It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Costin's Radio.
All right, welcome back everyone. As we get into the ninth, the nine o'clock hour here on a Friday ninth, continue to remind you, because it sticks in my mind it is November first, and of course this is the weekend when the clocks are moved backs. We get an additional
hour of sleep theoretically. But please, as we learned last hour with Mark shield Drop of Triple A, be a little careful coming home on your evening commute on Friday night because there's many more accidents, not necessarily huge accidents, but you don't need the aggravation, that is for sure. Now, before we get to our two guests, we're going to have a conversation. It's not a debate, it's a conversation and discussion with my two guests talking about question four,
which is the legalization of psychedelics. We have one more pier of tickets to give you if you are calling number ten. So I'm going to open up the contest line just for a couple of minutes and you need you can start now. The number that you want to call is six, one, seven, nine, three, one, ten, thirty uh. You if you are caller number ten and Noah is simply going to tell you caller one caller too, there's no long conversation until he gets to call her ten.
You will win two tickets to see to see next Thursday Night, Celtic Thunder at the Premier Theater at Foxwood's on November seventh. Now, if you don't think that you can use these tickets, or you're not sure you can get there, please don't deprive them for someone else. This you will set off on a musical journey with the Irish music sensations. Celtic Thunder Live. Complete show info and tickets are available at Foxwoods dot com. Now again, all
you have to do is be calling number ten. And by the way, if you are calling one, two, three, four, well whatever, call right back. Okay, it's like a game of musical chairs. We're not tracking phone calls. So all Noah's going to tell you is your call us six, your call us seven, and we'll get you. We'll get you to call a ten and as soon as he gets a winner, he will let me know in my ear through my headphone and then you can stop calling.
So again, we've had five pairs of tickets. This is the last pair of tickets here to see to see and here Celtic Thunder, which I'm told is a great show next Thursday night the Premier Theater at Foxwood's the number six, one, seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty and all you have to do is to be called number ten two tickets and again if you don't win the tickets and not use them, okay, this is a this is we have a winner, so that takes care of
the calls. If you're calling now, Noah has a winner, and he will get that information and we will get those tickets to you. Noah will need all sorts of information name, address, phone number, and your email so we can get those tickets to If you're calling now, Noah already has a winner, so sorry. Hopefully we'll have some other prizes which we can get to you at some point, but we'll call off. Call the call the phone phone
calls off. I believe that I have my two guests here for tonight's conversation, and it is intended to be a conversation. For those of you who are familiar. There are five ballot questions here in Massachusetts. One of them is a question number four and question number four deals with the legalization of psychedelics, which is a question that there are a couple of states oregone in Colorado where there is some level of legalization and regulation of certain
so called natural psychedelic substances. I have two guests. One has been with me before, Doctor Nassir Gomi. Doc Gomi, welcome back tonight's side. Always good to have you with us. Just by way of introduction, you're you are with Tough's Medical School, if I'm not mistaken, and you were a professor in psychiatry. Correct, yes, doctor Gomi. Are you there? Noah, I'm not hearing from doctor Gomi. Could you make sure that his his microphone is open please. In the meantime,
I will also introduce Emily one shock. I'm hoping that Emily can hear me. Emily, can you hear me?
I can hear you?
Well, that's that's what we're fit. We're halfway there already.
This is great, okay, And I can hear doctor Gomi.
So yes, I can hear you now, Doctor Gomi. I was trying to reach you before. I don't know if if your microphone was muted, but we have you now. As I introduced you earlier. You are a professor of psychiatry at Tough's Medical Correct.
Yes, I'm director of the mood disorders program also at self Medical Center.
All right, thank you for that embellishment on the introduction. And Emily, you are a proponent of the legalization of psychedelics. What is your background. I've never had a chance to speak with you before. I had CJ. Leconte on earlier this week, who is a military veteran and graduate of West Point as I understand that you also are a military veteran.
Correct, Yes, I am. Yeah, I'm the grassroots campaign director for Yes on four, a Navy veteran, and I grew up in Wefield, so you know this is my turf.
All right, fair enough, since since you're the proponent of this question, and again I want this to be a discussion. It's not a debate, so it's not I will keep it fair. But it's not one of these situations where you have one minute and thirty seconds to respond. So why would this be good either from your perspective or better yet, from the perspective of the com wealth if these psychedelics were legalized in some form of fashion here in Massachusetts.
Yeah.
Absolutely. So you know what this question does. It sets up a two prong approach. Right, we have the regulated framework where it's at of healing centers, and it sets up the decriminalization piece of it. There's no retail sales. And what I really like to say to people in Massachusetts is this is already being led in Massachusetts from research by mgh and Dana Farber and so many others.
