against drugs?
Very interesting article by Michael McCarthy.
It asks most of the right questions and actually talks about the costs of prohibition!
Now, my goal is the legalization and regulation of the entire drug market to put the majority of the black market out of business. But certainly taking cannabis out of prohibition would be a great first step.
Of course, the prohibitionists would fight it tooth and nail, partly because they would see it as a first step, but also because cannabis is the biggest part of their business. They see themselves losing a lot of power and budget if cannabis is legal and regulated.
And as the article says:

So what are the chances that cannabis will cease to be internationally outlawed?
With the US running the show? Don’t hold your breath.

This Fall in Canada, the Supreme Court will decide whether trash is private.
In the United States we gave up our trash privacy 20 years ago in California v. Greenwood, one of many instances where the Supreme Court found a drug war exception to the Bill of Rights.
It’ll be interesting to see whether Canada follows suit.
This particular case caught my attention because Thursday night my garbage was stolen.
Yep.
It’s an odd feeling. I put the garbage bag on the curb around 10:30 p.m. (pickup is Friday morning) and at 1:00 a.m. I happened to look out the window and it was gone. Neighbors’ trash was still there.
There are all sorts of possible explanations more likely than government snooping — an attempt at identity theft, or someone hoping I had thrown away valuable items, but as usual, there was nothing in there but food garbage (I recycle all my mail/paper a different way, so an identity thief would find nothing.)
Sure hope someone enjoyed learning about my eclectic, and rather smelly, interests in food.

Lots going on in the world. Here’s some catch-up from this week.
“bullet” Cannabis less harmful than drinking, smoking: report. Sure, we know that. But it’s always nice to have studies confirm tell us anyway.

The Beckley Foundation, a charity which numbers senior experts and other academics among its advisors, said banning cannabis has no impact on supply and turns users into criminals.
“Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco,” says the report by the Foundation’s Global Cannabis Commission. […]
“Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment,” it said.
“It is only through a regulated market that we can better protect young people from the ever more potent forms of dope,” it added.

“bullet” If Texas were a country, it would have the highest incarceration rate in the world

At least one law enforcement official, Bexar County Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg, has already said he expects to ignore the new law, with arrests continuing as usual. That would be a mistake, Kampia said.
“Federal government statistics show no difference in marijuana use rates between states that arrest people for marijuana possession and those that don’t,” Kampia said. “Ignoring this sensible law will waste tax dollars for no good reason.”

“bullet” Just what we need, another czar. A copyright czar? Really? You think this whole czar concept is working? I think we could do with fewer.
“bullet” Schwarzenegger to U.S.: State may need $7-billion loan. Great. Bail out California too? No. The marijuana industry in California has offered the Governator the money he needs. If he won’t take it, that’s his problem.
“bullet” Speaking of Governors, NORML says:Want To Know Why Pot Is Still Illegal? Ask Your Governor
“bullet” Mexican President Proposes Decriminalizing Small Amounts of Drugs
“bullet” House of Death Radley Balko interviews DEA whistleblower Sandy Gonzalez.
“bullet” A DEA Agent and His Rogue Informant To Cost Taxpayers $356k from TalkLeft
“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Zogby poll

Three in four likely voters (76%) believe the U.S. war on drugs is failing, a sentiment that cuts across the political spectrum — including the vast majority of Democrats (86%), political independents (81%), and most Republicans (61%). There is also a strong belief that the anti-drug effort is failing among those who intend to vote for Barack Obama (89%) for president, as well as most supporters of John McCain (61%).
When asked what they believe is the single best way to combat international drug trafficking and illicit use,

• 27% of likely voters said legalizing some drugs would be the best approach — 34% of Obama supporters and 20% of McCain backers agreed.
• One in four likely voters (25%) believe stopping the drugs at the border is the best tactic to battle drugs — 39% of McCain supporters, but just 12% of Obama backers agree.
• Overall, 19% of likely voters said reducing demand through treatment and education should be the top focus of the war on drugs.
• 13% believe that the best way to fight the war on drugs is to prevent production of narcotics in the country of origin.

