Will Massachusetts vote for psychedelics? 5 Questions for Boston-based reporter Jack Gorsline

Gorsline discusses the at-times acrimonious campaigning process for Massachusetts Question 4, and how the race could affect the future of psychedelics policy.

Tomorrow, Massachusetts voters will weigh in on Question 4, a ballot measure that would create a state-regulated psychedelics program. The initiative was spearheaded by the group Massachusetts for Mental Health Options last summer, and was initially bankrolled by the political action committee New Approach, which was also behind successful psychedelic ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado.

If the measure passes, the state would have two years to establish rules for its program, which would allow people to use psychedelics including psilocybin, ibogaine, mescaline, and DMT. It would also allow individuals over 21 to possess, ingest, obtain, transport, and cultivate “personal use amounts” (less than two grams) of those drugs.

For the last year, Boston-based journalist Jack Gorsline has been covering the ballot measure’s evolution, and writing dispatches for publications including Talking Joints Memo, Psychedelic Alpha, and DoubleBlind from an insider’s view. After the Yes on 4 Rally at the Massachusetts State House last week, Gorsline sat down with The Microdose at the Capitol Coffee House. Gorsline, who believes the “psychedelic renaissance” is among this century’s most important political movements, discusses the at-times acrimonious campaigning process, and how this race could affect the future of psychedelics policy.

In covering this movement, has there been anything that has surprised you?

It’s a fascinatingly diverse political movement. It transcends every partisan or party line you can think of. There are Christian MAGA moms who voted for Bernie in 2016 and Trump in 2020 in the same room with the most progressive leaders; one of the leaders here works for Lockheed Martin. The grassroots movement here is strong; there are a lot of volunteers who are also very involved in cannabis legalization here as well. 

I don’t know about the inner workings and political inside baseball in Oregon and Colorado, but I'm aware that there are folks on all sides of the equation that felt like they got forced out of the movement after the passage of ballot initiatives there. Here, I feel like the grassroots movement has had a tangible impact on pushing the campaign. They laid the groundwork to get eight cities to pass decrim bills before New Approach even started its campaign here, and grassroots leaders have had a substantive impact on messaging and outreach. It marks an evolution for this political movement because now other states can say that all these grassroots activists actually worked with Dewey Square and New Approach to change their messaging a little bit; this was not just a cookie cutter corporate ballot initiative.

What do you think the chances are that Question 4 will pass?

What they did at the rally — bringing leading researchers and rock stars like Bessel van der Kolk —  would have been a very solid strategy early on, but I think something that's hurt them is that this was the least known ballot question this year in Massachusetts. A poll in mid-August showed that more than 40% of the electorate had no idea about Question 4. 

I also know fundraising has been tough. I've spoken to folks in the campaign who don't think that the FDA decision impacted fundraising. In fact, David Bronner said, if anything, he thinks it's helped, which I found very interesting because the campaign got kind of a late start, but they got a final ad push to reach more people. 

I maintain that it will squeak out. In Colorado, their ballot initiative was trailing a week before the election and it passed by eight points. If 14% are really undecided as a UMass Amherst poll from a couple of weeks ago indicated, I'd be shocked if 8 to 9% didn't vote yes. There are a lot of split decision voters here that are just going to lean progressive.

This election is also hugely important at the national level. Do you think the presidential election will affect turnout and Question 4 results?

We know that this is going to be the most historic first-time voter turnout ever; 700,000 Gen Z-ers registered after Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris. The younger, more progressive crowd tend to lean toward the belief that decriminalization is good, and that we should not criminalize people for drug use, for trying to heal. And this is an overwhelmingly blue state, so I really do think the young progressives will be the difference. 

These are also fiscal libertarian Mitt Romney-type Massachusetts conservatives who just recognize that what we have isn't working. And it's important. So many of us are one to two degrees separated from the mental health crisis; many people have someone in their life who is struggling. 

What are the opposition’s main concerns?

A lot of people are worried about the 12-foot by 12-foot enclosure, for home grows, and the fact that includes not just psilocybin, but also DMT, ayahuasca, and mescaline. It's easy pickings to fearmonger about those things because most people barely even know what psilocybin is. 

The opposition has also, in my opinion, obfuscated their medical experts’ lack of expertise on this issue. One of the most prominent voices is Dr. Nassir Ghaemi. He's the president of the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, and he’s a very outspoken man. I've worked on debates he's been a part of and it has shocked me how anti-psychiatry he appears to be. He has a podcast that has episode titles like “The invalidity of Adult ADHD,” or “Why the DSM is mostly false.” This is someone who doesn’t believe antipsychotics work for people, and is not willing to consider that there are alternatives beyond the standard Western scientific, pharmaceutical paradigm. It's troubling as somebody who wants to cover this fairly and honestly; there are reasonable arguments to be concerned about how Question 4 might get rolled out if it passes, but voters here deserve a more well-rounded argument on both sides.  

As far as other arms of the opposition, the Massachusetts Municipal Association recently came out against Question 4. They’re pro-decrim, but they’re against the ballot measure because they don't have enough control over whether or not these places can set up shop in their towns. But they do have broad discretion over things like operating hours. And they've falsely claimed in some prior opposition letters published on their website that this bill would legalize commercial and retail sales, which is just not true. 

Originally, New Approach had proposed two versions of this initiative - one that allowed for home growing, and one that did not. Grassroots activists pushed for the former, and that’s ultimately what New Approach went with — one of those groups was Bay Staters for Natural Medicine, which now opposes Question 4 altogether. Other activists were initially skeptical of New Approach, but now work on the campaign alongside them. What happened?

Since 2021, when Somerville and Cambridge became the first two cities in Massachusetts to deprioritize law enforcement related to psychedelics, Bay Staters for Natural Medicine has often been the only grassroots voice quoted in a lot of mainstream media coverage. What is going on with that group is complicated. I've spoken with 60 people across six states and counting. Last year, when New Approach first came on the scene, some at Bay Staters made it seem like they'd come into Massachusetts and not consulted anyone, and were trying to ram road this ballot measure down their throats. But as I reported back in April, there were a series of leaked emails that showed they’d actually been given multiple opportunities to provide input on the bill. New Approach even gave Bay Staters a $35,000 donation on the belief that they were going to be partners and collaborators.

That led to a lot of folks in the grassroots community being pretty frustrated, and a number of different folks who were actively involved with Bay Staters split off. Now Bay Staters has come out against the ballot initiative, and some folks that are working on the campaign right now from within the grassroots community are former dedicated members of the Bay Staters coalition. 

How do you think the Question 4 race will affect political strategy for psychedelics advocates? 

The grassroots movement had a tangible impact here even before New Approach came in, by laying the groundwork with eight cities deprioritizing prosecuting psychedelics. And then they helped push the campaign to go with the homegrow version of the initiative, and have had substantive impact on messaging and outreach. That New Approach was able to weave in perspectives from cannabis industry professionals and frontline grassroots activists and win them over when they were on the fence initially marks an evolution for this political movement. 

And that can also impact what will happen in the next 2 to 5 years. Activists in Connecticut or Vermont might say, hey, we see what our friends in Massachusetts did, and we won’t settle for anything less than that. It also allows other states to retroactively see all the weak points via exit polling, like which demographics they didn’t win over, and adjust messaging accordingly.  We’re only just at the forefront of how it's going to impact the rest of this century, and this race in Massachusetts will be pivotal; it could lead to a domino effect.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.