That Scott Gottlieb, who recently resigned his position as FDA commissioner, has returned to the American Enterprise Institute (after two earlier stints there) perhaps illustrates the move to the left that The Economist and others have detected in American public opinion and politics (“Donald Trump’s Presidency Has Moved America Left,” June 15, 2019). What I call “the left” incorporates the ideology according to which the state, as opposed to individuals, should make the choices that it thinks are good for these individuals themselves or for “society”—which is what some elite thinks “society” likes or dislikes.
I agree that a large part of “the right” has come to think the same way, which is a return to the old European right’s authoritarian ways. So replace “the left” by “authoritarianism” if you prefer.
Dr. Gottlieb (he is a physician by trade) just signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (“The FDA’s Challenge on E-Cigs,” June 24, 2019) where he continues the crusade against electronic cigarettes and vaping that he pushed at the FDA. Two aspects of his op-ed are especially disturbing.
First, he wages his crusade against vaping in the name of the children. The word “kids” occurs four times in his short oped. By the way, some 11 million American adults vape, many times more than middle school and high school students. In the FDA’s and public health movement’s parlance, “kids” or “children” comprise anybody who has not reached his 18th birthday. Sometimes, the FDA seems tempted to include “young adults”—from 18 to 24—among its wards. In my just-published Reason Foundation paper on “Consumer Surplus in the FDA’s Tobacco Regulations, with Applications to Nicotine Reduction and E-Cigarette Flavors” (June 27, 2019), where I touch upon Gottlieb’s crusade at the helm of the FDA. On the “kids” issue, I write:
“No child should use any tobacco products, including e-cigarettes,” Gottlieb declared. But it is as true, and quite certainly truer, that no “child” should take drugs, or have sex, or commit suicide or mass murder (according to FBI statistics, 7 of the 50 mass shooters in 2016-2017 were in their teens). Whatever the root causes of these problems, it is doubtful that the FDA or other federal agencies can solve them by further prohibitions. Many of the bad behaviors of teenagers are already forbidden by law.
The FDA calls indistinctly “youth,” “adolescent,” “child” or “kid” anybody from 12 through 17, but this group is not homogeneous. A 17-year-old, who can enroll in the army with his parents’ permission and is on the verge of having the right to vote (18 years of age at the federal level) and to reach the age of majority in many states, is certainly different from a 12-year-old child. Those whom the FDA considers “kids” can often be held criminally responsible for their actions. In many states, they can marry and in most states, they can be licensed to drive unsupervised from age 16 (the highest threshold is 17; the lowest, 14 and a half) The three-page statement issued by the FDA commissioner [on March 10, 2018] … on flavors contains the word “kids” seven times.
I add:
Children, by definition, are not mature enough to make choices that can be assumed to be in their own best interest. It is meaningless to speak of a child’s consumer surplus. It is certainly desirable to prevent children from—or guide them away from—making choices that could seriously handicap their future adult self, a role which is normally considered as belonging to parents and other guardians (including schools).
In another Reason Foundation paper (“A Question of Taste: The Public Health Case for E-Cigarette Flavors,” November 2018), Guy Bentley wrote:
Is [FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb] right to classify current youth e-cigarette use of 20% as an epidemic? For context, current youth alcohol use in 2017 was 29.8%, marijuana use was 19.8%, and 28.7% of teens were sexually active.
This raises at least one question: How effective will the war on vaping be?
The second very disturbing aspect of the former FDA commissioner’s oped is when, in the general spirit of his piece, he writes:
The FDA could allow vape stores that follow common manufacturing processes for e-liquids to band together to file a common application for market approval. If the application is approved, the FDA would confer individual licenses on each store.
How nice it would be of the FDA to allow businesses, and grant them licenses if approved, to sell something to adult customers. Note that these businesses are already prohibited from selling vaping products to “children,” including, I would add, to child soldiers. More generally, sellers of tobacco and vaping products already operate in a regulatory straightjacket, so a reformulation is needed: How nice it is for the FDA to allow businesses to attend to their private affairs!
Pardon the old saw but with “capitalists” like that, who needs socialists?
