Can a prosecutor argue that a doubt is not reasonable if it is wholly speculative?

When the remark is examined in context, it is evident that the prosecutor was arguing that a doubt is not reasonable if it is wholly speculative and is not based on the trial evidence and inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. The prosecutor appropriately commented on the lack of circumstances supporting a reasonable conclusion that appellant possessed the drugs for personal use. This argument, including the challenged remark, is permissible and does not invert or lessen the burden of proof. "Moreover, viewing the challenged statement[] in context, we do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood him to be making such an argument." (People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 475.)