Prop 122 would legalize supervised therapeutic use of psilocybin mushrooms, and specified types of personal possession would be decriminalized. {Photo from Cannabis Pictures}
Colorado Proposition 122 is, at its simplest, a proposal to decriminalize personal possession and use of specified plant-based psychedelic substances, and to legalize supervised use of certain substances at licensed facilities. This is a statutory measure, not Constitutional, and the citizen-initated Prop 122 would win with a simple majority of voters.
For a brief outline of the major points of this proposal, the Colorado Blue Book says Prop 122 would:
- Decriminalize the personal possession, growing, sharing, and use, but not the
sale, of five natural psychedelic substances by individuals aged 21 and over,
including two substances found in psychedelic mushrooms — psilocybin and
psilocin — and three plant-based psychedelic substances —
dimethyltryptamine, ibogaine, and mescaline; - By late 2024, allow the supervised use of psychedelic mushrooms by
individuals aged 21 and over at licensed facilities and require the state to
create a regulatory structure for the operation of these licensed facilities; - Allow the state to expand the types of substances that may be used in
licensed facilities to include the use of additional plant-based psychedelic
substances — dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, or mescaline — starting
in 2026; - Prohibit local governments from banning licensed facilities, services, and use
of natural psychedelic substances as permitted by the measure, while
allowing local governments to regulate the time, place, and manner of
operation of these facilities; and - Establish penalties for individuals under the age of 21 for possessing, using,
or transporting natural psychedelic substances and for individuals aged 21
and over who allow underage access to these substances.
Here’s a link to the entire 18-page ballot measure text, and you won’t see most of this on your ballot title: https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/58Final.pdf
What Are The Substances?
- Psilocybin and Psilocin: From drugscience.org/uk: Psilocybin mushrooms are naturally occurring mushrooms which contain the psychoactive compound psilocybin. More than 180 psilocybin-containing mushrooms species are found all over the world and can induce hallucinogenic/psychedelic effects when consumed. Psilocybin is converted by the body to psilocin, and this is the actual compound which produces their psychoactive effects.
- Dimethyltryptamine (DMT): From sciencedirect.com: Dimethyltryptamine is obtained from the seeds and leaves of Piptadenia peregrina from which the hallucinogenic snuff cohoba is prepared. It may also be obtained from other South American plants.
- Ibogaine: From sciencedirect.com: Ibogaine is one of the psychoactive alkaloids found in the West African shrub, Tabernanthe iboga.
- Mescaline: From verywellmind.com: Mescaline, also known as 3,4,5-trimethoxyphenethylamine, occurs naturally in certain cacti plants native to the southwest United States, Mexico, and South America. These plants include the peyote cactus, the San Pedro cactus, and the Peruvian Torch cactus.
How and Why Would We Allow Supervised Use?
I’m definitely not going even try to claim expertise in supervised use of psychedelic substances for therapeutic purposes. However, interest in the topic is widespread, and there are scientific studies available.
In February 2022, Johns Hopkins Medicine reported results from a study showing researchers report that the substantial antidepressant effects of psilocybin-assisted therapy, given with supportive psychotherapy, may last at least a year for some patients.
The National Institutes of Health released a lengthy study called “The Therapeutic Potential of Psilocybin” in 2021, and this report also included information about some of the other substances identified in Prop 122. To keep this section very short, it noted that therapeutic values of psychedelic substances are being evaluated for conditions including: multiple types of drug abuse; depression; suicidality; anxiety; PTSD; physical or phantom pain; epilepsy, personality disorders; and more. The study goes into neurological reasons (Section 3.2) why psilocybin might be effective in treating some disorders, and for the skeptics it also discusses risks or side effects (Section 3.5).
Remember, with Prop 122 voters are literally deciding whether to allow psychedelic therapy in Colorado or not. I would highly recommend looking through the NIH study with an open mind, even if only giving it a glorified skim, to get a better-informed sense of what you the voter might be approving.
