Pot America's #1 Cash Crop

[Tempest Storm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6193073.stm

It says that despite intensive eradication plans, $35bn (£18bn) worth of the illegal drug is produced a year - more than corn and wheat combined.

Despite our government's best efforts, pot is still a vibrant weed to be reckoned with.

[x42bn6]

When you have celebrities using it actively, this is what happens.

I love how calls to legalise it are spreading - that is a defeatist attitude.*

[Tempest Storm]

Defeatist? More like realist. Especially when considering there is no objective to keep it illegal, or to have even made it illegal in the first place.

[FairyGal]

itz cuz the gov't cant contrl the distrobution of it. so they dun wanna legalyze it.

[Forged]

Originally Posted by x42bn6

When you have celebrities using it actively, this is what happens.

I love how calls to legalise it are spreading - that is a defeatist attitude.*

There is no basis behind it, or any drug for that matter, to be illegal. That is why there is a call to legalize...

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by FairyGal

itz cuz the gov't cant contrl the distrobution of it. so they dun wanna legalyze it.

The reason why pot is illegal is because of hemp. In the 1920's, hemp was on it's way to being the main cash crop of the usa. But the paper companies wanted to keep their grip on the market, so they used their power to get pot illegal, wich made hemp illegal too.

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Forged

There is no basis behind it, or any drug for that matter, to be illegal. That is why there is a call to legalize...

The reason why pot or ANY narcotic is illegal is because:
1. they are severely harmful to human health
2. they are addictive (both physiologically and psychologically) in relatively small doses

There are legal substances that are either harmful or addictive, but never both in such a severity. I don't think the government should play a huge role in the morals and ethics of people, but when it comes to the physical wellbeing of communities (remember: addiction means that drugs spread easily in communities), I support government in the banning of drugs.

[Tempest Storm]

The reason why pot or ANY narcotic is illegal is because:
1. they are severely harmful to human health
2. they are addictive (both physiologically and psychologically) in relatively small doses

Public education, folks.

Pot does not kill you, you can not OD on it, and it hasn't been shown to cause cancer, nor it is addictive anywhere near the degree of that of alcohol and tobacco, both of which are hundreds of times more dangerous and addictive than pot and half of the other illegal drugs out there.

There are legal substances that are either harmful or addictive, but never both in such a severity.

Booze and cigs are as comparable to herion in terms of addictiveness, and each kills hundreds of thousands a year, yet are perfectly legal.

I don't think the government should play a huge role in the morals and ethics of people, but when it comes to the physical wellbeing of communities (remember: addiction means that drugs spread easily in communities), I support government in the banning of drugs.

1. Public health is a state's right, it's not an issue for the federal government.
2. You can't make that arguement when there are drugs out there, completely legal, that are more dangerous and addictive that many of the drugs that are illegal.
3. Drugs are hip there days, don't ya see, with all the kids getting shot up with ritalin, and all these other drugs I can't say, and way too damn many of them for me to remember their names. If they can have their white-collar drugs which cause cancer and hemorroids and this and that with their 30 second commercials where they spend 20 second telling you all the perfectly fine **** in your body that this one little pill is gonna **** up just because you wanna piss some more, or not so much, or get a little sleep, or clear up your allergies, or get a boner, lose a boner, make your boner bigger, make you fell happy, make you feel funny, make you feel hungry, make you ****, or make ya stop eating so goddamn much.

There's a pill for everything these days, so why can't I have my doobie snack?

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

Public education, folks.

Pot does not kill you, you can not OD on it, and it hasn't been shown to cause cancer, nor it is addictive anywhere near the degree of that of alcohol and tobacco, both of which are hundreds of times more dangerous and addictive than pot and half of the other illegal drugs out there.



Booze and cigs are as comparable to herion in terms of addictiveness, and each kills hundreds of thousands a year, yet are perfectly legal.

Regarding alcohol and cigarettes: True. That is why I believe that tobacco and alcohol should also be made illegal. There are research papers indicating that pot causes loss of mental capacity and dysfunctional emotions. Combine this with it's addictiveness and lack of therapeutic quality: this a drug not worth legalising.

