Nut is cracked by herb.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apart from this being untrue, this line of argument is irrelevant to this issue.

The point is that the government appointed scientists to look at the scientific evidence about drug control, then ignored the evidence and sacked the chief scientist.

Or should we base government policy on what you believe rather than scientific evidence?

I wonder if I've ever actually met you...

Anyway, the comparisons he made were bogus and he does seem to be pushing an agenda. That doesn't make his advice invalid, but it indicates he isn't the best man for the job. Comparing taking ecstacy to horse riding reveals all sorts of cultural prejudices.

Edit: Oh yes, and Hyponatremia is a really danger.

Lea Betts?

So, check your facts before you call "nonsense".

[naut]

and the possibility of overdose is nearly impossible due to the vast amount one has to consume. Overdosing on water is much easier than with cannabis. And no one has even observed such occurrence as an overdose of LSD.

To overdose on weed you have to smoke 1500 joints in twenty minutes. I dare anyone to try.

And to get psychological issues, two conditions have to be fulfilled:

a) a predisposition to mental problems
b) consume an absolutely ridiculous amount

[Aemilius Paulus]

Lea Betts?

Please, common medical drugs have more serious side-effects. According to this BBC article, Lea Betts drank too much water. She may or may not have died had she not taken MDMA, but the point is, it was her own irresponsibility and ignorance that killed her, and not the ecstasy. How many deadly outcomes result from combinations of various chemical compounds found commonly in medicines and other places, such as alcohol for instance? Ecstasy cannot be defined as a "deadly narcotic" if one has to combine it with other agents to induce death.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please, common medical drugs have more serious side-effects. According to this BBC article, Lea Betts drank too much water. She may or may not have died had she not taken MDMA, but the point is, it was her own irresponsibility and ignorance that killed her, and not the ecstasy. How many deadly outcomes result from combinations of various chemical compounds found commonly in medicines and other places, such as alcohol for instance? Ecstasy cannot be defined as a "deadly narcotic" if one has to combine it with other agents to induce death.

She wouldn't have died had she not taken MDMA, that is quite clear. Her body was unable to process the water she drank because the drug was in her system and her cells litterally started bursting. It's a horrible way to die.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

She wouldn't have died had she not taken MDMA, that is quite clear. Her body was unable to process the water she drank because the drug was in her system and her cells litterally started bursting. It's a horrible way to die.

She died because ecstasy is illegal, obviously. This is what you get when drug education programs offer hysteria instead of facts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

She died because ecstasy is illegal, obviously. This is what you get when drug education programs offer hysteria instead of facts.

No she died because she drank water while high on E. That's it, no E, no death.

Teenagers are complete idiots, and she probably would have done the same thing had the drug been legal. Given the number of women I have virtually had to carry home over the past few years, it is very clear to me that anyone who takes any narcotic drug is not reliable.

The truth is, it would be consistant to ban alchohol and tobacoo. The latter will almost certainly have been banned in some places before I die.

[Aemilius Paulus]

She wouldn't have died had she not taken MDMA, that is quite clear.

Not exactly what BBC said, as they left it in question, but I generally agree. Water intoxication deaths under normal circumstances are quite rare, if outright implausible.


However, I still fail to see how MDMA is such an evil. We all know that almost every other medicinally active compound can cause complication or even the termination of pregnancy. Alcohol taken in conjunction with drugs, legal or illegal, can cause death due to the fatal chemical reactions. Numerous medicines or even "herbal remedies" act as blood thinners, and thousands die from excessive bleeding, mainly during operations. Vaccines regularly kill people, sometimes in droves, as with the 1976 swine influenza vaccine. Common vitamins can be overdoes on with crippling consequences, and likewise interact with various drugs. Should we ban the vitamins then?

Simply go to Wikipedia, search for any random legal drug and you will find a section listing the combinations to be avoided. Not to mention, the water-ecstasy link is not even inherently deadly. Unless you have a large excess of water. The same cannot be said for those common drug interactions, which can lead to death even when the amounts of both are relatively small, no more than common doses of each.

I do not understand how Lea Betts is a good example of the dangers of ecstasy. It is but common sense to check the vital safety facts of medicinally active substances, whether it be a drug, or especially, a narcotic. If one dies from such negligence, then woe to them. If I died in her place, I would have no one but myself to blame.