Interesting numbers.
First, the 76% number for those who think the drug war is failing is huge. That’s even more than think President Bush is doing a bad job.
27% for legalization (at least in part) is pretty good as well. Sure, we’d like more, but considering what we’re up against in years of propaganda, that’s not bad.
What makes that even more interesting is that, despite the built-in hesitancy to consider legalization, they seem unable to come up with any other ideas that they like better (and they sure don’t like the status quo).
Finally, with numbers like these, how can the academics continue to claim that legalization is not a practical option for discussion?

We’ve talked a little bit about the World Forum Against Drugs held in Sweden earlier in September, and their bizarre declaration.
But there’s so much more to ridicule…
You see, when these hard core sadomoralist drug warriors get together on vacation without bothering to unpack reason from the dusty corner of their checked bag, or worrying about appearing coherent to… the rest of the sentient world, well then their utterances become hilariously frightening.
For example, check out these amazing “rebuttals”

Seven arguments against cannabis

The journalist Pelle Olsson answered to the 7 most common pro cannabis arguments at his session

1. ‹It‰s a soft drug.Š
   Even though it is a ‹softŠ drug, it‰s still a drug.

2. ‹Alcohol is more dangerous.Š
   Cannabis is a harmful drug and it is not essential to compare it with alcohol.

3. ‹The use is widespread.Š
   Actually, only 4 % of the average adults worldwide have tested cannabis the last year.

4. ‹I‰m free to do whatever I want.Š
   The laws must be the same for everyone and dependence also takes away freedom.

5. ‹Marijuana can be used as medicine.Š
   Maybe you feel better for the moment if you are stoned or drunk, but it‰s not a medicine.

6. ‹Marijuana works as prevention from harder drugs.Š
   It is not true; cannabis is rather an entrance to the harder drugs.

7. ‹Putting cannabis in the Convention was a mistake.Š
   The cannabis-friends state that it was a mistake to put cannabis in the United Nation Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961. This is not true.

Wow, hard to argue with that kind of reasoning … because it isn’t. It’s argumentation of the form of:

The world is round. No it isn’t.

But wait, there’s more! There were speeches, and included in the speechifying was Drug Free America Foundation’s own Calvina Fay.

I think we can all agree that drugs are a problem. Today we are faced with new and more powerful drugs as well as a society that has, in many countries, become too tolerant of them.
As David Evans mentioned, In the United States, there is a very large and very well financed movement to normalize and legalize drug use and drug trafficking. Much of that movement is funded by a name that many of you know – George Soros, a convicted criminal who has publicly labeled himself as an atheist and yet has claimed that he is God…

I knew they didn’t like Soros, but…

Mr. Soros is about power and fame. His philosophy is to destroy societies that he does not like and then recreate them using his “open society” model. He destroys by creating chaos. And what better way to create chaos in society than to have a drug-addicted population that dominates. To have societies with drug-friendly laws and policies will certainly contribute to creating this chaos.
As in some other countries, Mr. Soros seeks to destroy our political system in the US and to create chaos in our judicial and law enforcement systems and even in our military.
He has contributed millions to the drug legalization movement as well as bought many of our politicians.

Yep. I believe it’s safe to say that Calvina doesn’t like George Soros.
George Soros is just a guy with a whole lot of money who wants to make a difference in the world. Instead of creating a pro-war media empire like Rupert Murdoch did, Soros put his money into efforts to encourage democracy and human rights. Yep, that’s pretty evil. But let’s get back to Ms. Fay.

Just since the beginning of 2008, we have seen an extraordinary increase in drug legalization efforts and activities in the US.

Awww… you noticed. Thanks.

Clearly, we are under attack. And this attack is not limited to the borders of the United States as has clearly been demonstrated from the presentations of others here at this conference. My work at Drug Free America Foundation takes me to many countries. I have had the honor and privilege of working with colleagues from around the world. And everywhere I go, the name and evil influence of Soros is known. His drug legalization blueprint is promoted globally.

Soros again? Come on, Calvina. I’m doing my fair share and I haven’t received one dime of Soros money. Don’t I count?
On to harm reduction.

