I think there were some comments made by my colleagues Mark Mitchell, firstly, and Simeon Brown, which I thought they made two good points in their recent discussions. Mr Mitchell's point was really about not making sure that we don't give the drugs back. If they've been tested and they've got bad stuff in them, why do we hand them back? If we're really serious about avoiding those deaths that we just talked about, then why do we actually give them back? And, in many ways, the risk that KnowYourStuff actually becomes a marketing endorsement for criminal activity, and then those results cannot be used or are inadmissible in court, I think is a big, big problem. I used to work at a place called Unilever in Pētone, and we used to go get endorsements for Persil laundry detergent from Fisher & Paykel washing machines, and said, "These things will be really good for you." In many ways, that's the same kind of process here: it's a marketing endorsement. I'm sure that good people like Greg O'Connor, a very well respected police officer, must know that this isn't a good part of the process—not a good part of the bill.