<strong>People would still be able to grow their own if it was completely legal without the limitations you suggest.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but I don't want people mass-marketing and selling the stuff.
This way, the libertarian ideal of people doing what they want to their own bodies is upheld, but I think without the mass-marketing, less people would choose to do it, and noone would be allowed to profit from selling someone else deadly stuff.
[quote] Instead of drunk driving we'd have heroin or cocaine driving. Instead of worrying about our kids binge drinking they'll be binge snorting. They'll have a much easier time getting a hold of drugs. We'd have more addicts, more doped up people. IMHO we'd have more people in jail, more people losing jobs. We wouldn't have "won" the war, we'd have given in. <hr></blockquote>
The assertion that legalising drugs would automatically result in more hard drug users does not quite hold water IMHO. Back in the 1960s, when heroin was legal in the UK, the number of users and addicts was tiny. Ever since the drug was made illegal, the number of addicts has grown expotentially, because the dealers, the pushers and organised crime in general have a massive incentive to get as many people hooked as possible. Take away the profit motive and why would they bother?
The assertion that legalising drugs would automatically result in more hard drug users does not quite hold water IMHO. Back in the 1960s, when heroin was legal in the UK, the number of users and addicts was tiny. Ever since the drug was made illegal, the number of addicts has grown expotentially, because the dealers, the pushers and organised crime in general have a massive incentive to get as many people hooked as possible. Take away the profit motive and why would they bother?</strong><hr></blockquote>
OH and the "legal" companies selling that crap wouldn't have an incentive to get people hooked?
Sure and the Tobacco companies never knew that smoking kills or that nicotine was addictive.
I'd legalise all drugs, make them prescription only, and imply long jail sentances for those who were caught outside their homes who were high. Yes I agree that people should have the choice whether to fvck themselves up. But if they step one foot outside thier front door, or affect anyone who is clean, then throw the book at em. Id designate a state, say Texas, where they sent all the people who got fvcked up, and keep them there forever. No politically correct BS. Its your choice, if you ****up, tough shit.
Personally I say leagalization with limits. For instance, imagine what would happen to the criminal drug trafficing chains if all of a sudden you could get better stuff, cheaper from the government?
I just think that its hyprocritical to deny drugs, especially the lower scale ones (Marijuana any one?) when your allowing:
alchohol, tabacco, coffee, and bloody refined sugar!
Hell, perhaps we should outlaw smiling, it releases dopamine
Also the use of drugs such as opium in medical conditions should be a must! Morphine is much more addictive, and they use it constantly.
Why give something chemically refined when you can give the natural product? Well control I suppose, its like the whole bacteriophage bit (including that all of a sudden a lot less money is being made by the pharmesudical companies).
I personally think all drugs should be legalized. Their illegality makes no sense to me. That said I think the ancilliary crimes related to drug use should be prosecuted with vigor. I also think drug use should be a priviledge. One should not be eligible for programs such as welfare or food stamps if they choose to indulge. Lastly the worst drug pushers of all are not the illegal drug dealers, but rather the pharmaceutical companies. If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?
<strong>If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Good one!
You ever see all the marketing crap doctors get from the drug companies? My wife works at a hospital, and it's amazing all the absurd little trinkets they give out - she likes to bring me home Viagra pens. She thinks it's funny for some reason.
CHADD, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, is the "grass roots" organization that promotes ADHD as a diagnosis for parents with pesky kids, right? In their literature, they say "if your child was nearsighted, you'd get glasses," and they say that Ritalin? is the best treatment for ADHD.
CHADD every year pushes the DEA to raise the quota on ritalin production, saying more children need it.
All that's fine, but guess who funds CHADD? Ciba-Geigy. Guess who Ciba-Geigy is? The Swiss pharm company that produces ritalin.
NICE one BRussle. Reminds me of something I read on American <a href="http://www.scn.org/news/newspeak/"; target="_blank">Newspeak</a> about Daves ciggarettes (or something like that) who claimed that they didnt even want to be sold with those stuck up "corporate" cigarettes. Of course they were owned by Phillip Morris but...
If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?
Every one knows that you need to advertise perscription drugs, "the people have the right to know" damn it!