Those who advocate for softening our drug laws and normalizing and legalizing drugs continuously raise the human rights issue. And certainly we all recognize that human rights are precious and should not be violated. But, these advocates have pushed the envelope too far when they began espousing that it is the “human right” of individuals to use drugs and endanger not only their own lives but the lives of others. With rights, come responsibilities and that is something that drug users know or care very little about.
I maintain that the harm reduction strategies promoted by the drug legalization advocates are a gross violation of human rights. Your and my rights who are drug free but would be affected by drug users – and the rights of addicts who are entitled to effective drug policies and treatment that will help them to get well.

OK, now this is just completely in la-la land. It amazes me when people make up new and creative definitions for the word “rights” that mean precisely the opposite.
She is apparently arguing for the right to not be bothered by other people having rights, and that her right trumps theirs. It’s as if she was saying…

Abolitionists claim they’re advocating for the human rights of slaves, but the true rights they would violate is the right of us white plantation owners to sip mint juleps while being served by our slaves. They would take away our right to our life of ease and our right to own other people. And, I maintain, abolition of slavery would harm the rights of the slaves themselves — yes, to have a structured life of work that keeps them out of trouble and away from the pesky cares of free men. Abolitionists would bring chaos and endanger all of us.

That is the argument world of Calvina Fay.
OK, Calvina, can you take that bizarre thought even further?

And speaking of getting well – let’s talk a minute about the fraudulent campaigns to legalize marijuana as a so-called medicine. This illusion that has been created by the Soros [Soros, again?] minions that marijuana is a so-called medicine is a huge violation of human rights!

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Truly sick people who deserve legitimate medical treatment have been duped into believing that marijuana will help them, while in reality it is hurting them. All because a special interest group is advancing a hidden agenda to normalize and legalize marijuana use. The sad thing is that people smoking pot probably do feel better even if they are not getting better but they could also feel better by smoking crack cocaine or injecting heroin. Will these be the next drugs to legalize as so-called medicine?

Nothing new here. The same old claptrap that they always trot out to argue against medical marijuana. I’ve countered it so many times that it’s boring. But if anyone wants me to do it again, just ask. (Go ahead, Calvina. Ask. But you won’t, because you already know the answer.)

The drug legalization movement certainly has more money than we do but, we are on the right side.

God, that one cracks me up every time I hear it. Drug Free America Foundation receives funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of State. The drug prohibition lobby has the resources of the governments of many countries, the United Nations, police forces, DEA, business interests, and tons of our own taxpayer money for media campaigns.
I get Google ads.
But Calvina continues…

We have science and solid data behind us. History has shown that restrictive drug policies do work. The very successful restrictive drug policy of Sweden is a perfect example of what works!

Sweden is often invoked by the prohibitionists (that’s why this was held in Sweden). Steve Rolles does a nice job of exploring the Sweden drug policy fantasy. Check it out. But back to Calvina…

Contrary to what the drug legalization advocates claim, it is not the restrictive drug policies that are harmful, it is the drug itself. There are no “safe” ways to use drugs. Policies that condone and prolong drug use should not be tolerated. Such policies are a travesty and a gross violation of the rights [again?] of individuals who suffer from addiction.

Note that there is absolutely not one word used to actually address the rock solid anti-prohibition argument that prohibition causes more harm than the drug. She merely asserts a harm for drug use and then studiously avoids acknowledging the existence of the elephant in the room.
And the “there are no ‘safe’ ways to use drugs.” Talk about nonsensical statements!
Calvina ends her speech with a long and very strange tribute to Ronald Reagan, whom she apparently admired greatly. She seems to want to compare her war against… well.. us, to Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech. Like I said, very odd.
Here are a couple of highlights from other speeches:
Jo Baxter of Drug Free Australia came up with a new one for describing harm reduction:

This policy equates to ‘parking the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff to catch the people as they fall off’.

Colorful. Wrong, but colorful.
Mr Sven-Olov Carlsson, President IOGT-NTO Sweden parrots the apparently ubiquitous talking point:

Human rights are incompatible with drug abuse. All individuals have the right to a life that is not harmed by drugs. Policy-makers need to defend and protect this right. The rights and interests of drug users are not served by supporting the continuation of drug abuse.