READER COMMENTS
Daniel Hill
Jun 27 2019 at 6:30am
Talk about the tyranny of the status quo! How is it that there are just so many people, many in positions of responsibility, who don’t understand the concept of “never let the perfect be the enemy of the good”? (In my heart I know the answer – perverse incentives: the key to the sort of ‘success’ Dr. Gottlieb craves is not achieving real outcomes in the world like reducing harm from smoking…)
P.S. It irks me when I read newspaper articles which refer to college students caught drinking as “kids”. I always send the editor a comment to the effect of “don’t you mean ‘people society legally considers adults in every other respect?’ “
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 27 2019 at 11:48am
You’re right, Daniel, alcohol is a very good example. In many states, child soldiers (among others) are forbidden to drink until they are 21. And the great democratic voter, who can change the government on a whim and is governed by himself, cannot have a beer in a restaurant.
Billy Kaubashine
Jun 27 2019 at 12:51pm
The list of things that are ‘none of government’s business’ gets shorter and shorter.
Charlie
Jun 27 2019 at 5:00pm
“How nice it would be of the FDA to allow businesses, and grant them licenses if approved, to sell something to adult customers.”
Do you see value in medication that works as advertised? Thank the FDA.
Do you see value in a food supply that is safe to eat? Thank the FDA.
The mentality that government is inherently bad and business is inherently good is naive at best. a
john hare
Jun 27 2019 at 5:56pm
Do you know about the life saving drugs made too expensive to produce, thank the FDA.
It’s not naive to work with the facts available. The FDA demonstrably kills more than it saves. It is the unseen that you are ignoring. The regulations are in large part responsible for both high drug costs and lack of availability of many new ones.
FDA responsible for the safe food we have in such quantity? I can’t tell if you’re joking.
Charlie
Jun 27 2019 at 6:21pm
“Do you know about the life saving drugs made too expensive to produce, thank the FDA.”
Which drugs? Be specific.
“It’s not naive to work with the facts available. The FDA demonstrably kills more than it saves. It is the unseen that you are ignoring. The regulations are in large part responsible for both high drug costs and lack of availability of many new ones.”
Show me the facts (or stats) that prove the FDA kills more than it saves.
“FDA responsible for the safe food we have in such quantity? I can’t tell if you’re joking.”
Not joking. Is our food supply chain perfect? Probably not. I’m far from an expert but go to a grocery store and look at the overabundance of clean/safe food we have access to.
Christophe Biocca
Jun 27 2019 at 9:07pm
Gieringer 1985 calculates the FDA blocking drugs that turn out to be harmful saves about 5000-10000 lives per decade, but the delays in approvals (so not counting drugs that would never were approved at all, just the delay in the ones that did get approved) costs between 21,000 and 120,000 lives per decade.
Concrete examples of drugs that were subject to extended delays:
Beta blockers had a moratorium imposed in the mid-1970, based on possible increase in cancer risk, (at which time European countries had already approved some of them). Approval didn’t happen until 1981, with the FDA saying it would save about 17,000 lives annually.
interleukin-2 is a cancer treatment, which was delayed by the FDA because it can be lethally toxic in some cases. On the other hand the cancers it was effective at treating were nearly universally fatal.
Christophe Biocca
Jun 27 2019 at 9:15pm
By definition, drugs that are not brought to market are hard to give names for. Peltzman 1972 calculates that:
Jon Murphy
Jun 27 2019 at 6:06pm
Why are we assuming the FDA is necessary to have medicine that works as advertised or food safe to eat?
Charlie
Jun 27 2019 at 6:22pm
“Why are we assuming the FDA is necessary to have medicine that works as advertised or food safe to eat?”
Where do you think the term snake oil salesman came from?
Jon Murphy
Jun 27 2019 at 7:08pm
Snake oil isn’t regulated by the FDA. Indeed, few supplements are. And food is graded, but not regulated.
Besides, there were not mass die-offs or mass poisonings pre-FDA.
The market provides powerful incentives for people to not kill their customers. The question before you is why do you think those incentives do not work with food and/or medicine?
Charlie
Jun 27 2019 at 7:59pm
“Snake oil isn’t regulated by the FDA. Indeed, few supplements are. And food is graded, but not regulated.”
True! Snake oil isn’t regulated. Same goes for supplements and there are wild health claims associated with some of those supplements.
It’s important that expensive potentially life-saving medication does not make false claims.
Regarding food, you’re right that it’s not regulated by the FDA. My comment was more about food safety, ie production, storage, and prep which is overseen by the FDA. E coli is real.
“Besides, there were not mass die-offs or mass poisonings pre-FDA.”
