Do the mental health benefits of psychedelics outweigh their potential risks? The most closely contested Massachusetts ballot initiative up for a vote on Election Day seeks to legalize certain psychedelic substances for therapeutic and personal use, drawing both bipartisan support and backlash. Question 4, or the Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances Initiative, draws on recent clinical studies that show psychedelic treatments significantly helping people who suffer from PTSD, severe depression and anxiety-related disorders. However, the electorate is split over the inclusion of personal use regulations that have the potential to pose health and public safety concerns.
According to a recent poll conducted by UMass Amherst and WCVB-TV, the vote is tied with 43% of respondents in favor, 43% opposed and 14% undecided. Generally, Democrats, liberals and young voters are more likely to be in favor of the initiative, while the poll found that parents, Republicans, independent voters and older voters are more likely to be opposed.
Question 4 seeks to create an advisory board and commission to regulate the licensing and administration of certain naturally-occurring psychedelics. This would allow a person to buy and use the approved psychedelics under the supervision of a licensed facilitator — such as a mental health professional — but would not allow for general retail sale of psychedelics. A 15% tax would be placed on the sale of psychedelic substances on top of the state sales tax, and individual towns and cities could choose to add an additional 2% tax.
The initiative also allows the personal growth and ownership of the included psychedelics by people over 21 years of age. It outlines a “personal use amount” of each individual psychedelic substance, which would be permitted for at-home use, in addition to the amount that a person could grow within a 12 foot by 12 foot area. Local governments and landowners could restrict the use of psychedelics in public buildings and schools, and existing laws regarding vehicle operation under the influence would not be changed.
However, the vote does not fall evenly along party lines. Ella Edwards ’27J, a registered Democrat, voted against the initiative even though she initially advocated for a similar initiative to be put on the ballot.
“I do support the legalization of these substances for use in psychedelic therapy,” she said. “Where I have a problem is allowing people over 21 to grow and possess psychedelic substances in their home. […] This is just asking for trouble,” she said, emphasizing the health risks of psychedelics and the potential dangers of allowing people to use them unsupervised.
Brenna Curley ’25, also a registered Democrat, voted “yes” on Question 4. “I think it would positively impact both the Smith and the Northampton community,” she said, highlighting that legalizing and regulating psychedelics could make it easier for someone to find safe substances that are not laced with more harmful chemicals. “I think it could play a big part in harm reduction both among Smithies who choose to participate and residents of Northampton who use psychedelics recreationally.”
Massachusetts for Mental Health Options is at the forefront of the campaign supporting Question 4, and the Coalition for Safe Communities is leading the opposition to the initiative.
Massachusetts for Mental Health Options promotes the benefits of using psychedelic substances under regulated psychiatric care, emphasizing that the initiative does not allow for the commercial sale of psychedelics.
The Coalition for Safe Communities opposes the initiative on the grounds of protecting children and pets from being exposed to psychedelics in the home. The coalition is also concerned about potential rises in crime and cases of operating motor vehicles under the influence (OUIs) that legalizing psychedelics may cause, as well as the possibility of illegal and underground sale of psychedelic substances by citizens growing them at home.
“I think the way that it’s written is messy, […] but the bill itself, from a behavior health advocacy standpoint, is reasonable,” said a Northampton resident and mother who chose to remain anonymous for occupational purposes and voted against the initiative. “The first part, about having [psychedelics] in a supervised setting, is a good idea, but I think that recreational use more broadly does open it up to more concern.”
She cited potential increases in reckless driving, further strain on the healthcare system and the risk of allowing people to use psychedelics in their own homes rather than strictly under supervision as reasons why she opposed the initiative.
Thomas Kokonowski, Esq., a lawyer who has served Northampton for over 25 years, also expressed concern that allowing at-home growth of psychedelic substances would indeed lead to a rise in motor vehicle accidents and OUIs. Kokonowski also referenced Northampton’s response to the legalization of cannabis as a precedent to Question 4, emphasizing both the heavy police presence and business prosperity that accompanied the initial legalization.
Similar laws have already been implemented in Oregon (2020) and Colorado (2022). Both states allow for regulated centers that would facilitate the purchase and use of psychedelics, but only Colorado legalized the personal growth of these substances, as the Massachusetts initiative aims to do. A 2023 analysis of violence and crime in Denver reached the conclusion that legalizing psychedelics did not lead to increased public safety concerns or abuse of psychedelic substances.
The other four initiatives on the Massachusetts ballot seek to allow the state auditor to investigate and evaluate the Massachusetts legislature, remove the requirement that 10th grade students pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test in order to receive a high school diploma, create options for rideshare drivers to unionize, and create a minimum wage and tip pooling system for tipped workers. The UMass/WCVB poll found that voters were in favor of these initiatives, and that the legalization of psychedelics was the only one with an even split of support versus disapproval.
“I think it’s a great idea that went a little too far,” Edwards said about Question 4, “but there are really good parts and I hope that it’ll be back on the ballot soon in a different form.”