Also, voters should be aware that under Prop 122, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) would be authorized to set rules regarding the future regulatory structure around psychedelics and therapy, plus the Colorado General Assembly would be able to pass bills into the future if adjustments to this statutory measure seem necessary. Prop 122 also establishes a 15-member Natural Medicine Advisory Board with members to be appointed by the Governor of Colorado.
We Wouldn’t Be The First
If Colorado voters pass Prop 122, we wouldn’t be completely out on a limb by ourselves when it comes to at least psilocybin, since other states and cities have either passed measures or are investigating psilocybin therapy in advance of possible legislation or ballot measures.
Colorado really wasn’t the first to legalize marijuana either, but critics of legalized marijuana wouldn’t be wrong to point out that there were some growing pains along the way. Since we legalized medicinal marijuana in 2000 and recreational marijuana in 2012, Colorado legislators passed volumes of new laws to address issues including: legitimate purposes and procedures for medical marijuana recommendations; retail practices for recreational cannabis; taxation and regulatory structures; and more.
Psilocybin decriminalization and associated proposals or actions have already taken place in a number of states and cities across the U.S., according to this story from Pew Charitable Trusts:
- 2020: Oregon voters approved Initiative 109, which will allow supervised use of psilocybin beginning in 2023.
- Cities including Ann Arbor, Denver; Oakland, Washington DC, and Seattle have passed various measures decriminalizing psilocybin (NOTE: decriminalization does not mean “anything goes,” so check your local laws before partaking.)
- Texas, Maryland, Washington (state), and Utah have set up task forces or allocated funding for studies of psilocybin therapies.
- Various state legislatures, including Colorado’s, have introduced bills regarding some level of supervised use. Colorado’s 2022 bill was pulled from consideration in its first 2022 committee, and many of the other nationwide bills did not pass, but Connecticut passed a budget bill this year allowing people to receive psilocybin-assisted or MDMA-assisted (ecstasy, molly) therapy as part of an expanded access program for investigational new drugs through the federal Food and Drug Administration.
Who Might Benefit Financially?
There have been several guest opinions submitted to Colorado media recently suggesting that Prop 122 might disproportionately benefit large corporations.
As of early September, the campaign committee Natural Medicine Colorado had received more than $2.7 million in contributions from Washington DC-based New Approach. This organization has supported a number of substance legalization or decriminalization ballot measures since being founded in 2014, including cannabis and psilocybin measures. The state campaign finance report from September 6 listed a number of much smaller contributions to Natural Medicine Colorado from Colorado donors.
Guest columnist Matthew Duffy, co-founder of the Denver-based nonprofit SPORE (the Society for Psychedelic Outreach Reform and Education), wrote an opinion piece published in the Denver Post saying New Approach is a “lobbying group representing corporate interests vying to be the gatekeepers of psychedelic medicine.” Duffy did not identify specific businesses that might benefit from a new Colorado law in his column, but psychedelic therapy could generate a lot of economic activity, and this story from Williamette (Oregon) Week includes an estimate that psilocybin could be a $1 billion industry in Oregon alone.
Melanie Rose Rodgers of Decriminalize Colorado, a local chapter of a national organization dedicated to drug reform education, was also quoted extensively in a Denver Post news story about her concerns over possible corporate dominance should Prop 122 pass. Rodgers was among people attempting to place a competing measure on the 2022 ballot, Initiative 61, but the effort did not gather enough petition signatures to make this year’s ballot.
Richard’s Take
I’m going to avoid endorsing or opposing here. Think it over carefully and make your own decision, but I have more than a few thoughts.
It’s 2022, not 1936, and we should have long ago stopped looking at the word “drugs” as if all drugs cause people to freak out like in the 1936 movie Reefer Madness. We ought to be much more precise in how we classify the vast numbers of substances, and in the case of psilocybin it’s far more precise to call it a psychedelic substance than a drug. Anecdotally but not without some practical experience, ask anyone who has tried psychedelics and they’ll tell you there is extremely little similarity between the practical effects of say, alcohol or marijuana or amphetamines or opioids, and the use of psychedelics. They’re all commonly referred to as drugs, but they’re all different.