I think the actual correct wording is "WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SHOW IT TO THEM WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!"
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
I am amazed that people think hat because drug would be legal and only gotten by prescription that it would somehow make the drug dealers on the corner out of a job. There would still be a market for people who could not get the prescription and they would pay more for the drugs to get them. Then after that what? The are now addicted and can get it cheaper from the pharmacy? Your solutions are not solutions.
And many people who take drugs wouldn't want to go to their doctor anyway, because its their little secret that they don't want others to find out about.
Personally I would sentance to death anyone who sold illegal drugs of any kind. I would also make tobacco a Class A drug and ban it (and I do smoke myself). And anyone caught taking drugs would get an immediate jail sentance.
[quote]I am amazed that people think hat because drug would be legal and only gotten by prescription that it would somehow make the drug dealers on the corner out of a job. There would still be a market for people who could not get the prescription and they would pay more for the drugs to get them. Then after that what? The are now addicted and can get it cheaper from the pharmacy? Your solutions are not solutions.<hr></blockquote>
The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Personally I would sentance to death anyone who sold illegal drugs of any kind. I would also make tobacco a Class A drug and ban it (and I do smoke myself). And anyone caught taking drugs would get an immediate jail sentance.
Bring me my Victory Gin!
Seriously, killing addicts? Thats a little low isnt it?
There would still be a market for people who could not get the prescription and they would pay more for the drugs to get them
While I agree with you to a point, you must admit that a great deal of the drug laws these days prohibit some very good uses of drugs. eg. Opium for people in pain, Marijuana for people in situations where they could make truely good use of it (people who are in situations out of their control where they need an "upper"). Hell, pot doesnt even have that many negative side effects unless grossley over used (you end up the opposite of some one who takes too much coffee).
Also, in the case that you DID leagalize drugs (to an extent of course) the ammount of crime and abuse would be reduced. Its isnt a miracle cure, but its a step in the right direction. Evidence of this can be seen in most places where drug laws are more lax, eg. In Europe the legal drinking age is 16, but they have fewer accidents caused by wreakless drunk driving (kids getting smashed and racing down streets) and less of the "drink until you puke" mentallity.
No you wouldnt destroy the drug lords, but then again you couldnt destroy the ciggarette companies.
The REAL problem is if it becomes a private enterprise. While I think that using and making drugs should be lega, selling them should definatly NOT be so. The only source should be those under direct control by the government.
Otherwize you end up with stuff like the Tabacco giants.
I've thought about this for a few years, and one time I tried to come up with the craziest solution to all of this I possibly could. But it actually made a lot of sense, so I'll share it with you guys.
Legalized drugs. We should legalize all drugs like alcohol and tobacco have been, even cars are treated this way. You have to be of a certain age, and you have to register. Which brings me to my next point,
Registered drug users. It would be more like with cars/driving, as in you have to carry identification and obey laws (how they will be enforced I'm getting to), and you even have to take a short test to qualify for each type of drug you want to use. Just basic information like what to do in the event you O.D., what not to do, what your new "registered drug user citizenship" entails, basic information about safe and proper drug channels, etc. If you don't pass, you can't be a registered drug user.
Special Drug User Reservations. You know how we put the Indians (er, excuse me, Native Americans) on reservations? Well, the same sort of concept goes for drug users, but with a lot less funding and far more policing. Think of it as a very nice little community for drug users only. Once you go in, you can never come out. You cannot leave the community, but don't worry, everything you can want is inside of it. Even drug help programs.
Drug User Reservation laws. In the interests of the public and drug users on DURs, there are certain constraints on your rights when you become a registered drug user and migrate to a DUR. You cannot leave of course. You are monitored 24/7, everywhere you go. Not overtly, secretly in fact, but still, definitely well-monitored. You're also secretly given a tracking device, and a pain-inducing device (in case you attempt to escape). Not only that, but if you're a female your tubes are tied. We don't want any babies getting crack-addicted, nor do we need the gene pool stupid enough to become a registered drug user to be getting any larger.