Recommended reading: The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
“The market provides powerful incentives for people to not kill their customers. The question before you is why do you think those incentives do not work with food and/or medicine?”
The market also provides powerful incentives to cut costs at every corner. Look at the opioid epidemic if you believe that there isn’t money in killing your customer base.
Jon Murphy
Jun 27 2019 at 9:29pm
Agreed. And there are powerful incentives not to. More powerful, I’d say, than non-lethal things.
No one said otherwise. The question on the table is: is the risk higher without the FDA? if so, why?
You do realize that’s a work of fiction, yes? I’m asking for empirical evidence, not fiction. Might as well send me to Charles Dickens or JK Rowling.
Recommended reading: Do Off-Label Drug Practices Argue Against FDA
Efficacy Requirements? by Alex Tabarrok (see also FDAReview.org). You can also see various articles published here by David Henderson.
Indeed, regarding the opioid crisis, that was likely made worse by the FDA: https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2019/HooperHendersonchanged.html
Charlie
Jun 28 2019 at 2:52pm
“Agreed. And there are powerful incentives not to. More powerful, I’d say, than non-lethal things.”
I don’t under your last sentence in this context.
“No one said otherwise. The question on the table is: is the risk higher without the FDA? if so, why?”
Are we assuming that we’re in a competitive marketplace where pricing and subsequently profits are core to the survival and success of individual businesses?
Regulation is seen as a drag on efficiency and the bottom line. Businesses are always looking to cut costs.
The Gov should protect its citizens from potential dangers; foreign and domestic. Do you want to abolish the police if everyone is such a good actor? What about the criminal justice system?
Did the great recession not highlight the greed and stupidity of people?
And yes, you can have excessive regulation. I’m in favor of effective regulation. I don’t care how big or small, whatever is necessary to be effective.
“You do realize that’s a work of fiction, yes? I’m asking for empirical evidence, not fiction. Might as well send me to Charles Dickens or JK Rowling.”
I realize it’s fiction but the context under which it was written and the subsequent public outcry it generated helped to form the FDA. Definitely not the same as Harry Potter.
“Recommended reading: Do Off-Label Drug Practices Argue Against FDA
Efficacy Requirements? by Alex Tabarrok (see also FDAReview.org). You can also see various articles published here by David Henderson.”
I just read it (quickly!). I think it raises more questions than it answers. I don’t see it as strengthening your argument.
“Indeed, regarding the opioid crisis, that was likely made worse by the FDA: https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2019/HooperHendersonch”
Your original comment stated, “The market provides powerful incentives for people to not kill their customers. The question before you is why do you think those incentives do not work with food and/or medicine?”
With ~50,000 deaths related to opioid overdose in the US in 2017 alone, I think the answer is pretty clear: the market does not provide powerful incentives for people not to kill their customers.
Jon Murphy
Jun 28 2019 at 3:30pm
Companies that accidentally harm customers face massive backlash (see Chipotle for one such example). That’s a huge incentive.
All we need to do is assume competition, which includes the availability of substitutes, exists. That is true even with monopolies.
Right. To my point that the FDA was not addressing real issues.
Though not for lack of trying. You may recall the moral panic and calls for banning/restrictions because Potter supposedly promoted satanic worship?
Ok. What are the questions? I will try to answer (and if I cannot, I can talk to Dr. Tabbarok. He is on my dissertation committee, as is his frequent coauthor and co-developer of FDAreview.org, Dr. Klein).
Again, you should check out the linked-to article to see how the FDA made the crisis worse.
Charlie
Jun 28 2019 at 10:39pm
Jon, thanks for taking the time to reply. I would ask that you please quote my entire statement, not merely picking sections to reply. Taking things out of context drives this conversation into the weeds.
“Companies that accidentally harm customers face massive backlash (see Chipotle for one such example). That’s a huge incentive.”
How many bankers went to jail for the Great Recession? Another suggested reading would be The Chickenshit Club.
“All we need to do is assume competition, which includes the availability of substitutes, exists. That is true even with monopolies.”
You disregarded much of my previous post with this comment. Here it is in full:
Are we assuming that we’re in a competitive marketplace where pricing and subsequently profits are core to the survival and success of individual businesses?
Regulation is seen as a drag on efficiency and the bottom line. Businesses are always looking to cut costs.