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

1. Public health is a state's right, it's not an issue for the federal government.
2. You can't make that arguement when there are drugs out there, completely legal, that are more dangerous and addictive that many of the drugs that are illegal.
3. Drugs are hip there days, don't ya see, with all the kids getting shot up with ritalin, and all these other drugs I can't say, and way too damn many of them for me to remember their names. If they can have their white-collar drugs which cause cancer and hemorroids and this and that with their 30 second commercials where they spend 20 second telling you all the perfectly fine **** in your body that this one little pill is gonna **** up just because you wanna piss some more, or not so much, or get a little sleep, or clear up your allergies, or get a boner, lose a boner, make your boner bigger, make you fell happy, make you feel funny, make you feel hungry, make you ****, or make ya stop eating so goddamn much.

There's a pill for everything these days, so why can't I have my doobie snack?

1. In order to fulfill the state's right to health, the government should ban drugs that cause physical (and mental) harm.
2. These legal drugs that cause more harm and are more addictive should also be illegal, unless they are being used therapeutically to save people's lives.
3. Drugs shouldn't really be used to treat small, trivial problems, but if they don't have strong side effects and are non-addictive, then it's ok I guess. Like if you have a headache, just take Aspirin or Paracetamol and lie down, not go nuts with multiple antibiotics and Vancomyecin. And Viagra? Its prescription only for a reason: only men with impotence should use it, but with caution. Personally I'd rather be impotent than risk my life with heart attacks. I think the FDA should give these drugs prescription status, to avoid having paranoid moms injecting their kids with a drug cocktail and screwing with their immune system.

Bottom line: Drugs - use only when necessary...

[Tempest Storm]

Regarding alcohol and cigarettes: True. That is why I believe that tobacco and alcohol should also be made illegal. There are research papers indicating that pot causes loss of mental capacity and dysfunctional emotions. Combine this with it's addictiveness and lack of therapeutic quality: this a drug not worth legalising.

We tried outlawing alcohol before, and guess what, it was only the most lawless and violent decade America had seen since the civil war. It gave rise to Al Capone and numerous other infamous outlaws, just as our drug prohibition gave rise to Pablo Escobar and his elk.

As for theroputic use, the medicinal use of marijuana can only be denied by firm sticking your head in the sand, and hymning as loudly as possible. People coming off chemotherapy for cancer use it, AIDS patients on the cocktail use it, people with multiple scerocis (sp) use it, like Montel Williams, people who have glaucome use it.

1. In order to fulfill the state's right to health, the government should ban drugs that cause physical (and mental) harm.

Pot causes neither. Smoking it isn't great for the lungs, but due to prohibiton, making tintures and smoking it out of a vaporizor, which eliminates the smoke, just isn't worth it.

As for mentally, there are plenty of people out there who can't handle drugs. My advice to them, don't do em. I can handle them. I enjoy them. I enjoy the different feeling and sensations and thoughts that I get on different drugs.

What in the hell gives you people the right to come and try and put me in prison for doing something that I can handle just fine, and don't hurt anyone one?

2. These legal drugs that cause more harm and are more addictive should also be illegal, unless they are being used therapeutically to save people's lives.

Pot is being used worldwide for the very reason, you know this, right?

3. Drugs shouldn't really be used to treat small, trivial problems, but if they don't have strong side effects and are non-addictive, then it's ok I guess. Like if you have a headache, just take Aspirin or Paracetamol and lie down, not go nuts with multiple antibiotics and Vancomyecin. And Viagra? Its prescription only for a reason: only men with impotence should use it, but with caution. Personally I'd rather be impotent than risk my life with heart attacks. I think the FDA should give these drugs prescription status, to avoid having paranoid moms injecting their kids with a drug cocktail and screwing with their immune system.

You understand that if you take a whole bottle of aspirin, you probably won't wake up the next morning. You can smoke pot till you pass out, and you will wake up in the afternoon.

Bottom line: Drugs - use only when necessary...

I wager it's safe to say I have more experience with drugs than you, so who are you to tell me about that which you don't even know about?

