‘We just weren’t ready’: Sabadosa, others weigh in on what’s next for psychedelics legalization after voters reject Question 4

After voters rejected Question 4 on Election Day, the future of legalization of certain psychedelics has hit a dead end.

After voters rejected Question 4 on Election Day, the future of legalization of certain psychedelics has hit a dead end. AP

Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton, said that the defeat of Question 4 on Election Day likely “stymies” any attempts at legalization of psychedelics for the foreseeable future.

Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton, said that the defeat of Question 4 on Election Day likely “stymies” any attempts at legalization of psychedelics for the foreseeable future. FILE PHOTO

By SAMUEL GELINAS

Staff Writer

Published: 11-17-2024 2:29 PM

Modified: 11-18-2024 11:54 AM


NORTHAMPTON — Psychedelics hit a dead end on Election Day when the commonwealth’s electorate vetoed legislation to legalize the substances.

While supporters of legalizing certain types of psychedelics say they can save lives, opponents fear that such a move would open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. But despite their differing opinions, voters on both sides agree that ballot Question 4 had been imperfect.

Statewide, 57% of the Massachusetts electorate said “no” on Question 4, which state Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton, said “stymies” any attempts at legalization for the foreseeable future.

“It is the will of the voters, and so it’s really hard for the Legislature to then take up the issue, because people have spoken pretty clearly that they don’t want to see this legalized right now,” Sabadosa said. “I think that’s disappointing, because there is a lot of potential, but at the end of the day, it’s up to the voters. We’re there to do what they’re asking us to do.”

Sabadosa was the architect of a bill that sought to legalize “plant medicine,” which she filed in February 2023. Question 4 was an expansion of the bill she put forward. The ballot question, if voted in, would have welcomed licensed clinics, home cultivation, and legal distribution of psychedelic substances.

She laments that the psychedelic cause is more than likely to be banished from the Legislature’s agenda, along with other defeated ballot measures on different issues in the past. Providing an example, she cited 2012’s “Death with Dignity” ballot initiative which sought voters’ approval to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

“It’s been a decade since we’ve looked at that bill,” she said, noting that there are “so many examples” of failed ballot questions that fizzle to irrelevance after the voters have their say.

Despite her disappointment, she expressed an awareness for why “camps” of no voters had formed, and has been in tune with their arguments.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

20 dispensaries statewide found to have products with mold, including in Pioneer Valley
St. Mary’s project faces skepticism at Northampton Planning Board meeting
River Valley Co-op denies Jewish Voice for Peace request to set up info table at Northampton, Easthampton stores
Change on march in sleepy Florence: New developments stir optimism, worries
Amherst town worker hired to take minutes says council violating Open Meeting Law
Weed grower suing neighbor Nourse Farms for $17M over pesticide drift that ruined crops

Scouring comment sections on news sites, she found those opposed to Question 4 were divided pretty evenly into two categories — those against the medicalization aspects of the question, and those who were opposed to home cultivation, with both factions frequently telling her, “we just wish this were written differently and the Legislature could take it up,” she said.

“We had the people on the ‘no’ side that didn’t like the medicalization piece,” Sabadosa said. “They thought it was going to be too expensive, and they were really worried about whether it would be limiting for the use of psychedelics in the commonwealth. And those tended to be a lot of activists, a lot of people who currently use psychedelics.”

On the flip side were those who were opposed to the green light for home growth. The ballot measure would have allowed up to 144 square feet of space for psychedelic cultivation, and legally permit the substances to be distributed as gifts to of-age individuals.

A leading concern among this camp was the potential of “tripping” individuals getting behind the wheel, and causing traffic fatalities.

“They thought it was too much, that it could lead to misuse of psychedelics, and that we just weren’t ready for that,” she said.

Question had flaws

For many who support legalization, including those in the natural medicine industry, the ballot question had flaws.

Nate Clifford, who owns Cornucopia Wellness Market in Northampton with his wife Jade, said the proposed ballot question had been “imperfect,” despite his ardent support of seeing the measure pass.