Today, I am 100% sober, and I support complete sobriety for those who want to pursue a sober lifestyle, but it’s historically never been realistic to expect people never to experiment or enjoy intoxicating and/or psychoactive substances. That’s part of the core as to why the so-called “War on Drugs” has been a heavy-handed, harmful, and at times tragic failure. Responsible personal use of the vast majority of substances is not worthy of branding the user with a criminal record – which can destroy peoples’ lives to extents far in excess of the damage responsible substance use might cause. Directly to Prop 122, there are drugs that can kill people though one-time overdoses including accidental ingestion, but most psychoactive hallucinogens aren’t known to cause fatal overdoses. A key exception might be ibogaine, as a number of sources including the NIH National Library of Medicine say there have been reported fatalities after using Ibogaine.
It’s a different story when we talk about issues like substance trafficking, personal addiction or abuse, selling products containing different substances than what a person thought they were buying, and selling substances to minors – and in my opinion there should be legal or institutional structures in place to minimize all four. But strip away the very most harmful parts of substance culture, and I believe decriminalization for personal use can protect civil rights, keep the records of otherwise law-abiding citizens clean, and free up law enforcement to focus on more serious crime. That’s part of what Prop 122 would accomplish regarding the use and simple possession of the specified psychoactive substances.
Let’s not be Pollyanna here – people already use the substances specified in Prop 122, particularly psilocybin mushrooms, and they’ve been using them in some instances for thousands of years. They didn’t just show up by accident one day at Woodstock. However, it seems logical that passing Prop 122 could increase recreational use in Colorado to some extent. And I’m definitely not saying there couldn’t be dangers to personal use. People shouldn’t drive a car on hallucinogens, and Prop 122 specifically says the measure “shall not be construed” as a defense to driving or operating any moving vehicle while under the influence. There could be personal safety risks to tripping in a crowded city or in nature, like in rugged terrain or on a ski slope. Plus, bad trips happen. Hallucinogens aren’t for everybody.
I’m generally in favor of decriminalization for personal use, but there has been opposition expressed to Prop 122 for the possibility that large corporations could capture market share and dominate business aspects of a potentially lucrative therapy industry. It’s a fair point, and one that voters might want to consider. I’m not as convinced that the actual language of Prop 122 would directly enable corporate dominance, though there are strict regulatory structures plus future rulemaking that might make it tougher for a small operation to handle the regimen. The ballot measure text language itself actually prohibits imposing “unreasonable financial or logistical barriers” for low-income people to obtain a facilitator license. Still, I’m never surprised by corporate overdominance in practice anymore.
Also, I’m personally not a fan of the provision prohibiting local governments from banning licensed facilities and certain other services specified in Prop 122. Colorado is a local control state when it comes to many issues, and that’s because we’re a large and diverse state, so what works in some communities won’t be supported in others. In fairness, the Oregon ballot measure allowed cities and counties to opt out, and voters in numerous parts of Oregon will have opt-out options on their 2022 ballot, so I understand at least this potential reason for the prohibition on local bans in our Prop 122. The Colorado measure would also prevent localities from prohibiting transport of natural medicines through their jurisdictions, and I think this is good and necessary.
But whether I support the local control section or not, I’ll predict it will lead some people in cities and counties that aren’t yet ready for legalized psychedelics to oppose the entire measure.
I actually won’t be surprised if this measure fails, like the first statewide recreational marijuana legalization measure Amendment 44 did, but some type of psilocybin legalization or decriminalization measure passes in the future. This might be a tough stretch for some cautious voters in 2022, and some of them might want more evidence before granting their support. Others might want to take the leap, and I guess we’ll see in November!