EDIT:

No she died because she drank water while high on E. That's it, no E, no death.

That's it, no excessive water consumption, no death. Either one is equally correct. Water intoxication is deadly, even when not combined with other factors. MDMA is sometimes, but rarely deadly when overdosed on, and people are more cautious of drug overdoses than of something as seemingly harmless as water. Miss. Betts died due to two equal factors, and she could have sooner died of water overdose than that of ecstasy.

Also, do I even have to list the substances which cause hyponatremia? Too many.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No she died because she drank water while high on E. That's it, no E, no death.

All she got from the gov't was "it will fry your brain", so all she had to go on was "drink water so you don't dehydrate".

Teenagers are complete idiots, and she probably would have done the same thing had the drug been legal.

People still drink and drive, but would you argue that the public awareness of the dangers of doing so has not led to a reduction in fatalities? Do less people smoke now than used to? If you give people solid information about actual dangers it will reduce the damage.

[Fragony]

I'm not quite sure I follow.

It is available you can buy it, I think it´s better to look the other way once in a while than legalize it, it has become too hot of an item for both sides. You just know that people are going to push the limits of what is acceptable it is going to be a mess. So many silly old laws that aren´t enforced anymore, I heard you can be arrested for not wearing your sabre if you are in the British military.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So many silly old laws that aren´t enforced anymore, I heard you can be arrested for not wearing your sabre if you are in the British military.

Yes, indeed. It's the only way to keep the infantry from causing trouble now they don't have the French.

[Ice]

It is available you can buy it, I think it´s better to look the other way once in a while than legalize it, it has become too hot of an item for both sides. You just know that people are going to push the limits of what is acceptable it is going to be a mess. So many silly old laws that aren´t enforced anymore, I heard you can be arrested for not wearing your sabre if you are in the British military.

Oh, I understand. In that case, at the very least then they should decriminalize it on a massive scale. People shouldn't spend time in federal/state prison, and pay exorbitant amounts of money when they get caught with a tiny amount of cannabis. That defies all logic.

[Fisherking]

I don't know the history of the whole thing with cannabis. I know the US pressured some nations into outlawing it but at least some must have had reasons of their own for doing it.

It might be good to know what all of the thoughts were when it was being outlawed.

It is still a very emotional issue and all about people and governments looking out for the welfare of people who don't want to be looked after.

What I know is that it was pretty unknown in the US until and 1872, or 1876 world exhibition or something where it was passed out free if you wanted a sample. It came from India and I think it was their exhibit that handed it out... They were of course part of GB at that time and under crown rule.

It was not a drug that American Indians used for dream quests or anything of the sort.

They had mixed hemp in tobacco mixes but that had little to no THC in it and had nothing to do with getting high.

I can hardly believe the world grew so moral in the next 50 years or so as to wish to outlaw a substance just because it was intoxicating...

But I guess that could be so...

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the thing became self fufilling in the end, it was banned for various political reasons not to do with the actual drug and then the need to demonise it because it is illegal has helped keep it illegal by filling people's minds with propaganda... even someone fairly left wing like my mum who has tried marijuana before was shocked when she found out I did it but was happy to give me my first try off the far more harmful drug alcohol...

Edit: Saw a good comment on the BBC website, If the scientists must stay out of politics then keep the politicans out of science.. ~:D

Anyway, the comparisons he made were bogus and he does seem to be pushing an agenda.

Sensible drug policy based on scientific merit rather than public hysteria... damn sneaky scientists.... and riding a horse can actually be quite a dangerous activity it wouldn't suprise me if it turned out to be more dangerous than E

[Idaho]

Given the number of women I have virtually had to carry home over the past few years, it is very clear to me that anyone who takes any narcotic drug is not reliable.

Well that's basically everyone then.

[Idaho]

I wonder if I've ever actually met you...

No I doubt it. You are a student/young conservative farmer type aren't you?

[LittleGrizzly]

The only non narcotic user I can think off (outside a dead grandparent) is a girl who accussed her boyfriend of beating her because one of her other friends had recently had that happen to her so she wanted to 'join in'...

