 Now we'd like to ask Ethan to come back up and give us an overview of what's happening in the US. Ladies and gentlemen, Ethan Naiderman. Well, thanks Grant. I don't know if there's a hell of a lot to say. I mean what happened in the US back, I think in the late 80s, early 90s, was the federal government passed the Controlled Substances Analogs Act to try to get ahead of the curve, to try to criminalize any new substance. And, you know, I mean, it didn't seem to prove very effective. There's been a proliferation of these substances since. When I think about the consequences in terms of my own work, probably the principal consequence was at the time, and many of you may not know the name Sasha, how many people know the name Sasha Shulkin? Just raise your hand. And for those of you who don't, he is the brilliant genius really, who devised more psychoactive substances, hallucinogens in his backyard laboratory than all other scientists put together in human history. And also the one who's discovered the medicinal and psychoactive value of MDMA. And until the late 80s, he had basically discreetly worked with people at the DEA, he had friends in the DEA regulatory side, not the enforcement side, and they would sometimes ask him to assess the quality of the drugs, weird ones they were finding on the streets. And I was teaching at Princeton at the time, and I had put together a working group of distinguished academics to think through what would be the optimal drug policy. And a few people suggested that I ask Sasha Shulkin and his wife Anne to join, and people say, I don't know, he won't do it. He keeps a low profile. Then the feds passed a controlled substances analogs act and he joined like that because he felt that basically the federal government had criminalized his research, and that his research was not just about finding all sorts of ways for people to get high, it was also about the potential incredible medicinal value of these substances. As Rick Doblin talked about during the lunchtime session. So what's happening right now is that the substances have proliferated. Synthetic cannabis had a lot of attention. K2 spiced with the names that were applied to them. Then you got basalts became the new phenomenon, I think cathodone-based thing and all sorts of stories coming out. Then there's what we now call, or the word was devised by somebody at the harm reduction group, I think Dan Safe, what we call the alphabetamines. In other words, substances like MDMA with all these alphabet letters, but with an amphetamine base, a stimulant base, and obviously every time you change one little molecule that may put it then from a black area of the law into the gray area of the law. So there's a proliferation of these substances. And unfortunately, lack of quality control on what's being produced. And unfortunately, you know, some young people who will, you know, will parties where people will have a bowl of pills and they'll just take some for the hell of it, not exercising even the most minimal cautions. So the bad news is, is that right now there are two bills being introduced that have been introduced in the U.S. Senate. You don't need the details with SB 1322, SB 1323. And introduced by some of the pro-drug war Democrats, our New York State Senator Schumer, my state, California Senator Diane Feinstein. These are kind of the Democrats who go overboard and they don't want to be in terms of almost outflanking the Republicans on being pro-drug war, for ones who have pushed the mandatory minimum sentences that have filled our prisons. And they're responsive to political pressures at times, but the tendency is that need your criminalization of whatever comes along. And so the DEA, I understand, is feeling somewhat confident that they will just be able to slap the next layer of criminalization on these things. To, for example, shift the burden of proof that these things are not being designed for human consumption or whatever onto manufacturers, and on setting up an oversight body that's overwhelmingly DEA-driven. I don't necessarily have a major issue with the guys in the DEA who work to enforce the laws. I mean, we do have federal drug laws. Somebody has to enforce them. So be it then. The real problem with the DEA is the leadership role they play on the regulatory issues, the ones that Rick Doblin alluded to, the ways they provide obstacles to proper access to pain medications, the way they block research, the way they do all these sorts of things. And that's where the DEA has been a highly proactive prohibitionist agency that goes to that issue of whether the proper role of law enforcement is to enforce laws or to become advocates for the expansion of criminalization. I don't know what will happen with these two new laws in Congress. There's a decent chance that they will fly through. There is almost no organization working to oppose this. My organization, the Drug Policy Alliance, is becoming increasingly involved, but have not yet been able to focus on it. For those of you who want to interact with my organization this area, my two colleagues focused on it. One is Stephanie Jones. The other one is Grant Smith. The emails are S. Jones at DrugPolicy.org and G. Smith at DrugPolicy.org. So we're doing a little we can. We have had some success in trying to moderate some of the federal legislation. The question I'm wondering about is whether or not there's any potential because of our federal system to try to do some reforms at the state level. You know, what we've done with marijuana, right, where the states provide the leadership and ultimately we hope the national government will follow. Because food and drug regulation is such an entirely federal issue, I'm not sure that we can get traction there, but I hope that maybe with this breakthrough in the Justice Department allowing Colorado and Washington to proceed. And as I said earlier, in saying that if the focus is really on protecting public health and safety, then we have to look at the potential value of a regulatory approach, proving better than a prohibitionist approach and accomplishing those ends. So we're going to try to see if there's any traction to be gained at the state level. We're going to do our best to educate American legislators. With the New Zealand model, virtually nobody knew about it in the U.S. and so we were able to bring people to the U.S. with the help of Star Trust. We were also able to get the AP, the Associated Press, to produce a favorite report which went around the world globally. So we really see part of our mission in the U.S. as really trying to popularize awareness of your model here and to work to either modify the prohibitionist legislation that's coming through or to block it and to increase interest in this type of work. Thanks. You guys feel a little bit proud? I feel pretty proud, eh? A lot of people are just like, yeah, they don't realize just how world-leading this policy innovation is and I think probably now, maybe thanks to some positive media that are starting to get, people are starting to recognize that and I certainly hope so.