And the reason I do this work is because natural psychedelic therapy helped me really profoundly after I got out of the Navy. Right when I commissioned to the Navy, I had lost my little brother to gun violence. I was the first female Navy steel candidate, and I had a lot of you know, difficult times on active duty. And when I finished up, I had PTSD depression anxiety. I went to the VA in Bedford. I went through all the traditional modalities that were available to me, and
I wasn't getting any better. And you know, I think C Day How had a similar story.
Right.
We both went to the resources we had and we got released through them, and we weren't finding it and we had you know, both of us turned to these alternatives like so many other people to you know, find the release and get our lives back.
So how did you access how did you access the alternatives if they at this point are not legalized in Massachusetts.
Yeah, I was really fortunate to get a scholarship from the Hope Projects, which sponsors female veterans to go abroad to these things. So I flew down to Jamaica two years ago and went on a psilocybin retreat.
Okay, now are you on continuing treatments or did you have how many treatments? How many experiences? Did you have more than one or how many?
So I had that initial treatment in Jamaica, I went back one more time because I had become close with the women I had met there and I still do therapy. But that changed the trajectory of like my time and mental health care. Like I had been in therapy at that point since my brother had died and I wasn't improving, and I kept things kept getting darker.
You've had you've had, just so I get this clarified. You've had two treatments, yes, two treatments, and do you feel that that you're okay and that that you be able to now as a consequence, of those treatments go forward, or do you feel that that at some point in the not too distant future you might need a third treatment?
You know, I was really able to deal with the darker things I was carrying with those two treatments, and it gave me, you know, kind of like my lease on life back, which was pretty profound.
Okay, So so you're you're okay at this point. Okay, fine, let me get doctor Gami in here. Doctor Gomi, I know from our previous conversation you were very skeptical of this. You were on the other side of the case here. You've just heard Emily's experience. What what what makes you so concerned about the legalization? What is it that you are objecting to?
Well, let me just begin by saying I'm also a president of the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, which represents the majority of psychiatrists in the state, and we oppose this ballot question, as does the American Psychiatric Association, as forty thousand psychiatrists in the country. They oppose it, and that these drugs are hallucinogens, which means that they cause hallucinations and delusions,
and that in itself is harmful. The only question is whether they can be helpful to some extent to outweigh the harms they have known harms. The harms are well known, and as physicians and psychiatrists, we want to let people know about that because we see the cases of people who are harmed to We all describe in a minute the benefits are possible but not known yet, and I agree with Emily that there should be research, as she says, but that's not a reason to legalize the medicin the drugs.
It's actually a reason not to legalize them because we don't know that they are actually helpful enough to outweigh their harms. For instance, if we have a new cancer drug possibility, we don't say, okay, let's legalize this new cancer drug and let everyone have it in their spare bedroom as in this spill. We just study it until we know it's proven with research, and then doctors give it to patients safely in clinics and hospitals, which is
our position. You know, Emily presented her case, and she has other veteran colleagues who have had good experiences. But we doctors see just as many cases for each case that's good, we have a bad one and I have not just one, but many I see in my clinical practice. We see these cases in the silence of our clinics, where there's privacy and confidentiality. These patients who do badly are not come in on your radio show. They're not
becoming employees of political action committees. But I'll give you an example. I had a young woman with mild depression in her early twenties who took ayahuasca, which has one of the substances in ballid question is called dmt dimethyl
trip to me that's in there. She had mild depression, but after taking this hallucinogen, she got a whole lot worse, with more severe depression, developed severe delusions, hallucinations, was hospitalized for six months, developed what we call catatonia, which means she stopped eating, drinking, or talking or moving and had to get a feeding tube and almost died and got better with electro convulsive treatment. We had to go to that extreme and make her better. I can give you
other examples of people. One another person who got addicted to hallucinogens as her main drug of addiction and then got suicidal. So there are good cases and there are bad cases, and that's exactly why doctors in offices need to weigh the risks and benefits so that the patients who could benefit will benefit, but the ones who will get harmed don't get harmed, and also that the general public doesn't get harmed, which we can talk about.