In your non narcotic using group you have probably some of the scariest people (religious fundamentalists) and some of the most incredibly boring people... (probably have some normal people as well but give me the narcotic using group as my friends any day of the week)

[Boohugh]

Right, this is how I see things:

Prof Nutt gives evidence (which hasn't yet been fully published by the way) to the Government that, in the majority of people, cannabis use doesn't seem to cause psychosis/schizophrenia, etc. In fact, it only affects roughly 1 in 5000 young people, although mileage will vary depending on how heavy a user and what sex you are. Prof Nutt says the Government should concentrate on alcohol instead as it causes more social problems in his opinion. The Government looks at that evidence in combination with other factors they need to take into account and decide to reclass some drugs back into Class B. Prof Nutt doesn't understand why the Government seemingly didn't follow his advice, throws a proverbial hissy fit and gets fired for it.

There are a few interlinking points I think need to be brought to attention:

1) Prof Nutt doesn't say that the drugs are harmless. Most of this thread has been addressing the pros and cons of drug use and our esteemed Professor says that they do cause health problems including mental issues such as schizophrenia in young people. In the case of cannabis he says they affect between 1 in 2800 to 10000 young people, depending on whether you are male or female and how much you smoke. Now, going off the 2001 UK Census statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/UK.asp), there were just over 7.2 million people aged 15-24. If it were legal and half of those used or tried cannabis (perhaps even an underestimation of the number that would), that would be somewhere in the region of 1300 and 360 new cases of mental health issues.

So, what you are arguing is that a minority of people should suffer serious mental health issues just so that the majority can get high? And you are seriously surprised that the Government chose not to take this approach? This is ignoring the fact that people who smoke cannabis are also far more likely to use cigarettes (which ironically makes it harder to see the long term effects of cannabis use as we can't currently differentiate what causes the cancer, the tobacco or the cannabis) and so brings the whole set of health problems that go with those.

2) This isn't even an 'either/or' situation for the Government regarding the illegal and legal drugs. It isn't like they have said they are reclassifying these drugs and are going to ignore the social problems alcohol and cigarettes cause. Both issues need to be addressed and just by reclassifying those drugs (either up or down) does not mean one issues has taken precedence over the other.

Claiming that because there are other problems in society, using drugs is ok seems a rather perverse arguement. LittleGrizzly said earlier in this thread:

The roads would be safer with people going to a party and taking loads of speed than going to a party and drinking loads...

That is probably true, but you know what would be even safer? Doing neither!

I'm not trying to defend the Government's policy on drugs or alcohol, over the past 12 years of Labour government I think there has been a marked decline in societal behaviour, especially on the alcohol front. I also think there isn't a clear direction or leadership on the issue of drugs from the Government (but then that's a trait in all areas of government currently) and this constant changing of classifications certainly isn't clearing up the issue. However, I think it terrible that people claim that drugs such as cannabis and ecstacy are fine just because they and their friends have had no issues with them, when others clearly have.

Ignoring the problems of a minority because it doesn't affect the majority is a very slippery slope to start going down. It is this area where I think Professor Nutt was perhaps out of his depth and where the Government was right to say "thank you for your advice, but..." as they need to take into account these social factors and the overall picture, along with the scientific evidence on the drugs themselves.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, what you are arguing is that a minority of people should suffer serious mental health issues just so that the majority can get high? And you are seriously surprised that the Government chose not to take this approach? This is ignoring the fact that people who smoke cannabis are also far more likely to use cigarettes (which ironically makes it harder to see the long term effects of cannabis use as we can't currently differentiate what causes the cancer, the tobacco or the cannabis) and so brings the whole set of health problems that go with those.

Would you suggest that we make peanut butter illegal and put people in jail for using it?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Would you suggest that we make peanut butter illegal

It already is in the vast majority of US public schools...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I admit this issue is hard to get my head around because I can't quite see the mindset of someone who would profess to care deeply about someone having a small chance of getting lung cancer from marijuana smoke, or about someone becoming addicted to cocaine and having their life ruined, and then support putting those people in jail...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My best guess is that they see using a drug as an immoral act.

There are generally 5 spheres of morality, 5 different types of things we find immoral (harm, fairness, authority, community, and purity, at least that's what he calls them here).