[Forged]

Originally Posted by Arxces

The reason why pot or ANY narcotic is illegal is because:
1. they are severely harmful to human health
2. they are addictive (both physiologically and psychologically) in relatively small doses

There are legal substances that are either harmful or addictive, but never both in such a severity. I don't think the government should play a huge role in the morals and ethics of people, but when it comes to the physical wellbeing of communities (remember: addiction means that drugs spread easily in communities), I support government in the banning of drugs.

I don't feel daddy government has any buisness telling me what I can or can not do with my own body.
To say drugs hurt everyone because addiction hurts everyone is a terrible argument. Cars hurt everyone because sometimes people die in car wrecks...

Not everyone that does drugs is addicted to them, hell most people that do drugs are not addicted to them.

[Bizzy Bone]

NIIICE post temp. Very nice.


I LOL at the fact that ciggarettes and drinking is legal, yet you cant smoke a sleezy ass dime sack without cops trying to arrest you.
There hasn't been one person to OD off weed. And if they has been, HE WAS ONE HIGH DUUUUDE ^^.
But hey, It's their life, not your's so let them do what they want and let em be.

[torrid mind]

the oil companys would suffer from making pot/hemp legal. so I say bring it on. you could make just about anything with weed. and anyone who says it has NO medical uses needs to try it. while I also don't agree with the gov saying what I can and can't put in my body, there are some dangerous drugs. weed is deffinatlly not one of them. it amazes me that its a class 1 drug. I have seen no signs of addiction in anyone I come across who smokes the stuff.. its a couple hrs (depending on the bud) of a good feeling. once your high is gone its gone. and sure people might say "boy im board.. it would be nice to have some weed right now" they arn't going to go off and rob banks or suck **** (or feet :lol) for money to get the stuff.
If the gov would make it legal, then they could tax it and maybe use that money to get rid of some of our national debt.... but knowing the monkey in the white house.. he would problly just use it to feed his war... and while some may say "I don't wan my pot taxed!" well its a whole lot better than going to jail just becuase you got high.

[Bizzy Bone]

Originally Posted by torrid mind

the oil companys would suffer from making pot/hemp legal. so I say bring it on. you could make just about anything with weed. and anyone who says it has NO medical uses needs to try it. while I also don't agree with the gov saying what I can and can't put in my body, there are some dangerous drugs. weed is deffinatlly not one of them. it amazes me that its a class 1 drug. I have seen no signs of addiction in anyone I come across who smokes the stuff.. its a couple hrs (depending on the bud) of a good feeling. once your high is gone its gone. and sure people might say "boy im board.. it would be nice to have some weed right now" they arn't going to go off and rob banks or suck **** (or feet :lol) for money to get the stuff.
If the gov would make it legal, then they could tax it and maybe use that money to get rid of some of our national debt.... but knowing the monkey in the white house.. he would problly just use it to feed his war... and while some may say "I don't wan my pot taxed!" well its a whole lot better than going to jail just becuase you got high.

Uhhh, Actually People DO rob, Just for weed.

[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

We tried outlawing alcohol before, and guess what, it was only the most lawless and violent decade America had seen since the civil war. It gave rise to Al Capone and numerous other infamous outlaws, just as our drug prohibition gave rise to Pablo Escobar and his elk.

You mean just because there is violence, just because big crime causes trouble we should just tolerate it? What kind of attitude is that? Why don't we just allow blackmail and gangsterism while we're at it. It's true that law creates criminals, but to then just loosen the law to have less crime is no real solution.

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

As for theroputic use, the medicinal use of marijuana can only be denied by firm sticking your head in the sand, and hymning as loudly as possible. People coming off chemotherapy for cancer use it, AIDS patients on the cocktail use it, people with multiple scerocis (sp) use it, like Montel Williams, people who have glaucome use it.

The documented 'therapeutic' effects of pot are, at best, only anecdotal. All the major studies of marijuana have failed to positively identify a positive benefit (besides the usual neurosuppression, but many modern painkillers exist to handle this), even that major study conducted by the US FDA. In fact, some studies have even uncovered some unexpected side-effects (such as infertility).

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

Pot causes neither. Smoking it isn't great for the lungs, but due to prohibiton, making tintures and smoking it out of a vaporizor, which eliminates the smoke, just isn't worth it.

The effects of pot are well documented. You can't make this claim honestly...

