If you look at the mountains of evidence that we have accumulated over the past few decades on those two approaches—one end of town, which we've taken by compounding criminal prohibition and the criminal penalties inherent in that; the other end of town, enabling things like advertising, glamorisation, and glorification of substances like alcohol—both of those ends of the spectrum are where you end up with the maximisation of harm. The reason for that is that in both of those extreme ends of the spectrum—on the one side you have an entity, criminal organisations; on the other side you have an entity, corporates, particularly monopolistic behaving corporates—you have entities which are incentivised to exploit vulnerable communities in order to make a quick buck. The way that you deal with that is bringing the issue into the light through a mechanism that should be pretty well known in this House: it's regulation. That is where, when you talk about something like alcohol or you talk about something like tobacco, you say, "Hey, we can better regulate and control that to provide people with better information about what they're deciding to do with or put into their bodies." 