An example of the purity sphere could be found in this paragraph:

Our bodies are meant to be chaste and modest temples of the Holy Spirit so that we can relate to others through our hearts with true love. Our bodies are not meant to be covered with the graffiti of tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), or made into works of “art” with fashionable costumes, piercings, hair dye, gaudy make up, shaven heads, or hostile punk hair styles. Our bodies are not meant to be defiled by making our reproductive organs into the equipment of a recreational sport. Nor are our bodies meant to be made into instruments of social acceptance, expressions of vanity and pride, or provocations to lust.

Now, drug use goes against the purity morality (along with things like tattoos, piercings, homosexuality). It also goes against authority because it is illegal. And against community because drugs are seen as something that "tears apart communities" or "would lead to a general laziness in society" (I think Xiahou said that once).

According to polling, conservatives rate community, purity, and authority as much more important that liberals do. Harm and fairness take priority for liberals. So it's no surprise that drug legalization is more favored by liberals.

So, just as radical islamists are outraged by things like this:

Last month a British woman teaching in a private school in Sudan allowed her class to name a teddy bear after the most popular boy in the class, who bore the name of the founder of Islam. She was jailed for blasphemy and threatened with a public flogging, while a mob outside the prison demanded her death. To the protesters, the woman’s life clearly had less value than maximizing the dignity of their religion

Because they overvalue certain moral spheres, many conservatives take a ridiculous stance on drug laws because they overvalue certain moral spheres.

Well anyway, that's my best guess for why people think marijuana should be illegal but driving a motorcyle for thrills, rock climbing for thrills, or skydiving for thrills is fine. Or maybe they disapprove of that too, and wear a crash helmet in their car. One would need some polling but I don't have any on hand.

[LittleGrizzly]

That is probably true, but you know what would be even safer? Doing neither!

And even safer again if they use a small amount of marijuana (it slows down your boy racer types at least...) just enough to get them a little paranoid without dulling thier reactions to much... (obviously being stoned out of your mind wouldn't help)

The world would be a lot healthier if we didn't eat McDonalds and other such nonsense the world would be a lot safer if we recduced all our speed limits by a decent portion the world would be a lot safer if we put road bumps everywhere...

But we do these things for entertainment convinence and to not waste our time... in no other area of life does this policy of even 1 in a few thousand is one too many so we should put a large portion of people out for it but when it comes to drug policy this seems to be accepted by a large portion of people...

I don't even consider it would worsen public health overall if anything I think it would improve it by offering other alternatives to the terrible legal drug alcohol. Even assuming these casualties would come on top of exsisting casualties, not considering the lives saved by lower and non use of alcohol ,the police time more effectively spent and money used in other areas would infact benefit people more than the drugs would negatively impact...

Not to mention the wonderful things we could do to our deficits with all the money saved

I do think of the arguments that the lesser recreational drugs should be kept illegal is no better than questioning the legality of things like peanut butter, rock climbing and other such extreme sports and questionable substances...

So, what you are arguing is that a minority of people should suffer serious mental health issues just so that the majority can get high? And you are seriously surprised that the Government chose not to take this approach?

So in summary what you are saying is that instead of offering less harmful alternatives to the terrible alcohol we should continue to inflict its effect on people with no legal recational alternative ? because just the positive effects of offering a legal alternative to that blight on society would make the improvment worthwile let alone the countless other benefits...

[naut]

I concur with Sasaki above.

This is ignoring the fact that people who smoke cannabis are also far more likely to use cigarettes (which ironically makes it harder to see the long term effects of cannabis use as we can't currently differentiate what causes the cancer, the tobacco or the cannabis) and so brings the whole set of health problems that go with those.

And this claim is absolute tosh. Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that people you smoke pot are more likely to smoke cigarettes?

And secondly do you have any reliable data of any documented death where the cause was marijuana in its 2000+ years of human usage? Do you have any reliable data of it causing cancer? I can assure you that you won't find cancer marijuana cases, due to the chemical make up of the plant. It doesn't create the same toxic concoction that tobacco does after burning (especially when smoked through a bong). Actually I could list over 200 human illnesses that marijuana is an effective treatment for, so much for health issues.

