The Arguments Being Made For and Against Massachusetts’ Bill to Legalize Psychedelics
Psychedelics are a hot topic these days. And with any hot topic, there are passionate stances on both sides. As Massachusetts residents vote on a bill to legalize certain psychedelics, the pro and anti camps are making their case in any Bay State media outlet that will have them. It can be hard to keep track, so we collated the major arguments being made on both sides.
While we are staunchly in the pro camp, no bill is perfect. As more legalization bills come up for vote across the country, it’s helpful to distill down the major points to try and break through the cacophony of paid ads that try to create straw men or employ classic fear mongering. We believe that understanding the stance of the anti crowd can help us make better pro legislative bills going forward.
Looking for treatment? Find ketamine clinics closest to you as well as other psychedelic therapies in your area.
Here’s an overview of the pro and anti arguments presented across the media landscape:
Pro-Legalization Arguments:
1. Therapeutic Potential
Supporters argue that psychedelics have shown promise in treating mental health conditions like depression, anxiety, PTSD, and addiction. Dr. Roxanne Sholevar, a psychiatrist and psychedelic therapies researcher, notes that studies, when compared to mainstream pharmaceuticals, have not shown major adverse medical events in patients using psychedelics for therapeutic purposes.
Reasoning: Supporters of the bill highlight the growing body of research demonstrating psychedelics’ therapeutic potential. They point to clinical studies that suggest psychedelics can offer effective treatment for individuals who have not responded to traditional therapies. Dr. Roxanne Sholevar’s comment about the absence of major adverse medical events in therapeutic settings strengthens the argument that, when administered responsibly, psychedelics can be both safe and transformative for mental health care. Advocates see this as a breakthrough opportunity to offer new solutions for people suffering from conditions like depression and PTSD, where existing treatments often fall short. They believe legalizing psychedelics for therapeutic use could make these promising treatments more accessible and destigmatized.
New: Interested in Being Part of a Psychedelics-Focused Clinical Trial? Sign Up Here
2. Veteran Support
Emily Oneschuk, a veteran and grassroots campaign director, shares her personal experience of finding relief through psychedelic therapy after traditional VA treatments failed. This highlights the potential benefits for veterans struggling with mental health issues.
Reasoning: Supporters argue that veterans, a group disproportionately affected by PTSD, depression, and anxiety, could greatly benefit from legalized access to psychedelic therapies. Emily Oneschuk’s story underscores this by providing a real-life example of how traditional treatments through the VA often fall short, leaving veterans searching for alternatives. Advocates believe that psychedelics offer a promising solution, as more veterans share similar stories of mental health improvements. They also see this as an urgent need for compassionate treatment options for those who have served the country, highlighting that current methods aren’t enough for many in this community.
3. Regulated Framework
The initiative would create a regulated therapeutic framework for accessing natural psychedelic therapies, similar to models in Oregon and Colorado. This would provide safer, supervised access to these substances.
Reasoning: Supporters argue that creating a regulated therapeutic framework would ensure that psychedelics are used in a controlled, safe environment. By following models like those in Oregon and Colorado, the initiative aims to prevent misuse while making these substances accessible for medical purposes. A regulated system would allow for supervision by trained professionals, reducing the risks associated with unsupervised use. Advocates believe this framework would strike a balance between making therapeutic treatments available and ensuring public safety, addressing concerns about reckless or unregulated consumption.
4. Decriminalization Benefits
Supporters argue that decriminalization and home cultivation provisions are important to prevent the creation of a black market and to align with existing decriminalization efforts in several Massachusetts cities.
Reasoning: Supporters of decriminalization believe that allowing home cultivation and personal use would help prevent the growth of a black market for psychedelics. They argue that prohibiting these practices could drive the demand underground, leading to unregulated and potentially dangerous sales. By aligning with existing decriminalization efforts in several Massachusetts cities, the initiative would create consistency across the state and reduce the criminalization of non-violent offenses related to psychedelics. This approach, according to advocates, ensures safer access while protecting individuals from unnecessary legal consequences and the risks of unregulated substances.
