Massachusetts fails to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms, DMT, mescaline and ibogaine

Massachusetts voters have rejected a ballot initiative that would have eliminated penalties for the non-commercial production, possession and sharing of five naturally occurring psychedelics. With 87 percent of the votes counted On Tuesday evening, 57 percent of voters were against Question 4which would allow adults 21 years or older to use psilocybin, psilocyn (another psychoactive component of “magic mushrooms”), dimethyltryptamine (DMT, the active ingredient in ayahuasca), ibogaine (a psychedelic drug derived from the root bark of the iboga tree), and mescaline (the active ingredient in peyote). The initiative would also have approved state-licensed “psychedelic therapy centers.”

Question 4 looked like a groundbreaking initiative from Colorado voters approved in 2022, for the same substances and behaviours. Both went beyond a 2020 Oregon Initiative which allowed state-licensed “psilocybin service centers” but did not apply to other psychedelics or allow independent use (although an initiative approved the same year, which was later fallen over state legislature decriminalized low-level possession of psychedelics and other drugs).

The Massachusetts initiative would have allowed “individuals 21 years of age or older” to “grow, possess and use a personal quantity of psychedelic substances.” It would also have allowed them to assist others in these activities and to transfer amounts for personal use to other adults ‘without compensation’.

Possession limits were 18 grams for mescaline, 30 grams for ibogaine and one gram for DMT, psilocybin or psilocyn. Possessing more would have been a civil offense, punishable by a $100 fine for amounts up to twice the limit, but it would still have been a criminal offense beyond that limit. Under current Massachusetts law, possession of psychedelics is punishable with a maximum of one year in prison for the first offense and a maximum of two years for the second offense.

On-site consumption of the covered drugs in therapy centers would be regulated by a newly established Commission for Natural Psychedelic Substances. The initiative would have imposed a 15 percent tax on these transactions and given local governments the ability to impose additional taxes of up to 2 percent. Local governments would also have been given the power to regulate the centers without banning them.

Opinion polls held September And early October suggested that voters who had decided on Question 4 were about evenly split. But a significant portion of voters – 14 percent in both surveys – were undecided. A third pollheld at the end of October, estimated support at 50 percent, with 44 percent opposed and 6 percent still undecided.

In the last poll it was 59 percent of Democrats favorite Measure 4, compared with 49 percent of independents and 36 percent of Republicans. Colorado’s 2022 psychedelic initiative won by more than seven points, which was impressive considering that of the state political demography: Registered Democrats have only a slight lead over registered Republicans. But in Massachusetts, where the Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1, Question 4 was defeated by a double-digit margin.

Like the campaigns for the Oregon and Colorado initiatives, the Question 4 campaign, led by a group called Massachusetts for Mental Health Options, emphasized the psychotherapeutic potential of psychedelics. “Plant-based therapies are the most effective treatment I have seen for veterans struggling with post-service mental health issues,” said Emily Oneschuk, a Navy veteran who served as the group’s grassroots outreach director, said in a news release. The campaign said the initiative would “enable regulated access to promising natural psychedelic medicines for treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety and depression.” It emphasized that “psychedelics will be available in approved therapeutic settings under the supervision of trained and licensed facilitators, and will NOT be sold in stores for take-home use.”

Opponents, led by the Coalition for Safe Communities, portrayed Question 4 as a foolhardy experiment. Although the organization was not “advocating against the medicinal properties” of psychedelics, spokesman Chris Keohan said told The Boston Heraldthe initiative “goes too far far too quickly and fails to address the real concerns of public safety advocates and mental health professionals.”

Anahita Dua, surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital warned that “Question 4 would decriminalize psychedelics, open for-profit centers, (and) allow growth in a 10-by-15-foot area in homes,” adding that “a black market is inevitable with this amount of housing growth.” Dua expected an increase in drug driving, accidental consumption by “children and pets” and harm caused by the “life-threatening cardiotoxicity” of ibogaine. She complained that therapy centers “do not have to be run by medical professionals, cannot provide critical care during side effects, and are not prohibited from giving psychedelics to high-risk patients, such as patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, pregnant women or women who are breastfeeding. women.”

It appears such warnings have given voters pause, showing the limits of the message that psychedelics can help people overcome long-term psychological problems when more conventional approaches have failed. Just as the medical use of marijuana opened the door to broader legalization, that strategy could undermine the tenets of the war on drugs. pave the way towards greater pharmacological freedom. But not in Massachusetts, at least not yet.