Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Voters rejected Question 4. Here’s why readers are ‘disappointed.’
“It's a real shame for sufferers of PTSD and CPTSD, who can greatly benefit from therapy with these substances,” one respondent said.
Massachusetts voters rejected ballot Question 4 in the state election on Tuesday, which would have legalized multiple plant and mushroom-based psychedelics. But Boston.com readers said the measure should have passed, and expressed disappointment in the state for the decision.
With about 87% of precincts reporting, 57% of residents voted against the measure, according to the Associated Press. If it had passed, it would have legalized multiple psychedelic substances for therapeutic use.
“It blows my mind that 57% of MA residents feel they have both the right and they benefit from standing in the way of patients and medical professionals,” reader Matt from Boston said. In a Boston.com poll, he voted that he disagreed with the results of Question 4.
Advertisement:
“There is mounting evidence that these substances are medically beneficial in a myriad of ways. Like cannabis before, the legalization of mushrooms is a fait accompli – it will happen,” he added.
Specifically, the measure would have allowed adults to purchase psychedelic substances such as psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine, mescaline, and ibogaine at approved locations for use under the supervision of licensed facilitators. Retail sales would have been prohibited.
The proposal would have created a state-appointed commission and advisory board to regulate the substances. Also included in the law was a provision allowing adults older than 21 to grow these substances in their home in a 12-foot by 12-foot area, the law said.
Advertisement:
Massachusetts for Mental Health Options, the campaign in support of the question, said the home-grown aspect of the proposal likely led to it being rejected by voters. Several Boston.com readers agreed, arguing that the home-grown provision of the law dissuaded them from voting yes.
“I was going to vote yes [on Question 4] until I saw that it included the ability to grow your own,” reader Joe from Boston.com said.
When we asked Boston.com readers to weigh in on the results of Question 4, the majority (66%) of the more than 150 who voted said they disagreed with the results, arguing that psychedelics should have been legalized for therapeutic use. Thirty-three percent of readers agreed with the results.
Do you agree with the results of Question 4?
Yes, I agree
33%
No, I disagree
66%
I'm neutral
1%
Below, readers share their feelings about the results of Question 4.
Do you agree with the results of Question 4?
No, I disagree
“I am disappointed; 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. 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.” – Margaret, Billerica
“Continued criminalization of possession of mushrooms is an outdated concept. It’s a personal choice with no effect on others.” – Bill, Northborough
“It’s a real shame for sufferers of PTSD and CPTSD, who can greatly benefit from therapy with these substances.” – Juana, Jamaica Plain
“I am a veteran and have seen first hand how psychedelic use (under proper medical supervision) can have incredible therapeutic benefits. Not to mention the peer-reviewed research that is being published showing effectiveness is likely far superior to prescription drugs in treatment of PTS, depression and anxiety.” – Liam C., Beacon Hill
Yes, I agree
“It was a poorly written law. The homegrown and sharing aspect completely subverted the regulatory part. I probably would have voted yes if it weren’t for that. I believe these substances have potential therapeutic value, but for this purpose, they should only be used in a controlled setting so they don’t cause harm to someone who isn’t under care.” – M.E., Boston
“If it had been a yes vote for medical use with a prescription and dose monitored by a psychiatrist I would have voted yes. But a law that would allow 21 year olds to grow and share mushrooms? No way. Society can do better.” – J.L., Boston
“Psychedelic substances should never be legal, even under supervised use.” – Wayne, Tewksbury
“There are many options for mental health treatment and we can’t continue to allow a tiny minority to change what is basically a drug law. Too many drugs flowing as it is. The fact that the patient was allowed to ‘grow their own at home’ was the deal breaker, as you could expect that friends, pets and kids could have illegal access. It wasn’t strictly supervised by a physician.” – Beverly B., Reheboth
Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com