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

As for mentally, there are plenty of people out there who can't handle drugs. My advice to them, don't do em. I can handle them. I enjoy them. I enjoy the different feeling and sensations and thoughts that I get on different drugs.

What in the hell gives you people the right to come and try and put me in prison for doing something that I can handle just fine, and don't hurt anyone one?

As you've said, there are plenty of people (the majority I think) who can't handle drugs. What makes you think you can handle drugs where others can't? The harm comes when people think that drugs can be handled without any apparent harm (something which legalisation would entail). If these narcotics are legalised, widespread use would mean that people who cannot handle drugs could take them, and the harm to society would be great. Imagine low-income families having to steal because their minimum wage job cannot support their addiction.

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

You understand that if you take a whole bottle of aspirin, you probably won't wake up the next morning. You can smoke pot till you pass out, and you will wake up in the afternoon.

Who the hell would want to take a whole bottle of aspirin? It doesn't even produce a high. But it does cure your headache without that hours-long high, making it practical for everyday use.

Originally Posted by Tempest Storm

I wager it's safe to say I have more experience with drugs than you, so who are you to tell me about that which you don't even know about?

And I'd wager that you are addicted to drugs, meaning your views are biased on them. God forbid what horror it must be to you if authorities manage to cut the supply of all illegal narcotics. I don't need to take drugs to know about them. That is what scientists do: we look and study, and not get involved, in order to stay impartial.

Originally Posted by Forged

I don't feel daddy government has any buisness telling me what I can or can not do with my own body.
To say drugs hurt everyone because addiction hurts everyone is a terrible argument. Cars hurt everyone because sometimes people die in car wrecks...

Not everyone that does drugs is addicted to them, hell most people that do drugs are not addicted to them.

If you feel this way, then I have no right to tell you what you can or can't do with yourself. But I feel my argument on addiction is valid. Sadly as it is, it is a matter of benefits vs drawbacks. Cars provide benefits to society which greatly surpass their drawbacks. And with careful management and new technology (and not taking alcohol or drugs while driving) roads can be made less deadlier. Drugs, unless they provide a medical benefit, are cause more drawbacks than the mere benefit of pleasure. It goes beyond physical and mental issues. It causes social problems too, and drugs are a social phenomenon.

Originally Posted by torrid mind

the oil companys would suffer from making pot/hemp legal. so I say bring it on. you could make just about anything with weed. and anyone who says it has NO medical uses needs to try it. while I also don't agree with the gov saying what I can and can't put in my body, there are some dangerous drugs. weed is deffinatlly not one of them. it amazes me that its a class 1 drug. I have seen no signs of addiction in anyone I come across who smokes the stuff.. its a couple hrs (depending on the bud) of a good feeling. once your high is gone its gone. and sure people might say "boy im board.. it would be nice to have some weed right now" they arn't going to go off and rob banks or suck **** (or feet :lol) for money to get the stuff.
If the gov would make it legal, then they could tax it and maybe use that money to get rid of some of our national debt.... but knowing the monkey in the white house.. he would problly just use it to feed his war... and while some may say "I don't wan my pot taxed!" well its a whole lot better than going to jail just becuase you got high.

Originally Posted by Bizzy Bone

Uhhh, Actually People DO rob, Just for weed.

I agree, people do rob for the weed. But then again they rob for so many other things too. As for the oil companies, we could legalise hemp only, and we'd still have one over on the oil companies (but this still doesn't solve emissions problems). And as for the medical uses, they are very limited, and modern drugs can far surpass pot in these. BTW, pot is not a Class 1 Drug, its Class 3 (or equivalent) in most countries because it is less dangerous than the major drugs. And, as for debt, the US government would only do little to solving it's debt, but the trade deficit would rise even more as more drugs are imported.

I say this again: Drugs - Do when must...

[TheJanitor]

I wager it's safe to say I have more experience with drugs than you, so who are you to tell me about that which you don't even know about?

Never assume that you know more than someone over the internet please.

The reason Fags and alcohol are legal is simply because its too much trouble to make them illegal. I've seen mixed reactions to the drug, some people are just plain dopey and others seem normal. A lot of people will only smoke weed and won't touch tobacco.

I'd say weed should be studied further because if you legalise it now, you won't be able to close the door if a side-effect is discovered.

