for instance, in wyeth vs. levine, if they had taken account of the particular risks and decided that despite these particular risks, this is the way the warning really should be, if they actually had in the altria case talked about what the required cigarette companies to put certain kinds of nicotine amounts on their labels, then i think the court would have come out differently because we actually would have had the liberation of the expert agency. and i think that changes the preemption calculus because then there's the concern that we don't want to have juries overruling the expert agency. it's also because we'll have a decision in a national market, we'll actually have deliberation that this is the best way to proceed. on the other hand, if we don't have substantial deliberation by the agencies of the government, the danger is that the court because people have simply failed to deliberate, then what preelse becomes is a kind of laissez-faire. even if we haven't had the democratic process even through the agencie