It’s no hallucination—the prohibitionists opposing Question 4 are using classic anti-marijuana messaging and duping journalists and voters
Of all the counter-intuitive shockers festering in my cage of pet peeves, none perplex me quite as much as baby boomer animosity toward pot reform, and residually toward those medical marijuana patients who would benefit if prohibition were dismantled.
The gripe above is 10 years old. GBH, which was still WGBH back then, asked me to evaluate media coverage of weed at the time, still two years before Massachusetts voters supported adult-use cannabis legalization. Prior to co-founding Talking Joints Memo, I had already edited or written hundreds of features on drug culture and policy for the Boston Phoenix, DigBoston, and other independent outlets, so pummeling the prim and proper prohibitionist press was kind of my prerogative.
A lot has happened since 2014, but some tired old pot plotlines are resurfacing by way of psychedelics. In particular, the loudest anti-drug crusaders with extreme positions are quoted the most because they court and crave the clout. And as always, these actions have consequences.
I hate to obsess over polling, but I’m writing as an individual here, and my own vibe and experience jibes with some recent remarks from Tatishe Nteta. Speaking about a recent poll she directed on the Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances Initiative, or Question 4, the provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst said, “This ballot question only enjoys majoritarian support among a small number of demographic and political groups in the state that include young people, Democrats, liberals and Biden voters.”
Nteta added, “Older voters, independents, Republicans and parents are particularly opposed to this ballot question, and given the high turnout among these groups in particular, this does not bode well for those who seek to make Massachusetts the third state in the nation to make these substances legal.”
That’s alarming, especially since so many people have worked hard to amplify the obvious benefits that are now within reach for that aging, ailing demo. One of those tireless advocates is James Davis, whose name first crossed my desk in 2021. In an interview for a story about psychedelics in Mass at the time, the volunteer co-founder of Bay Staters for Natural Medicine said, “My hope is that we will change the culture and the conversations so much by [2024] … that we’ll be able to file a bill that is a gold standard for legalizing access to psychedelic plants.”
I concur. And was impressed watching Bay Staters in action coming out of the pandemic. So early last year, Talking Joints Memo started platforming the group’s political work. It was prior to the introduction of a ballot measure, and as an editor I was comfortable flanking pro-psychedelics voices. The resulting posts included details about several initiatives the group was seeding in the Massachusetts legislature, and I was excited to help boost their message—until that message became muddled. And, increasingly, suspect.
It was a labyrinthine task, but in chasing leads from multiple former Bay Staters volunteers, journalist Jack Gorsline revealed a sordid change of course for the grassroots group. Earlier this year, BSNM started working to subvert Q4, including aligning with a staunchly prohibitionist opposition front. I encourage anybody who is deeply interested in this issue to read our extensive reporting, but in summary, Davis appears to be more invested in settling scores than in safe access to plant meds, and in pursuing those selfish goals, he has left a trail of wreckage in the Massachusetts psychedelics community.
As Jack noted in one investigation into a stolen valor situation, Davis apparently impersonated a veteran to advance his group’s interests. After that was published, the office of state Rep. Nicholas Boldyga released a statement that the “allegations” in the piece, “if true”—which they are, despite false statements made by Davis to other outlets and his amateurish social media subterfuge—are “disturbing.” They sure are, and that’s why Jack’s reporting on these issues has caught the attention of the larger psychedelics universe, with independent investigative journalist Sasha Sisko checking and confirming his research, and national sites like Benzinga and Double Blind following up.
But while those outlets have recognized these developments, many in the Massachusetts media seem to have missed our reporting on Davis. Despite our coverage, reporters continue to use him and Bay Staters as a source, commonly in the context of them skewering the Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances Initiative. There’s no reason they can’t take that position—I just want journalists, and the public, to know the background of how Bay Staters came to oppose Question 4. At one point, the group even accepted a donation from the Washington, DC-based political action committee backing the ballot measure. But Davis ultimately came to reject the specific language, and started lashing out.
Again, that is well within his right, just like there is nothing stopping journalists from quoting Bay Staters. In doing so, however, editors should know that while Davis is happy to speak to their outlets on his terms, he did not respond to any of Jack’s requests for comment ahead of our three bombshell features (BSNM did send a response to the first article, which we added, after the piece was published).
Members of the press and general public alike should also push back on the big lie he and other Question 4 saboteurs are peddling—namely, that they or anybody else knows what a Massachusetts therapeutic psychedelics program will look like if Q4 passes. It’s fair to acknowledge the high cost of treatments in other states, but if your source claims to have information about future rates in the commonwealth, they’re more soothsayer than truth sayer. Just compare the current adult-use cannabis program to the medical marijuana measure passed in 2012. The details may have slipped from the collective memory, but until a change in state law in 2017, all medical dispensaries in Mass were originally nonprofits.
I was motivated to endorse Q4 via media critique due to hokum claims made by Bay Staters about Jack personally as well as mischaracterizations of his work on this subject. But since this is hardly just a problem for Talking Joints Memo, my larger intent is to alert the public to the misinformation that Davis is actively disseminating, often with help from complicit hacks—about Question 4, about the motivations of those advocating for the measure, about science, about business, take your pick.
It’s no surprise that journalists are drawn to a psychedelics advocate who stands against the psychedelics ballot measure. It’s the same zeal with which they embrace anyone who breaks from expectation and opposes something you would think they would support—take the example of nurses against the Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative in 2018, or rideshare drivers and service industry workers against referendums that could ostensibly help them on the upcoming ballot.
As much as I hate to give this much attention to Bay Staters just a few weeks before the election, with so much nonsense swirling, I felt that it was necessary to make clear who is behind this interesting unlikely advocate-oppo front. Otherwise, regarding the actual measure itself, considering the post-vote malleability mentioned above, my position is to avoid overthinking it and simply vote yes. I know more about this stuff than all the bobbleheads and writers together who are giving blind credence to both sides, but I don’t take myself seriously enough to think that I know better than people who are trying to help others with psychedelics. You shouldn’t either. If this was the money grab that No On 4 fearmongers say it is, then that’s definitely news to cannabis executives who are cold on the question due to the apparent lack of profit potential.
Opportunities like this don’t come along every day, or even every two years. It’s like if you’ve been forced to eat gruel for decades, and someone shows up with a big bag of Burger King.
Would you reject the offer because you are holding out for surf and turf from Morton’s? Or would you have it your way?
I’ll go with the latter every time that the alternative is nothing (or worse, reliant on the Massachusetts legislature). Thanks to what voters started here in 2012, when we greenlit medical weed at the ballot box, I can easily purchase and puff a giant infused cone, close my eyes, and pretend the Whopper is wagyu.
Yes On 4.
