Election Results Bring Setbacks for Psychedelic Access

What is the status of psychedelics as America moves to the right? Election day brought setbacks for access to psychedelics with Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly rejecting Question 4 and more than a dozen Oregon cities banning the regulated sales and use of psilocybin mushrooms. 

The election of Donald Trump to a second term as president also introduces uncertainty into the federal regulatory process for psychedelic therapies. Trump has said publicly that he will let supporter Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “go wild” on healthcare. This could potentially mean changes at the FDA which in August rejected a new drug application by Lykos Therapeutics for MDMA-assisted therapy.  

On October 25, Kennedy posted to X saying the “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma,” wrote Kennedy. “If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your record, and 2. Pack your bags.”

Massachusetts Question 4 Defeated 

At the state level, the decisive rejection of Question 4 in Massachusetts, also known as The Natural Psychedelic Substances Act, signals that voters are still uneasy with the idea of personal use and possession of psychedelic plants and compounds. The Question 4 ballot initiative was defeated by a wide margin 57.06% to 42.94%. 

If Question 4 had passed, Massachusetts would have joined Oregon and Colorado in regulating psychedelic compounds. This ballot initiative was intended to legalize the possession and personal cultivation of certain naturally occurring psychedelics for people over the age of 21. This would have included psilocybin, psilocyn, DMT, mescaline (excluding peyote), and ibogaine. 

Ismail Ali, Director of Policy and Advocacy for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), expressed disappointment in the outcome of Question 4. In a message to MAPS supporters, Ali wrote, “Traditional knowledge, scientific evidence, and stories from other states point to psychedelics’ transformative potential, but this outcome shows us that our movement has work to do.”

Ali added that “the Question 4 campaign made important strides and sparked a new level of awareness and discussion.” As conceived, the bill reflects the current thinking behind legislative initiatives supporting psychedelic-assisted therapies in ways that build upon models established in Oregon and Colorado. It would have created a new 5-person Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission as well as an advisory board to work towards developing regulations for the licensing of therapeutic centers where these substances would be administered by licensed professionals. 

The Yes on 4 campaign posted a statement on election night noting that while the results did not look to be what they wanted, “We will keep fighting to find new pathways for all those who struggle with their mental health and look forward to working with legislators in the new sessions to continue advocating for access, for hope, and for healing.” 

While decriminalizing possession and use at the state level, the legislation would not have changed federal law under which these substances are still illegal under Schedule I with no currently accepted medical use. 

Question 4 was supported by Massachusetts for Mental Health Options which was funded through contributions from Dr. Bronners, MAPS, New Approach PAC and others. These same funders were behind successful psychedelic legislation in Colorado and Oregon, as well as attempts to pass similar but ultimately unsuccessful legislation in California. 

The measure was also endorsed by 45 state elected officials including Senator Elizabeth Warren, five Massachusetts city councils, and more than 240 healthcare professionals. Law Enforcement Action Partnership and veterans groups, including Disabled American Veterans of Massachusetts and Heroic Hearts Project, were among the advocacy groups that also supported the bill. 

Opposition to Question 4 was led by Coalition for Safe Communities, a group whose largest contributor is Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which advocates a largely probationary approach to cannabis and psychedelics. “We are not arguing against the medicinal benefits that some of the products that are listed in this ballot question could have,” said Chris Keohan, a spokesperson for the Coalition for Safe Communities. “Where we drew the line is the safety issue here, and to allow 144 square feet of grow in someone’s house is an astronomical amount of mushrooms to be growing in someone’s house.”

In their opposition to the legislation, The Boston Globe editorial board expressed reservations about health risks of some psychedelic substances and echoed concerns that the legislation “on one hand stresses the importance of rigorous oversight and on the other proposes a free-for-all.” The editorial board argued that, “while the opportunity for enhanced supervision is a strong argument for bringing these drugs aboveground, it begs the question of why the proposal would also let people grow significant amounts of the drugs themselves.”

Question 4 supported the creation of licensed psychedelic therapy centers that would be entitled to cultivate and distribute one or more allowed psychedelic substances. These centers would also administer the substance and provide natural psychedelics from a licensed facilitator. While offering these services, the bill calls for a standard of care that includes at least three sessions – one each for preparation, administration, and integration. 

The cost of rolling out the regulated centers was a top concern for Bay Staters for Natural Medicine, a grassroots psychedelics advocacy group that also opposed the ballot question but is not affiliated with the Coalition for Safe Communities.

“It’s not legal if no one can afford it,” argued James Davis, the organization’s co-founder. “While I agree that if people are growing and sharing it, it will put downward pressure on price, if the regulatory structure to operate legally is that expensive, then it’s almost extra predatory against those who want to set up a legal facilitation center,” he argued. “Because you’re basically saying, ‘We’re going to let an illicit market undercut all of your hard work if you do follow the law.’”

One respondent in an opinion poll carried out by Boston.com noted that while she was disappointed in the outcome of Question 4, she said that “people didn’t understand this was for medical use only. People I talk to had no idea that patients suffering from severe PTSD or depression, following extensive research published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals, were helped more than any other type of treatment,” wrote the respondent. 