And that doesn't even take into account the superior quality of fabric hemp produces over, the inefficient to produce, cotton.

[Fisherking]

And that doesn't even take into account the superior quality of fabric hemp produces over, the inefficient to produce, cotton.

I don’t think that argument is going to get you anywhere.

I am pretty sure that while both were legally grown side by side cotton was the more popular of the two when it came to wearing them.

Most of the data is questionable on both sides of the issue. Advocate groups are no less prone to skew the facts than is the other side.

There is very little of what you could actually call hard science that has gone into any studies. There is no incentive to do so.

For anyone gathering data on the topic you are pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Why risk career and reputation on an issue where most people have already made up their minds.

And there are no monetary incentives to study cannabis either. Any grants are going to also have some viewpoint in mind before it ever starts.

Commercial Hemp is a bit different. It is banned for its resemblance to Cannabis Sativa.

[Idaho]

So, what you are arguing is that a minority of people should suffer serious mental health issues just so that the majority can get high?

...

That is probably true, but you know what would be even safer? Doing neither!

The minority already suffer those problems while the majority already get high. How is criminalising it making any difference other than making the quality more questionable, research and help harder to obtain and the criminal gangs richer?

Of course not getting high/drunk/etc would be safer. So would banning private cars, rock climbing, hangliding, cheating on your girlfriend and scratching your butt.

[Fragony]

No she died because she drank water while high on E. That's it, no E, no death.

Doubt it, never heard of such a thing, been partying since I was 15, seen many an overdose, some lethal. It's horrible to see how scared they are but they kinda brought it on themselves. You die from dehydration and brain-cooking, yeah it looks pretty bad, dying people usually do. Not giving water is probably the worst thing you can do.

[Idaho]

Doubt it, never heard of such a thing, been partying since I was 15, seen many an overdose, some lethal. It's horrible to see how scared they are but they kinda brought it on themselves. You die from dehydration and brain-cooking, yeah it looks pretty bad, dying people usually do. Not giving water is probably the worst thing you can do.

PhilVC is referring to a very high profile death of a teenager who took E for the first time. She took some, got into a panic and then proceeded to drink litres and litres of water, which unfortunately killed her.

Were it legal of course she could have gone to the first aid centre in the night club and they could have given her the once over, told her that drugs don't always make for a good time and perhaps she should lay off them next time. She didn't need to die.

[Fragony]

PhilVC is referring to a very high profile death of a teenager who took E for the first time. She took some, got into a panic and then proceeded to drink litres and litres of water, which unfortunately killed her.

Were it legal of course she could have gone to the first aid centre in the night club and they could have given her the once over, told her that drugs don't always make for a good time and perhaps she should lay off them next time. She didn't need to die.

Well Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla should understand that not knowing what he is talking about and having an opinion anyway can kill.

[Boohugh]

[B]I don't even consider it would worsen public health overall if anything I think it would improve it by offering other alternatives to the terrible legal drug alcohol.

...

So in summary what you are saying is that instead of offering less harmful alternatives to the terrible alcohol we should continue to inflict its effect on people with no legal recational alternative ? because just the positive effects of offering a legal alternative to that blight on society would make the improvment worthwile let alone the countless other benefits...

Again, you seem to be seeing this as an either/or case. The only option isn't either take recreational drugs or drink alochol (to excess). How about you all go out to the park with your friends and play a game of football and get some exercise, all go watch a film together, read a book, act out a play, etc. There are plenty of alternatives to doing both, and I think it this area where the government has failed most spectacularly, in both highlighting their existence and providing them.

And this claim is absolute tosh. Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that people you smoke pot are more likely to smoke cigarettes?

I think you would be hard pressed to claim that people don't mix tobacco with their cannabis (note, I'm not saying they always do, but it a common phenomenon). If you want scientific evidence of why: here. Even if the only time they use tobacco is when smoking cannabis, that still makes them tobacco smokers.

Do you have any reliable data of it causing cancer?

No, obviously not, as I said in my first post and explained why...so not really sure why you are asking this question. I'll readily accept the point that there isn't enough scientific evidence to clearly prove smoking cannabis increases your chances of developing cancer, but you shouldn't then extrapolate that to the conclusion that cannabis doesn't increase your chances of developing cancer. The fact is we just don't know either way yet (unless you smoke it with tobacco of course).