The Gov should protect its citizens from potential dangers; foreign and domestic. Do you want to abolish the police if everyone is such a good actor? What about the criminal justice system?
Did the great recession not highlight the greed and stupidity of people?
And yes, you can have excessive regulation. I’m in favor of effective regulation. I don’t care how big or small, whatever is necessary to be effective.
“Right. To my point that the FDA was not addressing real issues.”
The FDA did not exist before The Jungle. The Jungle was published in 1905. The FDA was formed in 1906.
“Though not for lack of trying. You may recall the moral panic and calls for banning/restrictions because Potter supposedly promoted satanic worship?”
Sinclair wrote The Jungle to bring attention to the horrendous working conditions at the factories. The public outcry helped to bring about the FDA. Harry Potter was written as a children’s fantasy book. Not the same.
“Ok. What are the questions? I will try to answer (and if I cannot, I can talk to Dr. Tabbarok. He is on my dissertation committee, as is his frequent coauthor and co-developer of FDAreview.org, Dr. Klein).”
Ohhhhh buddy. Do you think that doctor’s opinions on the efficacy for on vs off brand labeling is an accurate indictment of the FDA and renders it incompetent? It’s an interesting read but not worth my weekend debating.
“Again, you should check out the linked-to article to see how the FDA made the crisis worse.”
I understand the FDA’s implication in the crisis but you are failing to acknowledge that opioid crisis demonstrates the fallacy of your claim that, “the market provides powerful incentives for people to not kill their customers. The question before you is why do you think those incentives do not work with food and/or medicine?”
To preach blatantly wrong economic dogma (market incentives do no wrong) in the face of 50,000 Americans dying annually is pretty cold.
Why do those incentives not work in food or medicine? Because the biggest incentive to any business is money. Without it, you don’t have a business. When you are not regulated, there is an incentive (more $$$) to cut corners.
Charlie
Jun 29 2019 at 1:47pm
I am rewriting my reply again because it didn’t post the first time!
Side note: how do I highlight your text in beige?
Please quote my statements in full. Taking single lines out of context drives this conversation into the weeds.
“Companies that accidentally harm customers face massive backlash (see Chipotle for one such example). That’s a huge incentive.”
Chipotle stock took a hit but they’re back to full speed. What about the banking sector?
I recommend you read “the chickensh!t club” by Jesse Eisinger.
“All we need to do is assume competition, which includes the availability of substitutes, exists. That is true even with monopolies.”
The notion of substitutes only works when there are other viable options (not always the case with medication) and consumers are aware of the problems of a particular product.
Do you know the name of every brand you buy at the grocery store? Did you check their CR report card before buying that bag of carrots? I think not. That is an unreal expectation to ask of consumers.
“Right. To my point that the FDA was not addressing real issues.”
The Jungle was published in 1905. The FDA was founded in 1906. The FDA was founded after The Jungle was published.
“Though not for lack of trying. You may recall the moral panic and calls for banning/restrictions because Potter supposedly promoted satanic worship?”
I’m not getting into a discussion about Harry Potter and satanic worship. Bottom line, that is a poor comparison to make with the FDA and The Jungle.
“Ok. What are the questions? I will try to answer (and if I cannot, I can talk to Dr. Tabbarok. He is on my dissertation committee, as is his frequent coauthor and co-developer of FDAreview.org, Dr. Klein).”
I don’t think a questionnaire of doctors regarding efficacy for on and off brand drug labeling is an indictment of the FDA. Doctors use the end product. They are not necessarily involved in the R&D and clinical trials. That is an important distinction.
“Again, you should check out the linked-to article to see how the FDA made the crisis worse.”
I realize the FDA made the crisis worse but repeating blatantly wrong conomic dogma (free market incentives cure all) is pretty cold in the face of 50,000 Americans dying a year.
What more important, being right or fixing the problem?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 27 2019 at 10:13pm
Charlie: Snake oil comes in different forms, some of which can have an impact on generations to come. One can argue that, historically and currently, governments are the most dangerous snake-oil peddlers in the world. My post above and my Reason Foundation paper give some examples of that. Have a look at the Twitter page of the Snake-oil-salesman in Chief: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump.
Charlie
Jun 28 2019 at 3:07pm
Hi Pierre. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my message!