The respondent added, “These people need help, and that has now been denied. More should have been done to explain this, people were thinking it’s like marijuana everyone would have easy access, and people would just be tripping everywhere. If they had known what it was really about and how helpful it is, especially for veterans with severe PTSD I think they would have voted yes.” 

Oregon Communities Pass Local Bans on Psilocybin Businesses

Voters in 16 Oregon jurisdictions passed measures to ban regulated psilocybin businesses, including parts of Portland, with support for bans ranging from 55% to 70%. Nehalem, a small community in Tillamook County, was the only jurisdiction to reject a ban, and only by three votes. 

Oregon was the first state in the country to establish regulated psilocybin assisted therapy in 2020 with Measure 109. That bill, which was also supported by New Approach PAC and funded in part by Dr. Bronners, provided for cities and counties to opt out of offering psilocybin services. Twenty-five counties and twenty-six towns in Oregon took that path by banning psilocybin in the 2022 election. 

Jason Burdge, co-founder and chief business officer of the Psilocybin Assisted Therapy Association told Oregon Public Broadcasting, “It’s really limiting an important mental health resource.”

Sam Chapman, policy director for the Microdosing Collective, expressed disappointment about the result, citing psilocybin’s mental health benefits, particularly for conditions like PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Chapman attributes resistance partly to public misunderstanding, telling the Oregon Capital Chronicle, “They don’t understand psilocybin. They don’t understand the research and they don’t understand the Oregon program. And so in addition to the lack of that understanding, they make some assumptions. The biggest assumption is that this is just the same thing as cannabis. They assume this is for retail sales, which is not true as psilocybin treatments are unlike cannabis and aren’t sold in stores.”

Oregon’s psilocybin program has licensed thirty centers and 1,000 staff, with session costs ranging from $1,500 to $3,500 per session, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting. Despite setbacks, Chapman and advocates remain committed to expanding education and access. Oregon’s psilocybin model has inspired similar moves in Colorado. This week’s rejection of Massachusetts Question 4 now slows that momentum. 

Psychedelic Church Leader Offers Psilocybin Mushrooms As Voter Incentive

While voters in Oregon and Massachusetts considered questions of psychedelic access during the election, Dave Hodges, the religious leader of the the Bay Area psychedelic Church of Ambrosia and the Zide Door church had a different approach. Hodges announced before the election that he was giving away potentially $6.1 billion worth of psilocybin mushrooms to anyone who agrees to sign a “Pledge of Unity” on Election Day. 

The pledge does not specifically mention Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, but Hodges told sfgate.com that he was running the promotion to support the Oakland-born presidential candidate. “I am absolutely doing this in support of Harris. I think she is the only one who can bring us together. The only thing Trump wants to do is tear us apart,” Hodges said. 

Any eligible voters who signed the “Pledge of Unity” received 3.5 grams of psilocybin mushrooms, which are illegal in CA, although authorities in the Bay Area appear to rarely be enforcing the prohibition on psychedelic mushrooms. Hodges said each 3.5-gram giveaway is worth $25, which means if all 244 million eligible voters in the country signed his pledge, he could be committed to giving out more than 1.8 million pounds of mushrooms, worth $6.1 billion. 

Hodges said he was inspired to do the giveaway after he saw Elon Musk offer daily $1 million cash prizes to people who register to vote. The U.S. Department of Justice warned that Musk could violate federal laws against paying voters, according to the New York Times. The billionaire has spent at least $119 million in support of Trump this year.

The two churches Hodges leads are part of a growing movement that considers psychedelics religious sacraments. He said that his churches, which make available psilocybin mushroom, cannabis and DMT, have more than 115,000 members which makes them one of the largest megachurches in the U.S. 

California Increases Penalties For Some Drug Offenses

California voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 36, a bill that increases penalties for certain theft and drug offenses. The bill, which needed a simple majority to become law, passed by a landslide 41 point margin of 70.6% to 29.4%. 

Prop 36 increases penalties for repeated theft offenses and crimes related to “hard drugs,” which include fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. It also would create a drug court treatment program for people with multiple hard drug possession convictions and creates a new category of crime called a “treatment-mandated felony.” This would allow those charged with drug possession for a third time who don’t contest the charges to complete a drug treatment program instead of going to prison. If they don’t complete the treatment, they would face up to three years in prison. Prop. 36 does not provide funding for the treatment mandate.

Prop 36 overturns certain provisions of Prop. 47, a bill passed in 2014 that aimed to reduce prison crowding by classifying some drug and theft crimes as misdemeanors. Under Prop. 36 theft of $950 of goods is now a felony. It also requires that felonies such as dealing drugs including fentanyl be served in state prison not county jails.

The bill was supported by major retailers including Walmart, Target and Home Depot, state police and district attorneys organizations, California Chamber of Commerce, and the state Republican party. Opponents included Governor Gavin Newsom, ACLU of Northern California, and the state Democratic party.