Apparently human rights are served by locking people up, smashing down doors, shooting their dogs, taking away their children, their jobs, their student loans, fueling black market violence and corruption, and making people piss in a cup.
HE General Khodaidad, Minister of Counternarcotics, Afghanistan:

This session is about whether Afghanistan can get rid of the opium problem and the short answer is of course “YES”. But when – I do not know.

I wish I could use non-answers like that in my job.

At the end I would like to thank once again the organizers of this important forum and I pray for a world free of drugs and terrorism.

Drugs and terrorism. Right.
There’s more, but this post is long enough. At a later point, I may discuss the truly disturbing words of Robert L. DuPont.

I mentioned earlier that the execrable DEA Museum Exhibit: Target America: Opening Eyes to the Damage Drugs Cause had not been put out of its misery, but instead was continuing its tour – now to California.
A number of people wrote to the Science Center to express their dismay, and Center staff responded:

Thank you for your email. You are referring to an earlier version of the
exhibit, and are not aware of the changes and modifications that have
been made for the Los Angeles venue.

The California Science Center recognizes that science knowledge and
technological innovation play important roles in understanding and
breaking the cycle of drug abuse and addiction. It is with this
perspective that the Science Center’s Ethics Advisory Committee reviewed
the Target America exhibit prior to agreeing to host the exhibit. Upon
review, we appreciated the potential of the exhibit to educate guests on
the science of drug abuse and the health implications of drug addiction
with certain content modifications. Since last spring, the exhibit has
been refurbished, expanded and updated to reflect these concerns.
Specifically, the DEA Museum Foundation has updated and enhanced the
current science content, added a Local Story component, and modified the
exhibit to better balance the issues of prevention, treatment, science
and enforcement.

Additional programming will further support the science and technology
educational messages. You are welcome to attend these programs and to
engage in these discussions. We are confident the current exhibit will
support our mission and provide a powerful educational experience on the
damage drugs cause, and invite you to review the revised exhibit,
opening Oct. 2nd.

Sincerely,
Shell Amega

Vice President, Communications
California Science Center

So before I rush in guns blazing (figuratively – I don’t have any guns and I can’t make it to California), I figure we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt and check out the exhibit.
So anyone who can — please visit the exhibit, take notes and pictures, and report back.
The good news: neither the California Science Center nor the DEA’s site feature the really offensive World Trade Center wreckage sculpture that was the centerpiece of the exhibit in previous locations. If they’ve removed it, that’s an encouraging sign. (Please let me know if they continue to promote the drugs-terrorism connection in any way.)
Additionally, the Science Center has downplayed the DEA’s involvement to merely “Developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration Museum and Partners.” I wonder if this means that it will be less of a DEA infomercial than the Chicago exhibit was.
However, I don’t see any way that the California Science Center could have actually properly fixed this exhibit and still have the DEA involved at all. Because quite frankly, there’s no way that the DEA would allow any truthful representation of the dangers of prohibition, which means that the “science” is still propaganda, not science.
If you do check it out, you’ll have the opportunity to:

• Play a wacky basketball game that gives you a sense of temporary memory loss first-hand, as you learn about the latest research from UCLA scientists on the effects of drugs in the brain.
• Speak into a wiretapped microphone and see your unique voice print. Learn about innovative technology pioneered in Southern California and view footage of drug enforcers and wiretaps in action.
• Through an immersive theater experience, ride along with seasoned Southern California drug enforcement officers on a simulated drug bust. Discover the science, technology and skill of surveillance and apprehension.
• Spin the Wheel of Misfortune and see the various risks drug addicts face. If you‰re lucky enough to land in Rehab, spin the Wheel of Recovery and see what your chances are for long-term recovery. Find what treatment options are available throughout the southland.

Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?
And, of course, you’ll be able to view actual wreckage from a drug-related car accident, a tenement crack-house, and the bedroom of a young teen that has accessed a Web site that sells illegal drugs.
Check out my site: DEA Targets America: Opening Eyes to the Damage Caused by the Drug War for my response to the earlier form of the exhibit, and the flyers we used to pass out to museum patrons.
I’m still open to revising the flyer further based on what we learn about the current version of the exhibit, and making quantities available to those who would like to help educate the patrons of the California Science Center as to any aspects of the science that have been neglected.