Pros of legalisation:
- Put lots of money in governments pocket, could be used for even more medical research.
- Make the drug safer and remove harmful fillers
- Put dealers out of buisness

(Have to go will edit later).

[Tempest Storm]

Originally Posted by Arxces

You mean just because there is violence, just because big crime causes trouble we should just tolerate it? What kind of attitude is that? Why don't we just allow blackmail and gangsterism while we're at it. It's true that law creates criminals, but to then just loosen the law to have less crime is no real solution.

When the law creates more crime than would otherwise exist, as alcohol prohibition did, I think it's a good idea to take another look at that law.

Blackmail and gangsters hurt people, pot doesn't. Invalid comparrison.

The documented 'therapeutic' effects of pot are, at best, only anecdotal. All the major studies of marijuana have failed to positively identify a positive benefit (besides the usual neurosuppression, but many modern painkillers exist to handle this), even that major study conducted by the US FDA. In fact, some studies have even uncovered some unexpected side-effects (such as infertility).

You're first mistake is reading anything produced by the government regarding drugs. As lie as much about it these days as they did 70 years ago when they claimed smoking pot would turn you into a ax wielding rapist.

I'll find some studies, since that's all you listen to, but there is no rational denying the medicinal uses of pot. Anti-nausia, apetite stimulant, blood vessel relaxer, pain inhibitor, these are all classic affects of smoking pot, and that you would disagree with any one of them shows your lack of knowledge in this area.

The effects of pot are well documented. You can't make this claim honestly...

Many lie about the effects of pot. I smoke it everyday, so I'ld pit my knowledge of the drug against biased scientists anyday.

And yes, I can make the claim. You don't have to smoke marijuana, you can even make it into a drink, completely bypassing the harm of smoking. Vaporizing has the same effect.

As you've said, there are plenty of people (the majority I think) who can't handle drugs. What makes you think you can handle drugs where others can't?

Because I can. I have fun on drugs, I don't flip out and get in fights, I don't loose control and do stupid things. The only time I loose control is when I drink, which I rarely do.

The harm comes when people think that drugs can be handled without any apparent harm (something which legalisation would entail). If these narcotics are legalised, widespread use would mean that people who cannot handle drugs could take them, and the harm to society would be great.

Explain. Because this certainly isn't true in Amsterdam.

Imagine low-income families having to steal because their minimum wage job cannot support their addiction.

Legalize drugs, the price falls. The only reason drugs are so expensive is because their is little competition in the supply, and no regulation governing price and quality.

Who the hell would want to take a whole bottle of aspirin? It doesn't even produce a high. But it does cure your headache without that hours-long high, making it practical for everyday use.

No one. Just making a point, aspirin is more dangerous than pot.

And I'd wager that you are addicted to drugs, meaning your views are biased on them. God forbid what horror it must be to you if authorities manage to cut the supply of all illegal narcotics. I don't need to take drugs to know about them. That is what scientists do: we look and study, and not get involved, in order to stay impartial.

I certainly enjoy drugs. I wouldn't say I'm addicted. I can go a week without pot and survive. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with my arguements.

You don't need to take drugs to know about them, but if you want to know a drug, you do.

You can not sit there, and tell me what happens when you smoke pot when you never have, and I smoke it everyday. Just doesn't work. You read studies, I have first hand experience.

If you feel this way, then I have no right to tell you what you can or can't do with yourself. But I feel my argument on addiction is valid. Sadly as it is, it is a matter of benefits vs drawbacks. Cars provide benefits to society which greatly surpass their drawbacks. And with careful management and new technology (and not taking alcohol or drugs while driving) roads can be made less deadlier. Drugs, unless they provide a medical benefit, are cause more drawbacks than the mere benefit of pleasure. It goes beyond physical and mental issues. It causes social problems too, and drugs are a social phenomenon.

Ok, explain to me the benifits of out drug laws, and I will explain to you the drawbacks of prohibition. Maybe that will put this to rest.