Okay, we're going to pause there. I have got to take a break. I guess we're talking about question four for the those who have joined us. Is the limited is listed as a question for the limited legalization and regulation of certain natural psychedelic substances. We're talking with two guests. You just heard from doctor Nasirgami, who is a professor of psychiatry at Tufts University. He's also involved with a number of groups. And also you heard from Emily one Shuck,
a Navy veteran, and thank you for your service. Emily who as a consequence of some occurrences in her personal life as well as the loss of a brother and also what she experienced while in the military, she has gone through this and she's a big advocate of it. We'll continue our conversation and then we're going to take
phone calls. So if any of you want to ask questions, I prefer questions as opposed to both of these folks are highly credentialed in terms of their experiences, professional and otherwise, questions are would be much more appreciated, uh, at least for the ballance of this hour. And the number is always a six, one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty or six one, seven, nine three one thirty. Be right back on Nightside with more conversation about ballot question number four here in Massachusetts.
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio. Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World nights Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
So we're talking about question four on the Massachusetts ballot. Last time. We will touch this before Tuesday. So if you haven't voted, you have a question, feel free you have the numbers. My guests here are Emily, who is a Just to keep it simple here, I'm going to use Emily's first name. Her entire name is Emily one Shock. But Emily is a Navy veteran who went to Jamaica
for two treatments with these drugs. And she is a proponent and doctor Gami, who is a professor of psychia and is also representing the points of view of Massachusetts psychiatrists as well as psychiatrists around the country. So let me ask an open question here to both of you, and I'm trying to find out if this possibility. Obviously, both of you see this very differently, although I think there's some acknowledgment by doctor Gomi that some people have
benefited from it. I'm going to ask doctor Gomi to respond first, and Emily you second, and that is, would it be reasonable to say, Okay, why can't there be some opportunity for individuals who find themselves in extreme circumstances like Emily found herself in where she's willing to fly to Jamaica and get a couple of treatments where she could work with a psychiatrist here in Massachusetts and maybe, under some circumstances, be able to be treated here in Massachusetts.
Let me start with you, doctor Gomi. Would that be impossible to do under federal current federal drug laws and drug laws in Massachusetts, there's no option available for sort of like, let's let's give this a trial on a very limited basis if a psychiatrist said this might be beneficial to my.
No, it's totally doable as long as it's effective, you know, you just have to do the research to show that it works. The venture capitalists who stand to make billions from eventually getting commercialization, which would be their next step if this if this question passes, they've spent five to ten million dollars just in Massachusetts this past year to
get this on the ballot and advertise it. They could have spent that money to do one or two randomized clinical trials which would show benefit, and the FDA has put these psilocybin in one of these substances on a fast track. I know, I worked for the pharmaceutical company for four years in drug discovery, and we spent that amount of money and got a randomized trial done within a year with e ketamine like drug, which is exactly
a psychedelic type drug. It could be done and then we would know if they worked and then we could give it to people. But instead they're trying to just advertise their way to the market. And perhaps it's because if you do the research, you have to also be willing to accept the possibility that they would not work or they're not effective. So since we know these drugs cost hallucinations, they can make people psychotic, they land people
in emergency rooms fifty percent more than not. We need to know that there's some benefit to outweigh that harm, and if there is, then yes, we could give it to people, and we would give it to people. But there's no other drug in medicine, you know, again, in cancer, cardiovascro disease, we don't just say here's an unproven drug. Let me just pass a law to give it to somebody. Well, we try to give it to people when they work, and we'd be willing to quite do that. That's our position.
Look, let me get Emily's reaction. Emily, I know that this has been a big ballid initiative, and obviously it's
going to be on the ballot on Tuesday. No matter what, would have it been more reasonable to accept the proposal that I suggested that somehow, some way we have you know, not that everybody can go into any doctor's office and say, hey, doc, write me that script, but have certain doctors who people could go to, like yourself, and as opposed to have a youth to have gone to a foreign country to get this treatment. Would have it been better to have
started down that track? Why what was that track? Did you try to get down that track?
So that's a great question. You know, the reason this is on the ballot is really about access, because there's a couple of bills that came through the House legislature that you know, they didn't get anywhere. And the most efficient method of getting this to the people who need it is going to be as a ballot initiative. And I want to touch on a few things in there. We have a lot of psychiatrists that support us. We have the psychiatrists that are doing research here in Massachusetts.
We have some really prominent psychiatrists from across the country that support us, and there is a lot of research done on these substances, and you know, we have a lot of evidence that they work and that they really help a lot of people. And you know, I don't want to come off to saying they're not without risk, because they are. But that's why, you know, the model of the ballot question sets up is so structured and is so rigorous, you know, to help people get these
treatments that they need. And you know, and I just want to kind of touch on like there's a lot of fear mongering that doctor Gami is doing the a lot.
Emily, do me a favor I don't want any attacks here. I really don't, because I think that both of you are coming to this conversation with clean hands, and I want to be really strict. You know that if you disagree with something, but when you characterize him as doing fear money, that's fear mongering. That's an not ominum attack. And I don't I don't want either of you to engage in that sort of thing.
