A victimless crime is an illegal act that typically either directly involves only the perpetrator or occurs between consenting adults; because it is consensual in nature, there is arguably no true victim, i.e. aggrieved party. A victimless crime is an illegal act that typically either directly involves only the perpetrator or occurs between consenting adults; because it is consensual in nature, there is arguably no true victim, i.e. aggrieved party. Definitions of victimless crimes vary in different parts of the worlds and law systems, but usually include possession of any illegal contraband, recreational drug use, prostitution and prohibited sexual behavior between consenting adults (e.g. public sex), arms trafficking, smuggling and human smuggling, among other similar infractions. However, there is controversy surrounding this. Edwin Schur and Hugo Adam Bedau state in their book Victimless Crimes: Two Sides of a Controversy that 'some of these laws produce secondary crime, and all create new 'criminals,' many of whom are otherwise law-abiding citizens and people in authority.' In politics, a lobbyist or an activist might use this phrase with the implication that the law in question should be abolished. Victimless crimes are, in the harm principle of John Stuart Mill, 'victimless' from a position that considers the individual as the sole sovereign, to the exclusion of more abstract bodies such as a community or a state against which criminal offenses may be directed. Three characteristics can be used to identify whether a crime is victimless crime – if the act is excessive, is indicative of a distinct pattern of behavior, and its adverse effects impact only the person who has engaged in it – according to the University of Chicago's vice scholar, Jim Leitzel. In theory, each polity determines for itself the laws it wants to have, so as to maximize the happiness of its citizens. As knowledge progresses and behavior changes, and values change as well, laws in most countries lag badly behind social changes. Once it is obvious to a vast majority that the law is unnecessary at best, the law, until it is repealed, will be prohibiting a victimless crime. Many victimless crimes begin because of a desire to obtain illegal products or services that are in high demand. Criminal penalties thus tend to limit the supply more than the demand, driving up the black-market price and creating monopoly profits for those criminals who remain in business. This 'crime tariff' encourages the growth of sophisticated and well-organized criminal groups. Organized crime in turn tends to diversify into other areas of crime. Large profits provide ample funds for bribery of public officials, as well as capital for diversification. The War on Drugs is a commonly cited example of prosecution of victimless crime. The reasoning behind this is that drug use does not directly harm other people. It is argued that the criminalization of drugs leads to highly inflated prices for drugs. For example, Bedau and Schur found in 1974 that 'In England the pharmacy cost of heroin 0.06 cents per grain. In the United States street price $30-90 per grain.' This inflation in price is believed to drive addicts to commit crimes such as theft and robbery, which are thought to be inherently damaging to society, in order to be able to purchase the drugs on which they are dependent. In addition to the creation of a black market for drugs, the War on Drugs is argued by proponents of legalization to reduce the workforce by damaging the ability of those convicted to find work. It is reasoned that this reduction of the workforce is ultimately harmful to an economy reliant on labor. The number of drug arrests increases every year. In a poll taken by the Bureau of Justice Statistics between 1980 and 2009, ' 30-year period... rates for drug possession or use doubled for whites and tripled for blacks.'