The minority already suffer those problems while the majority already get high. How is criminalising it making any difference other than making the quality more questionable, research and help harder to obtain and the criminal gangs richer?

So the problem is some people suffer these problems and your response is...ok, lets increase the number of people who can suffer these problems by making it legal! I just don't see your logic here. I'm not saying the status quo is the correct approach, there are problems with research and drug trafficking (I'd disagree about treatment and help, I'd argue there is already a significant amount of help available to people with drug dependencies and illnesses caused by misuse, although as with most things, more could always be done) but I don't believe that increasing the number of people who could develop these conditions is the correct one either.

Lets also be clear about 1 thing here: the class A,B,C system was designed to make it possible to control particular drugs according to their comparative harmfulness either to individuals or to society at large when they were misused, and one of the purposes of the ACMD is to provide evidence on the classification of drugs in the UK. Their evidence was that cannabis should remain class C and ecstacy should be downgraded from class A. Their evidence is not that cannabis or ecstacy should be removed from the class system, thereby signifying the fact they are no longer considered harmful to individuals or society at large.

Now, there are plenty of arguments with lots of validity that the A,B,C system of classification is outdated for purpose and should be reviewed. This was also the opinion of Parliament in a review of Government drug policy in 2006 (http://www.publications.parliament.u.../1031/1031.pdf) and it is an obvious failing of the Government's policy that they haven't yet done so. There should probably be a decoupling between the harmfullness of a drug and the punishment it carries for instance (one of the reasons the Government wants cannabis to remain Class B is so they can pursue the drug traffickers, not necessarily the users, more vigorously). There is also the contradiction that alcohol and tobacco are not covered within the act when their misuse clearly does cause harm to the individual and society. The failings of Government policy in these areas should not be used as an excuse to claim that other drugs should be more freely available.

[Subotan]

Bah, the government's only fired him because it's embarassing that he's recommending doing the opposite to what the government (I.e. Gordon Brown's personal Presbyterian beliefs) did by reclassifying Cannabis to Class B (All at once, thousands of stoners across Britain dropped their joints, on realising that their suppliers could do slightly more time in prison).

If a leading firefighter disagreed with the government's policies on smoke alarms, and was fired for it, there would be outrage. But because it's drugs, debate is stifled and ignored.

IIRC, Cannabis only causes mental illness in families with a prior history of schizophrenia. Certainly, the danger is a lot less than people who have a history of cancer in their family, yet they continue to smoke tobacco. (Btw, Cannabis, if used through a vapouriser cannot cause cancer). The financial, medical and moral arguments all logically point to the legalisation of Cannabis (Along with other less harmful drugs e.g. Ectasy, LSD) as the only sensible option. The only things holding it back are political interests.

[rory_20_uk]

Thank you all for showing why we need toxicologists and other related scientists and physicians to undertake and peer review scientific data!

• Everything can be lethal
• That includes water, oxygen, glucose and all medications
• Banned drugs are harmful
• Legal drugs are harmful
• All can leave you a physical or mental cripple
• Sports can be harmful
• ANYTHING can be harmful

Risk management, OK? Be that driving an old banger as opposed to a new Volvo, to getting pregnant (yes, this increases your morbidity and mortality!) everything is a potential risk!

These scientists are in a position to judge the effects of the drugs on the body better than anyone here. They might not be able to judge the effects on society, but this is mainly due to them being illegal, rather than the drugs themselves. They can build models taking into account the purity and likely contaminants that they might contain, but these will not be 100% accurate. Again, this could be massively improved if they were legal.

The method of delivery makes a massive difference. If someone were to mainline alcohol the toxic dose is massively less than thee oral dose; if one is to eat cannabis this is much less dangerous than smoking it (and I've heard of some idiots injecting mashed cannabis...)

Legalising something does not make it compulsary. When opium was legal it was not something everyone did before work - it was looked down upon in the main, or taken by artistes... so, nothing has changed there really, bar the criminals get the money.

Let people choose what they do to their own bodies. Make the information freely available. And people are more likely to read it when it is based on fact, not government backed fairy stories.