Readers say

“It’s a real shame for people with PTSD and PTSD, who can benefit greatly from therapy with these substances,” one respondent said.

Massachusetts voters rejected the ballot Question 4 in Tuesday’s state election, which would have legalized several plant- and mushroom-based psychedelics. But Boston.com said the measure should have passed and expressed disappointment with the decision.

With about 87% of precincts responding, 57% of residents voted against the measure, according to the Associated Press. If passed, it would have legalized several psychedelic substances for therapeutic use.

“It blows my mind that 57% of MA residents believe they have both the right and benefit from obstructing patients and medical professionals,” said reader Matt from Boston. In a Boston.com poll, he voted to disagree with the results of question 4.

“There is growing evidence that these substances are medically beneficial in many ways. As with cannabis before, the legalization of mushrooms is a fait accompli – it will happen,” he added.

Specifically, the measure would have allowed adults to purchase psychedelic substances such as psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine, mescaline and ibogaine at approved locations for use under the supervision of approved facilitators. Retail sales would have been prohibited.

The proposal would have created a state-appointed commission and advisory board to regulate the substances. The law also included a provision allowing adults over the age of 21 to grow these substances in their homes in a 12-by-12-foot area, the law states.

Massachusetts for Mental Health Options, the campaign supporting the issue, said the local aspect of the proposal likely led to its rejection by voters. Several Boston.com readers agreed, arguing that local provisions of the law dissuaded them from voting yes.

“I was going to vote yes (on question 4) until I saw that it included the ability to grow your own,” said reader Joe of Boston.com.

When we asked Boston.com readers for their opinions on the results of Question 4, the majority (66%) of the more than 150 people who voted said they disagreed with the results. results, arguing that psychedelics should have been legalized for therapeutic purposes. Thirty-three percent of readers agreed with the results.

Below, readers share their feelings on the results of Question 4.

Do you agree with the results of question 4?

No, I don’t agree

“I’m disappointed; people didn’t understand that it was only for medical use. Little did the people I spoke to know that patients suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, as a result of extensive research published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals, were helped more than any other type of treatment. These people need help, and that help is now being denied to them. More should have been done to explain this, people thought it was like everyone would have easy access to marijuana and people would trip all over the place. If they had known what it really was and how helpful it is, especially for veterans with severe PTSD, I think they would have voted yes. – Marguerite, Billerica

“The continued criminalization of mushroom possession is an outdated concept. It is a personal choice that has no effect on others. – Bill, Northborough

“This is a real shame for people suffering from PTSD and PTSD, who can benefit greatly from therapy with these substances.” – Juana, Jamaica Plain

“I am a veteran and have seen first-hand how consuming psychedelics (under proper medical supervision) can have incredible therapeutic benefits. Not to mention the peer-reviewed research that is published that shows that they are likely much more effective than prescription medications in treating PTS, depression, and anxiety. – Liam C., Beacon Hill

Yes, I agree

“It was a poorly written law. The local and sharing aspect has completely changed the regulatory aspect. Without it, I probably would have voted yes. I believe these substances have potential therapeutic value, but to that end they should only be used in a controlled setting so as not to harm someone who is not being treated. – ME, Boston

“If it had been a yes for medical use with a prescription and a dose controlled by a psychiatrist, I would have voted yes. But a law that would allow 21-year-olds to grow and share mushrooms? Certainly not. Society can do better. – J.L., Boston

“Psychedelics should never be legal, even under supervision.” – Wayne, Tewksbury

“There are many options when it comes to mental health treatment and we cannot continue to allow a tiny minority to change what is fundamentally a drug law. Too many drugs circulate like that. The fact that the patient was allowed to “grow his own plants at home” was a deciding factor, as it could be expected that his friends, pets and children could have illegal access. It was not strictly supervised by a doctor. – Beverly B., Reheboth

Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be interpreted as an unscientific measure of reader opinion.

---

Annie Jonas is a community editor at Boston.com. She was previously a local editor at Patch and a freelancer at the Financial Times.

---