“Snake oil comes in different forms, some of which can have an impact on generations to come. One can argue that, historically and currently, governments are the most dangerous snake-oil peddlers in the world. My post above and my Reason Foundation paper give some examples of that. Have a look at the Twitter page of the Snake-oil-salesman in Chief: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump.”
I don’t think the Gov is perfect by any stretch. My concern is that we frame this discussion as Gov wrong and business right while ignoring that the market is inherently imperfect and often creates perverse incentives.
All of these discussions avoid the larger issue of how to define and measure a successful society. If we can’t do that, how do we know what is effective regulation?
Jon Murphy
Jun 28 2019 at 3:20pm
Indeed, but you’re making the same mistake in reverse. The mere fact that markets are imperfect does not in and of itself justify government intervention as government is also inherently imperfect and creates perverse incentives. For more on this, see my recent article on market failure.
You state, reasonably, that you are for effective regulation. I know no one who would disagree. But you’ve not given evidence that the FDA is indeed effective and that the market cannot regulate. Indeed, much of the evidence mustered is that the FDA is sometimes the very poison it is trying to cure.
Charlie
Jun 29 2019 at 12:15am
“Indeed, but you’re making the same mistake in reverse. The mere fact that markets are imperfect does not in and of itself justify government intervention as government is also inherently imperfect and creates perverse incentives. For more on this, see my recent article on market failure.”
I enjoyed reading your article. Thank you.
Your paper is based on the assumption that both parties have complete knowledge. That is impossible in practice.
The seller is almost always an advantage relative to the buyer/consumer. We have consumer protection laws because of this. It would be unrealistic to expect every cancer patient to have the skillset, resources and time to validate a drugmaker’s claim, which is why we have the FDA.
Same goes for food. While it’s a nice idea to be able to visit the farm where your lettuce is grown and witness the “farm to table” experience, most buyers cannot.
We rely on 3rd parties to balance this asymmetry of information.
“You state, reasonably, that you are for effective regulation. I know no one who would disagree. But you’ve not given evidence that the FDA is indeed effective and that the market cannot regulate. Indeed, much of the evidence mustered is that the FDA is sometimes the very poison it is trying to cure.”
The market often cannot regulate. That’s why we boom/bust cycles. This is pretty straightforward stuff.
Jon Murphy
Jun 29 2019 at 8:47am
I explicitly say otherwise. A major point of the article is that such assumptions are irrelevant.
Which leads us to the question: why do you use an explanation that requires perfect information?
Yes. The question, which you keep avoiding, is why you think these do not exist in the real world other than government (eg: Good Housekeeping, UL, Consumer Reports, etc)?
It is straightforward, and also incorrect. The mere fact there are cycles does not imply markets do not regulate. In fact, business cycles can be part of the regulatory process (firms that are not satisfying people’s demands go out of business).
Charlie
Jun 29 2019 at 1:22pm
Jon, I just want to say that I’m enjoying the discussion.
“Which leads us to the question: why do you use an explanation that requires perfect information?”
What explanation am I using that requires perfect information?
“Yes. The question, which you keep avoiding, is why you think these do not exist in the real world other than government (eg: Good Housekeeping, UL, Consumer Reports, etc)?”
Avoiding? Good housekeeping and CR are product/service review websites. They can’t enforce standards or penalize businesses. That is a crucial distinction between them and the FDA.
“It is straightforward, and also incorrect. The mere fact there are cycles does not imply markets do not regulate. In fact, business cycles can be part of the regulatory process (firms that are not satisfying people’s demands go out of business).”
Be consistent/conscious of your use of the word “regulate” in the context of this discussion.
The fact that there are cycles indicates that businesses are not able to effectively self regulate. Their behavior is reactionary, not preemptive.
robc
Jun 28 2019 at 8:16pm
its a good thing the fda regulates kosher so that jews no what to buy.
Oh wait, nevermind.
We have a private model that works. Anyone wanting state regs need to show why the kosher model of underwriters lab model wont work.
charlie
Jun 29 2019 at 12:23am
“its a good thing the fda regulates kosher so that jews no what to buy.
Oh wait, nevermind.
We have a private model that works. Anyone wanting state regs need to show why the kosher model of underwriters lab model wont work.”
What are the risks of something being incorrectly labeled kosher when it is in fact not kosher?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 29 2019 at 1:28pm
Charlie: There is a big risk, the worst possible risk–in the eyes of the sovereign consumer, which is what counts: displeasing God and perhaps eternal damnation.
