Massachusetts voters have rejected a ballot initiative that would have eliminated penalties for noncommercial production, possession, and sharing of five naturally occurring psychedelics. With 87 percent of ballots counted on Tuesday night, 57 percent of voters opposed Question 4, which would have allowed adults 21 or older to use psilocybin, psilocyn (another psychoactive component of "magic mushrooms"), dimethyltryptamine (DMT, the active ingredient in ayahuasca), ibogaine (a psychedelic derived from the root bark of the iboga tree), and mescaline (the active ingredient in peyote). The initiative also would have authorized state-licensed "psychedelic therapy centers."
Question 4 resembled a groundbreaking initiative that Colorado voters approved in 2022, covering the same substances and conduct. Both went further than a 2020 Oregon initiative that authorized state-licensed "psilocybin service centers" but did not apply to other psychedelics or permit independent use (although an initiative approved the same year, which was subsequently overturned by the 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 amount of psychedelic substances." It also would have let them assist others in those activities and transfer personal-use amounts to other adults "without remuneration."
The 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 limits, but it would still have been a criminal offense beyond that cutoff. Under current Massachusetts law, possession of psychedelics is punishable by up to a year in jail for the first offense and up to two years for the second offense.
On-site consumption of the covered drugs at therapy centers would have been regulated by a newly created Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission. The initiative would have imposed a 15 percent tax on those transactions and allowed local governments to impose additional taxes of up to 2 percent. Local governments also would have been authorized to regulate the centers without banning them.
Polls conducted in September and early October suggested that voters who had made up their minds about Question 4 were about evenly divided. But a substantial share of voters -- 14 percent in both surveys -- were undecided. A third poll, conducted in late October, put support at 50 percent, with 44 percent opposed and 6 percent undecided.
In that last poll, 59 percent of Democrats favored Measure 4, compared to 49 percent of independents and 36 percent of Republicans. Colorado's 2022 psychedelic initiative won by more than seven points, which was impressive given the state's political demographics: Registered Democrats have just a small edge over registered Republicans. But in Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1, Question 4 was rejected by a double-digit margin.
Like the campaigns for the Oregon and Colorado initiatives, the Question 4 campaign, which was spearheaded by a group called Massachusetts for Mental Health Options, emphasized the psychotherapeutic potential of psychedelics. "Plant-based therapeutics are the most effective treatment I have seen for veterans struggling with mental health challenges after service," said Emily Oneschuk, a Navy veteran who served as the group's grassroots outreach director, in a press release. The campaign said the initiative would allow "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, NOT sold in stores to take home."
Opponents, led by the Coalition for Safe Communities, portrayed Question 4 as a reckless experiment. Although the organization was not "advocating against the medicinal properties" of psychedelics, spokesperson Chris Keohan told The Boston Herald, the initiative "goes way too far way too quickly and doesn't address any of the real concerns that public safety advocates have as well as mental health professionals."
Massachusetts General Hospital surgeon Anahita Dua warned that "Question 4 would decriminalize psychedelics, open for-profit centers, [and] allow for growth in a 12-foot by 12-foot area in homes," adding that "a black market is inevitable with this amount of home growth." Dua anticipated an increase in drugged driving, accidental consumption by "children and pets," and harm caused by ibogaine's "life-threatening cardiotoxicity." She complained that therapy centers "aren't required to be run by medical professionals, cannot provide critical care during adverse reactions, and aren't prohibited from giving psychedelics to high-risk patients like those with schizophrenia, bipolar illness, and pregnant or breastfeeding women."
It looks like such warnings gave pause to voters, which suggests the limits of the message that psychedelics can help people overcome longstanding 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 premises of the war on drugs and pave the way to wider pharmacological freedom. But not in Massachusetts, at least not yet.