“The wording of the ballot was overwhelming for people,” he said. “I also think that it’s something that’s been stigmatized for so long ... There is always going to be a big hurdle to pass.”

But the offerings of the ballot measure, which he said should have been more “narrow,” did not help in settling the nerves of voters leery about legalizing the substances.

Allowing space to grow at home was intimidating to many voters, despite the importance of home growth as being integral to allow equitable, cheap access to the medicines, he insisted.

“I think people were like, 144 square feet — that’s insane,” Clifford said. “And truly if you get good at growing mushrooms and you have 144 square feet, you’re going to quickly have more psychedelic compound than you ever need for one person, or even 20.”

Of the five hallucinogenic fungi that would have been legalized (psilocybin, psilocin, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), mescaline and ibogaine), Clifford said backers of Question 4 should have focused on legalizing psilocybin as opposed to expecting voters to welcome a whole list of substances.

“I’m very passionate specifically about psilocybin ... I think being more real and honest about specific compounds is OK and will need to be happening,” he said.

Aeden Smith-Ahearn, a Leeds native who works at Experience Ibogaine, an Ibogaine clinic in Mexico, agreed that the question tried to cover too much and would have had better chance at success with a focused, limited approach.

As an ibogaine clinician who has served over 2,500 people in the past 10 years, Smith-Ahearn said that among the weak points of the ballot question was undue awareness of ibogaine as a dangerous drug.

“It would have been incredibly irresponsible,” he said, to have allowed ibogaine to be ingested free range, and without the direct supervision of doctors. According to Smith-Ahearn, ibogaine is by far the most concerning since unlike the other fungi listed, overuse can lead to overdose as opposed to simply an excessive trip.

Smith-Ahearn said that it “really sucks” that legalization efforts are currently stunted in Massachusetts, and expressed the need to lower treatment prices if treatment were to be legalized in the future.

Costs for an ibogaine trip at his clinic add up to $5,000, but he said in the United States, similar treatment would add up to be “as expensive as a hip replacement.”

But despite the potential dangers ibogaine poses, Smith-Ahearn did not downplay the transformative power of the fungi when administered correctly.

He has seen people break an opiate addiction in a single day after an ibogaine session; week after week, he said, he treats American veterans for post-traumatic stress disorders and other forms of brain damage at his clinic, where people travel to receive treatment.

In his view, federally declassifying the drugs would be the most effective move since it would allow doctors and licensed medical professionals to utilize psychedelic substances.

However, he said, there is not the lobbying strength to see any real changes at the federal level, and pharmaceutical companies would rather see their patients use suboxone and methadone than legalize natural forms of healing.

Localization may be next

Clifford, on the other hand, pointed out the success of localizing decriminalization, and thinks that should be a focus for psychedelic advocates going forward.

He would like to see the substances decriminalized by more municipalities, the way seven communities in Massachusetts already have.

“I think we go back to that model of trying to decriminalize cities and towns across the state,” he said.

Using his own community of Northampton as an example, where decriminalization occurred in 2021, Clifford says it is easy to locate psychedelic substances since decriminalization, and in the meantime there have been no drastic increases in crime or vehicular accidents as a result, to his knowledge.

Despite criticisms and counter arguments made by supporters and detractors alike, Sabadosa was reassured by the positive response garnered from the voters of Hampshire and Franklin counties, where the ballot question saw “hotbeds of support,” compared to other parts of the state.

Going forward, the Northampton Democrat said she is considering filing a bill that would serve as a “stake in the ground.” While she acknowledges that such a bill will likely not pass, filing it would serve as an expression of where she thinks the state should be in regards to psychedelic legalization.

“I think I am going to file something next session that’s probably more in the medicalization phase of this. But I haven’t quite decided.”

She agrees that for psychedelics to make a legal breakthrough in the future, more research needs to be done about them. It was only last year that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed psychedelics to be researched for healing purposes.

“I think more education is what is going to be really important going forward. And I don’t think we’re quite there yet,” she said.

Samuel Gelinas can be reached a sgelinas@gazettenet.com