Earlier this spring, the Massachusetts legislature’s Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions requested the Massachusetts Medical Society’s (MMS) position and testimony regarding H.4255,
An Act relative to the regulation and taxation of natural psychedelic substances. This legislation mirrors the language proposed in Ballot Question 4,
which would establish a framework to license and regulate facilities offering supervised use of certain psychedelic substances, as well to allow persons aged 21 and older to grow, possess, and use these psychedelic substances.
In response to the legislature’s request, the Medical Society’s Committee on Legislation reviewed the legislation and took a position in opposition to H.4255. Our detailed testimony is available here.
In sharing our testimony, we aim to educate the physician community about the nuances and the risks associated with the proposed ballot initiative, enabling our members to make informed decisions on the issue. Notably, the Commonwealth’s reviewing
legislative committee, after carefully weighing support and opposition to the proposal, also recommended against passing the initiative at this time.
The MMS supports decriminalization of personal drug use and possession for personal drug use, which significantly minimizes risk of harm to those who suffer from substance use disorder. To that end, we support the decriminalization of psychedelic substances,
which comprises just one element of the ballot proposal.
The use of psychedelic substances for psychiatric and other medical indications is investigational. Although there is encouraging preliminary research on psychedelics for treating severe and debilitation conditions like treatment-resistant depression
(TRD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), there is currently insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of psychedelics in treatment of any psychiatric disorder, except within the confines of approved investigational studies. As such,
we oppose creating a system that characterizes psychedelic therapy as evidence-based when the safety and efficacy of these agents have not been fully reviewed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), nor have these agents been approved
for clinical indication.
Importantly, the proposed regulatory framework lacks adequate scientific and legal standards necessary to provide appropriate medical supervision, which jeopardizes public safety by exposing individuals to the psychological and physical side effects associated
with these substances without appropriate clinical oversight.
-Hugh Taylor, MD, President, Massachusetts Medical Society