Funding. Where's all the money for this gonna come from? Well, the government is going to sell some of the drugs, and there are going to be drug taxes imposed, which will pay for a lot of the DUR-related expenses. Where would all of the drugs come from? Any confiscated drugs would be donated to the DURs, and drug companies would be allowed to make strictly-monitored manufacturing centers within DUR cities.
Marketing. What kind of idiot would want to live in a jail like that? Well, you'd be surprised. Most of the bad stuff would actually be secret, but you'd consent to all of it in a huge, all-encompassing agreement you have to sign to become a licensed drug user. And of course after you go into the community, it is made wholly difficult to communicate with the outside world (as if you'll be concerned with that anyway, with all the yummy drugs you'll be stuffing in your body), and when you actually do so, no one will believe drug users' outrageous claims about DURs because they are, well, high and wasted and hallucinating. Not that I'd expect a lot of sympathy for them from the general public. In any case, tons of people would fall for it, and we'd be able to solve a large portion of problems that exist today.
Initial DUR population. Repeat drug users/offenders/dealers would become the starting population of the DURs, after being investigated and tested to verify they are a real drug user, and after being reviewed by a board of non-drug-using citizens as a non-productive drug-using member of society.
Drug exceptions. Of course, alcohol and marijuana will not be included as "drugs" as far as registered drug users go, at least not initially but tobacco will be due to second-hand smoke being a danger to the non-drug-using population. All hard drugs (rock, lsd, speed, heroine) will definitely be included however.
Grace period. There will be a 6-12 month period in which if you are caught with drugs or someone who knows you reports you as a drug user, where you'll be welcome to join the DUR community, or just learn about it. There will be websites, hotlines, informational pamphlets, and educational videos about drug user licensing and DUR communities. Television commercials, radio spots, magazine/newspaper ads, and web banners will advertise Drug User Reservations as being hip, cool, and the easiest/safest/most legal way of trying out new drugs. During this time, you won't *HAVE* to go to a DUR or register if you are caught with/dealing/using drugs, but you will almost definitely be forced to learn about doing so. Eventually you'll want to join, anyway. After that period, you'll have to choose between freely registering as a drug user, or extremely harsh punishments coupled with large fines.
So there you go. Registered drug users and communities, drug taxes, safer drugs, safer streets and non-drug-user communities, a cleaner gene pool, and a better economy.
No, I don't seriously believe this could ever happen or would even work. I just was bored one day and talking with a friend and we planned this all out. It didn't sound so crazy at the time, because it didn't start out being quite so crazy.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think some people need a mandatory "IMHO" pasted before each of their posts.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, The Blue Meanie bows down before Samantha's eloquence
Maybe I missed something amidst all the debate but who precisely is paying for these "free" perscriptions? I sure as f*ck won't. Not via income taxes and not via raised insurance premiums either. You tell me who (aside from taxpayers) are going to foot the bill and I might listen.
But that aside, you're delusional if you think addicts being able to get a regular fix will somehow [make them less likely to do stupid things / engage in criminal behavior]. People on crack, heroine, or coke -- walking around on the streets -- is no more safe than it was before, just because the drugs are legal now. The only way ANYTHING gets safer is if the behavior changes (while they're high, not just beforehand). Explain that one away and I might listen a little longer...good luck.
Comments
<strong>People would still be able to grow their own if it was completely legal without the limitations you suggest.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but I don't want people mass-marketing and selling the stuff.
This way, the libertarian ideal of people doing what they want to their own bodies is upheld, but I think without the mass-marketing, less people would choose to do it, and noone would be allowed to profit from selling someone else deadly stuff.
The assertion that legalising drugs would automatically result in more hard drug users does not quite hold water IMHO. Back in the 1960s, when heroin was legal in the UK, the number of users and addicts was tiny. Ever since the drug was made illegal, the number of addicts has grown expotentially, because the dealers, the pushers and organised crime in general have a massive incentive to get as many people hooked as possible. Take away the profit motive and why would they bother?
<strong>
The assertion that legalising drugs would automatically result in more hard drug users does not quite hold water IMHO. Back in the 1960s, when heroin was legal in the UK, the number of users and addicts was tiny. Ever since the drug was made illegal, the number of addicts has grown expotentially, because the dealers, the pushers and organised crime in general have a massive incentive to get as many people hooked as possible. Take away the profit motive and why would they bother?</strong><hr></blockquote>
OH and the "legal" companies selling that crap wouldn't have an incentive to get people hooked?
