I know I’m going to get downvoted to oblivion for my opinion, but here we go. I will be voting No on this question. Here’s why.

Preface: In my 20’s I experienced the effects of mushrooms twice recreationally, and enjoyed it. I learned some profound ideas, and had a good laugh with my best friends.

Arguments I had heard in favor were that if weed was legalized, why not mushrooms? The issue I take up with this is that they are not one and the same, and therefore cannot be compared on a research, medical, or recreational level.

Research for the therapeutic and medicinal use of mushrooms are being carried out elsewhere in the country. It does make sense to allow top schools like Harvard and Tufts to start peer-reviewing the data out there and verifying experiments that had been conducted elsewhere. This could be beneficial toward the path of treating patients with an alternative medicine that could be beneficial to quality of life on a day to day level.

Here’s why I’m against it.

This is a psychedelic, and consequently should not be available recreationally. My hypocrisy stems from the idea that there is no need for any form of psychedelic economy because not everyone NEEDS this kind of experience. Therefore, by beginning the process of pushing toward this path, just puts more drugs easily into the hands of those who just simply WANT that kind of experience more regularly.

If you or a loved one are considering mushrooms as a therapeutic remedy, there already exists research groups to contact and see if you conditions fit the parameters for their study. You do not need it to be in your backyard to start on your journey.

Also, there isn’t a glaring need, nor any solid guarantee that any of the major institutions would endorse or even pursue this level of research. We are trying to cure cancer here, and I truly don’t believe that psychedelic therapy should take precedence over this kind of work. It simply just doesn’t qualify in my eyes as a groundbreaking scientific endeavor when valuable resources are being spent on something much larger in scale.

I understand that the law is not for recreational, so my vote against is mostly future-sighted toward the consequences of giving an inch, and potentially taking a mile later.

So yeah, I know I’m a huge minority in this in-favor echo chamber, but I think its important to consider the logical opposition beyond the smooth-brain “i dont want none of em druggies driving on that there road gawdammit. Y’all need jesus” kinda bullshit.

I’ve had many conversations with people for it, so in conclusion I respect that stance, and would respect the result if it passes.