Charlie
Jun 29 2019 at 1:53pm
“Charlie: There is a big risk, the worst possible risk–in the eyes of the sovereign consumer, which is what counts: displeasing God and perhaps eternal damnation.”
Pierre, my comment was not intended as an attack on one’s religious beliefs! I should have been more specific in my questioning. Let me rephrase:
What are the HEALTH risks of something being incorrectly labeled kosher when it is in fact not kosher?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 29 2019 at 9:21pm
Charlie: Two things. First a minor one: a more knowledgeable person than I on Judaism says that it is not clear that there may not be anything like eternal damnation in that religion. I guess I am still a prisoner of the Catholic faith!
Second, and this is a very basic point. Saying that there is a health risk does not solve the question as who should do the trade-offs. Life itself is a health risk, not only because most living people end up dying of one thing or another, but also because lots of things we do in life (driving a car, eating foie gras, drinking wine, etc.–in fact all adult pleasures) has a health risk. The question is, will each individual, however imperfect, makes his own trade-offs (with the help of his grocery store, other private “regulators,” his doctor, and other advisors), or will a politician or a bureaucrat, however imperfect they are, make the trade-off for all individuals? (My Reason paper touches on some of these issues. Another, shorter article of mine, with a different focus, can be found in Regulation: “The Danger of ‘Public Health’.”)
Oh! and to answer your question about how to do a blockquote, select the paragraph you want to quote and click on the ” above. The eternal rule remains “if you don’t know how to do it, try clicking somewhere.”
Charlie
Jul 1 2019 at 4:24pm
Hi Pierre,
Second, and this is a very basic point. Saying that there is a health risk does not solve the question as who should do the trade-offs. Life itself is a health risk, not only because most living people end up dying of one thing or another, but also because lots of things we do in life (driving a car, eating foie gras, drinking wine, etc.–in fact all adult pleasures) has a health risk. The question is, will each individual, however imperfect, makes his own trade-offs (with the help of his grocery store, other private “regulators,” his doctor, and other advisors), or will a politician or a bureaucrat, however imperfect they are, make the trade-off for all individuals? (MyReason paper touches on some of these issues. Another, shorter article of mine, with a different focus, can be found in Regulation:“The Danger of ‘Public Health’.”)
I don’t think it’s reasonable for an individual to face such a trade-off when buying food with respect to the FDA’s guidelines for food production, storage, and prep.
I made a mistake in my previous post. Health was the wrong choice of word. What I should have used was safety. How much of a burden should we place on an individual consumer to determine if a product is safe?
Maybe it’s important that we first define safe. Take ice cream for example. Ice cream is not inherently healthy. While excessive consumption can pose a serious health risk, it is not a safety concern. When discussing if ice cream is safe for consumption, I am talking about whether it is spoiled or contain dangerous pathogens/chemicals.
I read The Danger of Public Health. I don’t agree with all of it but I enjoyed the read. Thank you for sharing!
PS Fingers crossed that the highlighting works.
Mark Z
Jun 27 2019 at 5:39pm
Not to be outdone by Gottlieb, San Francisco has just banned e-cigarettes entirely.
Fred_in_PA
Jun 27 2019 at 11:30pm
I am a little confused by your second sentence: You say.
I suppose I had expected you to say “the choices that are beneficial to these individuals themselves or to society . . . .”
Or is your position that individuals will opt for the beneficial choices without the state’s nudging them, but will have to be shoved into the detrimental ones?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 28 2019 at 9:55am
Thanks for pointing this confusion, Fred_in_PA. I have corrected the sentence.
nobody.really
Jun 28 2019 at 11:51am
To the left, to the left—-everything he does pushes us to the left. Gottlieb’s out of the closet and into our stuff as if HE bought it.
Please don’t touch. DON’T TOUCH!
He’s talking that mess? That’s fine—-but could he walk and talk at the same time? It’s his name that’s on the op-ed, so he’s dumped his values and lost his cred. Yet still has standing with the AEI, telling smokers they’re such a fool, talking ’bout how he’ll never ever respect a man with Juul.
But hes’ got that twisted. He must not know about me. He must not know about weed. I could have another one in a minute. Matter of fact, I’ll have one this minute, maybe. Take my CBD? Take my seeds? I can have another one by tomorrow.
So he shouldn’t for a second get to thinking he’s irreplaceable.
Comments are closed.