Senator Envisions Legislature Would “Create Policy” Behind Voter Law
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, OCT. 1, 2024…..Bay Staters grappling with serious mental health issues could gain access to a new treatment option if a controversial ballot question wins approval next month, though opponents of decriminalizing psychedelic substances say the referendum fails to incorporate sufficient guardrails to make the therapy safe and affordable.
Gathered in front of the State House Tuesday, referendum supporters Sen. Adam Gomez and Reps. Samantha Montaño and Lindsay Sabadosa joined municipal leaders to tout the alleged health benefits of psychedelic-assisted therapy, which they said can fill a void after patients fail to find relief through conventional medications and treatments.
Question 4 would legalize certain types and small quantities of psychedelic substances, including psilocybin and psilocin found in mushrooms, and dimethyltryptamine, mescaline and ibogaine found in plants.
“Question 4 is about opening up access, and it’s about opening up access to an option for mental health treatment that research has shown to be powerful and can be taken safely,” said Gomez (D-Springfield).
Gomez added, “Massachusetts has an opportunity to provide access for those who aren’t helped by the current options. This applies to those under hospice care, veterans with PTSD, our neighbors and loved ones whose daily lives are impacted by mental health challenges.”
The ballot question does not call for retail sales of psychedelics. The measure creates a pathway to license and regulate locations where people can buy the substances and be supervised while using them. Psychedelics sold at those facilities would be subject to the state sales tax and a new 15 percent excise tax. Also, people 21 and older would be permitted under the proposal to grow, possess and use psychedelics. Bay Staters could grow the substances at home, in a 12-foot by 12-foot area, and consume them at home.
Elected officials, who did not take questions during the “press conference” Tuesday, largely sidestepped discussing how the measure allows people to cultivate psychedelics at home and to give away small amounts to friends and family members ages 21 and older.
Under the question, a five-member state Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission and a 20-member Natural Psychedelic Substances Advisory Board would be created to implement and regulate the proposed law.
“Let’s be clear: Question 4 is not about creating a new industry or a new economy. This is not the same as the cannabis industry in any way,” Marlborough City Councilor Trey Fuccillo said. “No stores will be opening as a result of this ballot question. This is compassionate and a measured approach to provide regulated therapy in a safe, well-controlled environment under the supervision of trained medical professionals.”
Proponents broadly pointed to research from the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital and New York University Langone Health’s Center for Psychedelic Medicine. At the Center for the Neuroscience of Psychedelics at MGH, researchers say psychedelic compounds “may increase the brain’s capacity for change,” which creates a “unique opportunity to change patterns in brain activity, and in turn, improve symptoms, behavior and functioning, to ultimately eliminate suffering.”
A WBUR and CommonWealth Beacon poll, conducted Sept. 12-18, found 42 percent of likely voters support the question, while 44 percent oppose it. A University of New Hampshire poll from around the same time found 51 percent of likely voters support the question and 20 percent oppose it.
Opponents say the measure could fuel a black market for psychedelics, increase crashes while driving under the influence, and pose a risk to children and pets who accidentally consume edibles.
Chris Keohan, spokesman for the Coalition For Safe Communities, said the opposition group is not against the medicinal benefits of plant medicine but is worried about major issues surrounding how the ballot question is written.
The question does not require licensed facilities to be staffed by medical professionals, Keohan said, which could be particularly dangerous for high-risk patients who may have a bad reaction to the substances, including those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. At for-profit facilities in Oregon, people can end up paying around $750 to $3,500 per visit, and Keohan said the ballot question for Massachusetts does not include any type of price cap.
“The home growth is even more dangerous for someone battling severe psychosis or schizophrenia,” said Keohan, who claimed the ballot question provisions allowing psychedelics to be grown at people’s homes could upend the home insurance landscape in Massachusetts.
“The amount of flaws in this ballot question are just untenable,” he said.
Elected officials outside the State House Tuesday framed psychedelics as a much-needed alternative therapy, which they say has been vetted through scientific research, for treating mental health conditions like anxiety, depression and PTSD when more conventional talk therapy and medicines fail to help.
Cambridge Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, a social worker for the past three decades, said he wants to ensure he can use “every tool” available to help individuals who are struggling.
“Psychedelic-assisted therapy offers hope to those battling PTSD, severe depression, anxiety and addiction, and by creating a legal, regulated framework for this therapy, we can provide people with the care they need while ensuring that it’s administered safely and professionally,” McGovern said.
Still, McGovern admitted the question faces an “uphill battle” among skeptical residents. Among voters in the UNH poll asked how well they understand the measure, 23 percent said “very well,” 32 percent said “somewhat well,” 25 percent said “not very well,” and 17 percent said “not well at all.”
“People don’t understand this. They hear legalizing psychedelics and they don’t get it,” McGovern said. “So we’re going to have to do a lot of education, a lot of outreach.”
The legislative committee that reviewed potential ballot questions found the major goals of the psychedelics measure, namely licensure and decriminalization, would likely “undercut each other by creating two separate systems for the use of psychedelic substances.”
“The petition would both create a system of state-licensed and taxed therapeutic facilities on the one hand and, on the other, decriminalize the cultivation, possession, and distribution of a variety of hallucinogenic and psychoactive substances,” the April 30 report said. “Voters are, therefore, being asked to simultaneously establish a potentially costly licensure system that imposes regulations on the cultivation methods, quality of product and allowable means of engaging certain users, while at the same time making the same substances widely available for individual cultivation and use across the Commonwealth in a non-licensed manner.”
Gomez claimed Question 4 would make “Massachusetts a leader once again in health care access” and uphold the state’s commitment to caring for vulnerable communities. Asked about regulating psychedelic use and promoting safety among people who cultivate the substances at home, Gomez said that will be addressed through future policymaking on Beacon Hill.
“Once the ballot question comes, the Legislature’s going to have to come in and create policy behind it, and making sure that we have to amend anything of that nature,” Gomez told the News Service after the event. “So that would come up next session.”
Sabadosa said she never expected to become an advocate for psychedelics. But the Northampton Democrat said that changed at the end of last session, when she heard from a constituent who managed to overcome mental health struggles and stay in school by using psilocybin.
Should the ballot question fail, Sabadosa argued Massachusetts would experience a setback.
“It allows other states to move forward with these exciting new treatments, but it says that Massachusetts isn’t ready and isn’t open, and we probably won’t be for many years to come,” she said.
