The logical framework links unsafe work; employers' concerns about synthetic urine; risks of accident and death; the sale of synthetic urine; and the prohibition of importation, supply, and acquisition. And that's a very seductive story. Yes, these things are all correlated, but it makes huge assumptions. There is a serious problem with workplace safety, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that comes from drugs. There is no evidence of that. Cheating does occur, but the evidence shows that this cheating is what my colleagues on this side of the House have alluded to, which is more the case of somebody using somebody else's urine rather than buying synthetic urine, which I would wager is possibly more expensive and not as common. So the third assumption is that banning synthetic urine will make workplaces safe, and that is flawed as well, because banning synthetic urine won't magically solve the problem.