I agree, people do rob for the weed. But then again they rob for so many other things too. As for the oil companies, we could legalise hemp only, and we'd still have one over on the oil companies (but this still doesn't solve emissions problems). And as for the medical uses, they are very limited, and modern drugs can far surpass pot in these. BTW, pot is not a Class 1 Drug, its Class 3 (or equivalent) in most countries because it is less dangerous than the major drugs. And, as for debt, the US government would only do little to solving it's debt, but the trade deficit would rise even more as more drugs are imported.

Pot is a schedule I narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act of '69.

[torrid mind]

from wikipedia
"researchers investigating methods of detecting marijuana intoxication discovered that smoking the drug reduced intraocular pressure. High intraocular pressure causes blindness in glaucoma patients, so many believed that using the drug could prevent blindness in patients. Many Vietnam War veterans also believed that the drug prevented muscle spasms caused by battle-induced spinal injuries. Later medical use has focused primarily on its role in preventing the wasting syndromes and chronic loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy and AIDS, along with a variety of rare muscular and skeletal disorders. Less commonly, cannabis has been used in the treatment of alcoholism and addiction to other drugs such as heroin and the prevention of migraines. In recent years, studies have shown or researchers have speculated that the main chemical in the drug, THC, might help prevent atherosclerosis."

now, I used to do ALOT of hard drugs, mostlly speed. when I decied to quit, I can honestlly say weed helped me more than anything. not only did it help with the awfull withdrawls by helping with the pain. calming my nerves, and makeing me eat and drink water, but also after the withdrawls were over it helped me not to relapse. today I am clean from meth and have been for almost 2 years now. now, you can not say you get addicted to weed. I don't care what any stupid "research" says. I have never ONCE felt any need to have the drug. now I know what addiction is. I don't cherish weed, I don't feel pain when I don't have it, I don't cry about it, I would never steel to get ganja like I would to get meth. I think its very silly to have it outlawed.

New Mexico
"Approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the study included 250 patients and compared smoked marijuana to oral THC. All participants were referred by a medical doctor and had failed to control vomiting using at least three alternative antiemetics. Patients chose smoking marijuana or taking the THC pill. Multiple objective and subjective standards were used to determine the effectiveness.

Conclusion: Marijuana is far superior to the best available drug, Compazine, and smoked marijuana is clearly superior to oral THC. "More than ninety percent of the patients who received marijuana... reported significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting". No major side effects were reported, though three patients reported adverse reactions that did not involve marijuana alone. The report can be read here, http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/pierson.bhtml"

California
"A series of studies throughout the 1980s involved 90–100 patients a year. The study was designed to make it easier for patients to enter the oral THC part of the study. Patients who wanted smoked marijuana had to be over 15 years old (oral THC patients had to be over 5) and use the drug only in the hospital and not at home. Smoked marijuana patients also had to receive rare and painful forms of chemotherapy.

Conclusion: Despite the bias towards oral THC, the California study concluded that smoked marijuana was more effective and established a safe dosage regimen that minimized adverse side effects. The full text of the study can be seen here
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/ctptoc.htm"

there are so many groups of seriouslly ill people who advocate the use or cannabis. now how can you KNOW without being sick AND without trying the drug say it has no use?
these people all seem to think it does.
http://www.wamm.org/
oh and there are patient AND doctor testimonials from many diffrent illnesses in there.
now when it comes to research, how do you expect there to be more studies when the plant is illegal? that makes it very difficult to fit into the structural confines of medical research because appropriate, research-grade samples are difficult to obtain legally for research purposes, unless granted under authority of national governments. (back to them >.<)
"The cannabis that is available for research studies in the United States is grown at the University of Mississippi and solely controlled by the NIDA, which has veto power over the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define accepted protocols. Since 1942, when cannabis was removed from the U.S. pharmacopoeia and its medical use was prohibited, there have been no legal (under federal law) privately funded cannabis production projects. This has resulted in a limited amount of research being done and possibly NIDA's producing cannabis which has been alleged to be of very low potency and inferior quality"

now don't sit there and tell me the medical use of it hasnt been proven and give me a load that hasn't been proven either.
like fertility effects
"there are also contradictory reports, and it is also possible that tolerance develops to these effects.[2][12] According to the 1997 Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, fertility effects related to cannabis use are uncertain."

I just happen to think there are more good things that come out of it then bad...
okay im done..