Amid growing interest in the therapeutic value of psychedelics and efforts by some state and local jurisdictions to reform laws around the drugs, a new report from the RAND Corporation says that \u201cnow is the time\u201d for federal policymakers to decide how to regulate psilocybin and other substances.<\/p>\n
The 161-page report, Considering Alternatives to Psychedelic Drug Prohibition, was published by RAND on Thursday. It\u2019s intended to help provide context about use as well as possible regulatory pathways for policymakers in the U.S. and internationally.<\/p>\n
Despite federal prohibition, the new report notes, since 2019 more than two dozen localities have deprioritized the enforcement of laws around psychedelics, \u201cgenerally making it a low or the lowest priority for law enforcement officials.\u201d Voters in Oregon have also legalized supervised use of psilocybin, while Colorado voters legalized not only facilitated psilocybin use but also personal possession and production of psilocybin, DMT, non-peyote mescaline and other psychedelics.<\/p>\n
Other states are also eyeing changes to psychedelics regulation.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow is the time for federal policymakers to decide what they want these supply models to look like and to start taking action,\u201d the RAND report says. \u201cOr, if they prefer a patchwork of state policies\u2014possibly including those that allow for commercial supply and promotion\u2014they can do nothing and just watch the industry grow.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf that happens,\u201d it adds, \u201cit can be difficult to make major changes to supply or regulations, but that will depend on the size and political power of the industry that has taken root.\u201d<\/p>\n
Though many reforms so far have been focused on research into psychedelics and how to eventually allow legal access, analysts noted that \u201cif moves to expand nonclinical supply do not go well (e.g., they are poorly regulated or there are a series of high-profile negative events related to the use of psychedelics), they could create a backlash that may have a chilling effect on the research.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cLooking at what happened with clinical research on psychedelics after the 1960s,\u201d the report points out, \u201cthis is not an idle concern.\u201d<\/p>\n