what we're objecting to is the alternative route to showing mens raya. we agree to the point it's enough to show the defendant knew it was violating from the state law or perhaps some provision of the fda, which regulates substances independent of the controlled substances act. as a practical matter in most cases, what the government -- the proof is going to be what the government described, which is simply that the defendant engaged in furtive conduct that suggests he knows the substance is illegal, and unless the defendant comes forward with some reason for the jury to think that in fact he had in mind that it violated some other law, or in fact he looked and came to the conclusion it doesn't violate the controlled substances act, the jury is likely to find mens rhey establishes and we don't have problem with that. and just to finally address the fact of this case. the fact my client was distributing things in baggies rather than vials shows he's doing it from his home business. the fact he's charges large prices shows he found a loophole. there's no r