Massachussetts voters had a lot on their plate this past November. Between auditing the legislature and deciding the fate of the MCAS, there was this other, sort of "trippy" proposal buried in the mix. I'm talking about Massachusetts Ballot Question 4, the one that would’ve legalized certain natural psychedelics. Honestly, if you were scrolling through your ballot and felt a little overwhelmed by the 35-page proposal behind it, you weren't alone.
The results are in, and the "No" side won.
It wasn't even that close, really. About 57% of voters said "no thanks" to the idea of legalizing magic mushrooms and other plant-based substances like DMT and ibogaine. But why did a state that was so quick to embrace cannabis suddenly hit the brakes on psilocybin? It’s a weirdly complex story that’s about more than just "drugs are bad."
📖 Related: Another Word for Minorities: Why the Term Is Changing and What to Say Instead
What was Massachusetts Ballot Question 4 actually trying to do?
Basically, Question 4 was a two-pronged attack on the current drug laws. First, it wanted to create a regulated system where adults 21 and over could go to a licensed "psychedelic therapy center." You wouldn't just walk in, buy a bag of mushrooms, and leave. You’d take them there, under the eye of a facilitator.
The second part was about home use. It would’ve let you grow your own stuff in a 12x12 foot space at home. You could possess limited amounts—like one gram of psilocybin—and even "gift" it to your friends. No retail stores, though. That’s a huge distinction.
The substances on the list:
- Psilocybin and Psilocyn (the stuff in magic mushrooms)
- Dimethyltryptamine (DMT)
- Mescaline (found in cacti like San Pedro, though peyote was specifically excluded to respect Indigenous traditions)
- Ibogaine (from the iboga shrub)
Why the "No" vote came out on top
Most people I talk to thought this would sail through. Massachusetts is a blue state, right? We love reform. But the "No on 4" campaign, led by groups like Safe Communities MA, played a very smart game. They didn't just argue that psychedelics are dangerous; they argued that this specific bill was a mess.
One of the biggest sticking points was the lack of a "local opt-out." When we legalized weed, towns could vote to ban dispensaries. Question 4 didn't really have that same teeth. If it passed, every town would basically have to allow these therapy centers to open up, whether they wanted them or not.
Then there was the medical angle. Dr. Nassir Ghaemi, a psychiatry professor at Tufts, was a vocal opponent. His argument? This isn't "medicine" in the way we usually think about it. The centers weren't required to be run by MDs, and there were worries about what happens if someone has a genuine psychotic break or a heart issue mid-trip.
The Ibogaine factor
Ibogaine is a heavy hitter. It's often used to treat opioid addiction, but it's also known to cause heart rhythm issues. Critics pointed out that the bill didn't require medical screening for heart conditions before someone took it. For a lot of voters, that felt like a bridge too far.
The "Yes" camp’s missed opportunity
The "Yes on 4" crowd, backed by Massachusetts for Mental Health Options, had some heavy hitters too. They had veterans like Emily Oneschuk testifying about how psilocybin saved them from PTSD when nothing else worked. They had backing from big names like Dr. Bronner’s (yes, the soap people) and the New Approach Advocacy Fund.
Their argument was simple: the mental health crisis is real, and the current tools aren't cutting it. They pointed to research from Mass General Brigham and Johns Hopkins showing that these substances can basically "reset" a depressed brain.
But they struggled to overcome the "black market" fear. Opponents kept pointing to that 12x12 foot home-grow rule. They said it would lead to a massive unregulated market where "facilitators" would just be people in their basements charging a few hundred bucks for a guided trip.
🔗 Read more: Tiger Spa Ohio Warren: What Really Happened at 420 West Market
What most people get wrong about the "No" vote
It’s easy to think the "No" vote was a rejection of the science. It probably wasn't. If you look at the polling, a lot of people actually support the idea of psychedelic therapy. What they didn't like was the framework.
Voters were basically asked to choose between a "Wild West" of home grows and a very expensive, corporate-looking therapy model. The middle ground—decriminalization without the baggage of a massive new regulatory commission—wasn't on the ballot.
What happens now?
Just because the ballot measure failed doesn't mean the movement is dead. In fact, it’s kinda the opposite.
- Local Decriminalization: Cities like Somerville, Cambridge, Salem, and Northampton have already passed local measures making psychedelic enforcement the lowest priority for police. That’s not changing.
- Legislative Action: Now that the "all-or-nothing" ballot question is gone, the State House might actually step in. Lawmakers like Senator Cindy Friedman have signaled they're open to a more "medical-first" approach that doesn't include the home-grow controversy.
- The HERO Act: Governor Maura Healey already signed the HERO Act, which includes funding for research into how psychedelics can help veterans. The clinical side of this is moving forward regardless of the vote.
If you’re interested in where this goes next, keep an eye on the Massachusetts Psychedelic Therapy Coalition. They’re likely going to be the ones pivoting from a ballot strategy to a legislative one. The goal will probably be a "psilocybin-only" bill that looks a lot more like a doctor's office and a lot less like a garden hobbyist's dream.
For now, the status quo remains. If you’re caught with shrooms in a town that hasn't decriminalized them, you’re still looking at a potential legal headache. But the conversation has shifted. It’s no longer if Massachusetts will do this, but how.
Next steps for you:
Check if your specific town or city is among the eight in Massachusetts that have already decriminalized natural psychedelics at the local level. If you're looking for therapeutic options, look into clinical trials currently being conducted at major Boston hospitals like Mass General, which often seek participants for controlled studies.