Sure and the Tobacco companies never knew that smoking kills or that nicotine was addictive.
I dont take any form of illegal substance.
I just think that its hyprocritical to deny drugs, especially the lower scale ones (Marijuana any one?) when your allowing:
alchohol, tabacco, coffee, and bloody refined sugar!
Hell, perhaps we should outlaw smiling, it releases dopamine
Also the use of drugs such as opium in medical conditions should be a must! Morphine is much more addictive, and they use it constantly.
Why give something chemically refined when you can give the natural product? Well control I suppose, its like the whole bacteriophage bit (including that all of a sudden a lot less money is being made by the pharmesudical companies).
<strong>If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Good one!
You ever see all the marketing crap doctors get from the drug companies? My wife works at a hospital, and it's amazing all the absurd little trinkets they give out - she likes to bring me home Viagra pens. She thinks it's funny for some reason.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Here's a good conspiracy for ya:
CHADD, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, is the "grass roots" organization that promotes ADHD as a diagnosis for parents with pesky kids, right? In their literature, they say "if your child was nearsighted, you'd get glasses," and they say that Ritalin? is the best treatment for ADHD.
CHADD every year pushes the DEA to raise the quota on ritalin production, saying more children need it.
All that's fine, but guess who funds CHADD? Ciba-Geigy. Guess who Ciba-Geigy is? The Swiss pharm company that produces ritalin.
<strong>
OH and the "legal" companies selling that crap wouldn't have an incentive to get people hooked?
Sure and the Tobacco companies never knew that smoking kills or that nicotine was addictive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair point, but you are missing the point I have already made twice about prescription. See my earlier posts...
If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?
Every one knows that you need to advertise perscription drugs, "the people have the right to know" damn it!
I think the actual correct wording is "WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SHOW IT TO THEM WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!"
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
Imagine that. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Personally I would sentance to death anyone who sold illegal drugs of any kind. I would also make tobacco a Class A drug and ban it (and I do smoke myself). And anyone caught taking drugs would get an immediate jail sentance.
The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.
1600 Pennsivainly AVE
Washington DC..
<strong>
The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never took you for a Black Helicopter type SJO.
Bring me my Victory Gin!
Seriously, killing addicts? Thats a little low isnt it?
There would still be a market for people who could not get the prescription and they would pay more for the drugs to get them
While I agree with you to a point, you must admit that a great deal of the drug laws these days prohibit some very good uses of drugs. eg. Opium for people in pain, Marijuana for people in situations where they could make truely good use of it (people who are in situations out of their control where they need an "upper"). Hell, pot doesnt even have that many negative side effects unless grossley over used (you end up the opposite of some one who takes too much coffee).
Also, in the case that you DID leagalize drugs (to an extent of course) the ammount of crime and abuse would be reduced. Its isnt a miracle cure, but its a step in the right direction. Evidence of this can be seen in most places where drug laws are more lax, eg. In Europe the legal drinking age is 16, but they have fewer accidents caused by wreakless drunk driving (kids getting smashed and racing down streets) and less of the "drink until you puke" mentallity.
No you wouldnt destroy the drug lords, but then again you couldnt destroy the ciggarette companies.
The REAL problem is if it becomes a private enterprise. While I think that using and making drugs should be lega, selling them should definatly NOT be so. The only source should be those under direct control by the government.
Otherwize you end up with stuff like the Tabacco giants.
Legalized drugs. We should legalize all drugs like alcohol and tobacco have been, even cars are treated this way. You have to be of a certain age, and you have to register. Which brings me to my next point,
Registered drug users. It would be more like with cars/driving, as in you have to carry identification and obey laws (how they will be enforced I'm getting to), and you even have to take a short test to qualify for each type of drug you want to use. Just basic information like what to do in the event you O.D., what not to do, what your new "registered drug user citizenship" entails, basic information about safe and proper drug channels, etc. If you don't pass, you can't be a registered drug user.