5. Improved Patient-Doctor Communication
Dr. Sholevar suggests that legalization could lead to more open conversations between patients and healthcare providers about psychedelic use, promoting harm reduction.
Reasoning: Advocates believe that legalization would encourage more open and honest communication between patients and healthcare providers about psychedelic use. Dr. Sholevar argues that when psychedelics are legal, patients are more likely to discuss their experiences with their doctors, leading to better guidance and support. This can promote harm reduction by ensuring that patients are educated on proper dosages, potential risks, and safe usage practices. Without the fear of legal repercussions, healthcare providers could offer advice grounded in medical research, helping to prevent misuse or dangerous experimentation. Legalization, therefore, is seen as a step toward more informed, safer psychedelic use within a medical context.
Anti-Legalization Arguments:
1. End-Running the FDA
A major criticism is that the bill bypasses the established regulatory processes, specifically the FDA, which ensures that medications are safe and effective before they reach the public. Psychedelics, if treated as medicines, should go through proper FDA channels, prescribed by physicians and carefully controlled.
Reasoning: The concern is that without FDA oversight, there would be no standardized way to ensure the safety and efficacy of psychedelic substances. Which would leave the public exposed to the dangers of an uncontrolled market.
2. Creation of an Unregulated Market
A Wall Street Journal article points to the “highly permissive regime” that the bill would create, allowing people to grow their own psychedelics, give them to others, and open therapy centers without professional licensing requirements. This would lead to what they describe as an “unregulated, unlicensed marketplace.”
Reasoning: By making it easy for non-physicians to administer these substances and for individuals to possess and use them, the law could increase the risk of misuse, especially without trained professionals involved in their distribution or use.
3. Safety Concerns
Opponents worry about the safety of home cultivation and the potential for accidental ingestion by children or pets. Chris Keohane of the Coalition for Safe Communities expresses concern about the large amount of psychedelics that could be grown at home.
Reasoning: Opponents argue that allowing home cultivation of psychedelics introduces significant safety risks, particularly the possibility of accidental ingestion by children or pets. Chris Keohane of the Coalition for Safe Communities raises concerns about the sheer quantity of psychedelics that could be grown in residential settings, which could increase the chances of unintentional exposure. Critics believe that unsupervised access to these potent substances, especially in homes where proper storage and safety measures may not be enforced, creates a dangerous environment. This could lead to accidental overdoses or other harmful effects, making home cultivation a major point of contention for those prioritizing public safety.
4. Profit-Driven Model
Opponents claim the initiative is designed to enable for-profit facilities. Which could potentially make treatments expensive and inaccessible to those who need them most. Keohane cites high costs in Oregon as an example.
Reasoning: Opponents argue that the initiative, by allowing for-profit facilities, could turn psychedelic therapy into a commercialized, profit-driven industry. Chris Keohane points to the high costs seen in Oregon as evidence that this model could make treatments unaffordable for many people, particularly those who need them most, such as low-income individuals and marginalized communities. Critics fear that rather than promoting equitable access to these therapies, the initiative could lead to price gouging and limit the availability of psychedelic treatments to wealthier individuals. This concern emphasizes the risk of creating barriers to access, making cost an obstacle to the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics.
5. Community Impact
Unlike the cannabis legalization measure, this initiative doesn’t allow communities to opt out of having psychedelic facilities. This causes concern for some opponents.
Reasoning: Opponents are concerned that the lack of an opt-out provision for communities could impose psychedelic facilities on towns and cities that may not want them. Unlike cannabis legalization, which allowed municipalities to decide whether or not to permit dispensaries, this initiative would force all communities to accommodate psychedelic therapy centers. Critics argue that this one-size-fits-all approach undermines local autonomy and could lead to tensions in areas that are not supportive of psychedelic legalization. For those worried about community impact, the inability to opt out is seen as a disregard for local preferences and values, potentially causing friction between residents and state policymakers.
So What’s Next?
The media coverage reflects a complex debate, weighing potential therapeutic benefits against concerns about safety, regulation, and implementation. Both sides acknowledge the promising research on psychedelics’ therapeutic potential. But disagree on the best approach to making these treatments available while ensuring public safety.
