Final Stretch for Question 4: Controversy, Advocacy, and Celebrity Voices Shape Psychedelic Vote

The article, Ballot Question 4 to Legalize Psychedelics Draws National Attention – and Dollars, was written by a trio of staff writers at the student newspaper. It focuses heavily on the various parties opposed to the measure without quoting a single representative from the Yes on 4 campaign. No on 4 coalition members Dr. Nassir Ghaemi of Tufts University and Coalition for Safe Communities Chairperson Dr. Anahita Dua of Mass General Hospital (MGH) were both quoted, citing their typical talking points on the (scientifically-disputed) addictive nature of psychedelics and dangers of home cultivation of psychedelics, respectively.Quoted in favour of the measure were Chase Bourbon, who serves as President of the Harvard Undergraduate Psychedelics Club and Peter Palandjian, CEO of Intercontinental Real Estate and the husband of actress-turned-psychedelic therapist Eliza Dushku. (Curiously, the article does not directly mention Dushku or her vocal advocacy for the Yes on 4 campaign, instead referring to the former Buffy the Vampire Slayer star only as Palandjian’s wife.)While the Harvard Undergraduate Psychedelics Club is technically prohibited from endorsing the measure (which is oddly not mentioned in the article), Bourbon told the Crimson that in his opinion, it presents one of the “steps in the right direction.”In response to the article, the Yes on 4 campaign made the bold decision to request a formal retraction from the Crimson, citing a set of potentially concerning circumstances surrounding the reporting process itself. Per an email obtained for the reporting of this article, Yes on 4 Educational Outreach Director Graham Moore wrote to the Crimson’s managing editor, Miles Herszenhorn, and claimed that “the Yes on 4 campaign was not interviewed or quoted while the No on 4 campaign was.” Additionally, Moore noted in the retraction request that, “to [the campaign’s] knowledge, the Crimson is the first and only nonpartisan news outlet to interview the opposition campaign when covering Question 4 and not interview us.”Moore also cited a scathing editorial written by Dr. Franklin King that was published in the Crimson that same morning. Dr. King, who is currently the Director of Training and Education at MGH’s Center for the Neuroscience of Psychedelics, lambasted what he called the Crimson’s “superficial coverage of Massachusetts Ballot Question 4.” “[D]espite the fact that psychedelics are drugs used for psychotherapeutic benefits and carry risks that are primarily psychological in nature,” the Harvard Medical School Psychiatry instructor continued, “the article demonstrated a glaring absence of mental health-related expertise.”Dr. King further criticised the Crimson editorial board for only quoting Coalition for Safer Communities (C4SC) supporter Dr. Nassir Ghaemi. “[D]espite heading the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society,” Dr. King wrote, “[Dr. Ghaemi] publicly impugned psychedelic research as a ‘dead end’ in an October article and has demonstrated a concerning lack of knowledge about current psychedelic science.”“The Harvard Medical School ecosystem includes hundreds of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts who could offer informed perspectives on both sides of this important debate, rather than relying on outdated anti-drug stigma or oversimplified rhetoric”, he added, finishing: “The fact that The Crimson overlooked these voices is perplexing and disappointing.”Separately from the drama surrounding the Crimson’s Question 4 coverage, a small group of graduate students at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health unwittingly found themselves in the crosshairs of controversial psychedelic activist and outspoken Question 4 critic James Davis and his organization Bay Staters for Natural Medicine.The latest controversy involving Davis and Bay Staters began on October 18th, when a post from Bay Staters’ account on Twitter claimed that “Harvard invited @Baystaters and [New Approach PAC] to debate next week”, but that “the pac [sic] backed out— as they have in the past.”The post elicited a hasty response from Jared Moffat, New Approach’s Spokesperson for the Yes on 4 campaign, casting doubt on the validity of Bay Staters’ claim and extending an offer to,  “participate in a discussion”, which Moffat claimed to have extended to the group and Davis “on several occasions.” While Bay Staters’ doubled down on the claim that PAC officials were “terrified” of a debate, it turns out that the increasingly histrionic grassroots group was never invited to participate in the Harvard Chan Student Drug Policy Forum’s Question 4 Debate in the first place. In a series of emails obtained exclusively for reporting of this article, a leader of the student group who was tasked with organising the debate wrote to Moffat directly to clarify that, “despite his claims online, James was never invited to the debate”, and that “his tweets misrepresented a lot of what actually happened.” Club leaders believe that Davis contacted them because he was, “mad that he wasn’t invited to participate in the debate between the two campaigns.” “It looks like he’s becoming increasingly desperate to stay relevant ahead of the election”, they continued.In response to Davis’ frustration, Bay Staters were extended an offer to speak to club members separately. According to club officials, Davis ultimately declined this invitation.The actual debate was held on Wednesday, October 23rd in front of roughly two dozen attendees and featured a pair of relatively new faces for the Yes and No on 4 campaigns. CJ LoConte—a Duxbury, MA native and US Army veteran—was in attendance for the Yes on 4 team, while Political Consultant Caroline Alcock Cunningham was on site representing the Coalition for Safe Community’s interests.While the core talking points for both sides remained the same as in prior appearances, a highlight of the night was a thoughtful question from one attendee who hailed from Boulder, Colorado regarding the potential dangers of adolescent use of psychedelics. “My family’s from Boulder, Colorado, and over the summer, a student at my little brother’s High School died after taking psychedelics and falling from cranes and jumped into [a] construction site”, the person said, asking: “How do you respond to parents with these real concerns that this might happen in Massachusetts following legalisation?”Cunningham responded on behalf of the opposition campaign, calling the questioner’s concerns “valid” and citing an apparently debunked story out of Brookline, MA from last year wherein the Brookline Police Department seemingly fabricated a false report of a teenager jumping off a third story balcony while under the influence of hallucinogens. (Interestingly, Bay Staters’ leader James Davis was a key voice in calling that story into question. One can only wonder how he feels seeing it taken as truth by the No on 4 campaign that he is now loosely associated with.)LoConte, for his part, strongly emphasised the potential post-passage need for “better educational infrastructure for youth and for the public in general to be more informed” about the risks associated with laissez-faire psychedelic use. “The more informed the public is as a whole,” the West Point Graduate continued, “the tighter the lock and key around these things are, the more that we’re able to stop them from being sold on the street corner by the school, because people will understand that these are meant to be taken with intentionality, responsibility and purpose behind a safe and controlled setting.”



Source link