Special Drug User Reservations. You know how we put the Indians (er, excuse me, Native Americans) on reservations? Well, the same sort of concept goes for drug users, but with a lot less funding and far more policing. Think of it as a very nice little community for drug users only. Once you go in, you can never come out. You cannot leave the community, but don't worry, everything you can want is inside of it. Even drug help programs.
Drug User Reservation laws. In the interests of the public and drug users on DURs, there are certain constraints on your rights when you become a registered drug user and migrate to a DUR. You cannot leave of course. You are monitored 24/7, everywhere you go. Not overtly, secretly in fact, but still, definitely well-monitored. You're also secretly given a tracking device, and a pain-inducing device (in case you attempt to escape). Not only that, but if you're a female your tubes are tied. We don't want any babies getting crack-addicted, nor do we need the gene pool stupid enough to become a registered drug user to be getting any larger.
Funding. Where's all the money for this gonna come from? Well, the government is going to sell some of the drugs, and there are going to be drug taxes imposed, which will pay for a lot of the DUR-related expenses. Where would all of the drugs come from? Any confiscated drugs would be donated to the DURs, and drug companies would be allowed to make strictly-monitored manufacturing centers within DUR cities.
Marketing. What kind of idiot would want to live in a jail like that? Well, you'd be surprised. Most of the bad stuff would actually be secret, but you'd consent to all of it in a huge, all-encompassing agreement you have to sign to become a licensed drug user. And of course after you go into the community, it is made wholly difficult to communicate with the outside world (as if you'll be concerned with that anyway, with all the yummy drugs you'll be stuffing in your body), and when you actually do so, no one will believe drug users' outrageous claims about DURs because they are, well, high and wasted and hallucinating.
Initial DUR population. Repeat drug users/offenders/dealers would become the starting population of the DURs, after being investigated and tested to verify they are a real drug user, and after being reviewed by a board of non-drug-using citizens as a non-productive drug-using member of society.
Drug exceptions. Of course, alcohol and marijuana will not be included as "drugs" as far as registered drug users go, at least not initially but tobacco will be due to second-hand smoke being a danger to the non-drug-using population. All hard drugs (rock, lsd, speed, heroine) will definitely be included however.
Grace period. There will be a 6-12 month period in which if you are caught with drugs or someone who knows you reports you as a drug user, where you'll be welcome to join the DUR community, or just learn about it. There will be websites, hotlines, informational pamphlets, and educational videos about drug user licensing and DUR communities. Television commercials, radio spots, magazine/newspaper ads, and web banners will advertise Drug User Reservations as being hip, cool, and the easiest/safest/most legal way of trying out new drugs. During this time, you won't *HAVE* to go to a DUR or register if you are caught with/dealing/using drugs, but you will almost definitely be forced to learn about doing so. Eventually you'll want to join, anyway. After that period, you'll have to choose between freely registering as a drug user, or extremely harsh punishments coupled with large fines.
So there you go. Registered drug users and communities, drug taxes, safer drugs, safer streets and non-drug-user communities, a cleaner gene pool, and a better economy.
No, I don't seriously believe this could ever happen or would even work. I just was bored one day and talking with a friend and we planned this all out. It didn't sound so crazy at the time, because it didn't start out being quite so crazy.
<strong>
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think some people need a mandatory "IMHO" pasted before each of their posts.
I'm sure the CIA is reading this right now.
<strong> And anyone caught taking drugs would get an immediate jail sentance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are kidding, surely? I though they already did?
Are you a Tory, by any chance, MarcUK?
<strong>
The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, The Blue Meanie bows down before Samantha's eloquence
Maybe I missed something amidst all the debate but who precisely is paying for these "free" perscriptions? I sure as f*ck won't. Not via income taxes and not via raised insurance premiums either. You tell me who (aside from taxpayers) are going to foot the bill and I might listen.
But that aside, you're delusional if you think addicts being able to get a regular fix will somehow [make them less likely to do stupid things / engage in criminal behavior]. People on crack, heroine, or coke -- walking around on the streets -- is no more safe than it was before, just because the drugs are legal now. The only way ANYTHING gets safer is if the behavior changes (while they're high, not just beforehand). Explain that one away and I might listen a little longer...good luck.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>