In Gonzales v. State, 608 P.2d 23 (Alaska 1980) the Alaska Supreme Court interpreted AS 12.55.100(a)(2), the restitution statute that applies to conditions of probation. Gonzales conceded that the court could order him to repay the state for money that the state spent to purchase cocaine from him. But Gonzales argued that the court should require him only to repay the profits he made from the drug transactions. The supreme court disagreed with Gonzales's contention, and concluded that the court could require him to pay back all of the money that the state had used to purchase cocaine from him: The restitution statute . . . allows the court to order restitution "for actual damages or loss caused by the crime for which conviction was had." In construing a similar statute, the Oregon Supreme Court defined restitution as "the return of a sum of money . . . which a defendant wrongfully obtained in the course of committing the crime." Here it seems clear that Gonzales wrongfully obtained $ 10,175.00 from the state in the course of his drug transactions, and that this sum represented "actual damages or loss" to the state.