So if you would just what she said.
Well, let me do this, let me see if she wants to rephrase it, and then I'll get you to respond to that. Okay, but I do you want to change that? And just yeah, I mean it's just it's not fair.
Go ahead, short, sure thing. So I want to touch on I think, you know about the money that he mentioned, and I think it's taken a lot of effort on you know, the team that's behind this, Like that money is there because this is a huge education campaign, right, and the people that are backing this, they're doing it because they care, because they've had family members that have
been let down by the mental health system. Like there's a lot of care and a lot of thought going into this, and it's really about you know, creating another option, because we're living in a time when I think people need other options that are feeling quite hopeless. And you know the reason that myself and the team and the donors and everyone cares about this is because you know, we're trying to do something different to help people and lead with curiosity.
Okay, enough, doctor me.
If you wanted to respond to the yeah, I mean, I think we know it's a tough time and a lot of people that are suffering, and we all support getting treatment for PTSD, including with these substances if they work. But let me just say it's not the most efficient way to get access. The same political action committee that's spending all this money did so in Colorado two years
ago in an orderedon a couple years before that. In those six seven years of spending probably now twenty to thirty million, they easily could have proven one or two of these substance being effective. And it's not fear mongering, it's truth telling in the face of misleading information. When you say there's a lot of evidence that these drugs work. None of these five substances, let me emphasize this, none of these five has even been studied in PTSD, much
less proven. One drug that has been studied was MDMA, and that's not one of these five studied drugs that was reported to be effective in about ninety percent of people, which people often cite. What they don't tell you is that seventy percent of placebo patients also got better with psychotherapy in that study, and the study was not approved by the FDA because of data manipulation as well as ethical violations by the researchers, which is why one of
the journals retracted it. So that's for PTSD for depression. Psilocybin has been shown that it is not more effective than the standard aid depressants that we have now, which were much safer at high doses and at low doses, which is actually the kind that in this bill you're allowed to grow in your bedroom as home growth. These substances, it's not really about mental health, it's just about recreation.
But the low doses that you're allowed to grow at home have been shown to be equivalent to placebo in a recent meta analysis. So there's not a lot of evidence if they work. There's a lot of evidence that you they don't work. They're not better than what we have, but they're more harmful or they haven't even been studied. So I don't think that's an accurate presentation of the
science and the fact it's wishful thinking. We hope the wishes are true, but we can't be giving everybody seven million people in the state access to these drugs, including their children and teenagers in the spare bedroom, just based on the wishful thinking.
Emily, let me ask you a question, and friends of mine and self have sort of analogized this to medical marijuana, and and I want to give you a chance to respond to this, and I hope you you can. You can assuage some people's apprehensions. When medical marijuana first came here in Massachusetts, a lot of people were saying, look, this is only for people who really need medical marijuana. Why why do we want to deny people a drug
that will help keep them more comfortable? And you know, that's the old nose under the camel's nose, under the tent argument that shortly after medical marijuana, then marijuana as a recreational drug was approved. So I think that there are some people who might say, gee, I'm sympathetic to what Emily and CJ have gone through, and I asked
this of CJ the other night. How can you assure people that even if this, this Batlet initiative passed, it's not just the first up down the road toward a more widespread availability of psychedelics as opposed to limiting it just to people like yourself or CJ who could benefit from it. How do you respond to that argument.
Yeah, so, yeah, that's a good question. I've heard, you know, people generally compare this to cannabis, which I understand, and I think the biggest difference for me, right is the
profile of these substances. Psychedelic experiences are you can be an engineer, are very challenging, and you know, people come to them looking for healing and growth, and these experiences are you know, not things you necessarily want to do all the time, which is why they work in a therapeutic model, right, and they help you process really difficult things, and you know, I it's just such a different profile.
And I think the other piece of this that I want to, you know, just be open about is a lot of people are currently using these right, and I think the important that we acknowledge that, and that's a big part of the reason this has to happen is because the best thing we can do for public health and safety is be able to talk about it, be able to have vetted information about it. And you know, the further in the dark we keep it, you know, frankly, the last safe people will be.
Well, that's obviously, that's what we're trying to do tonight. And again, I got to take a break. It's okay, doctor Gama. I got to take a break. What a news break. And then I'll give you a chance to quickly respond to that point. And then we'll get to phone calls, which I think will be the most important. The only lines that are open right now is six one, seven, nine, three, ten thirty. If you're dialing two five four ten thirty, you're going to get a busy signal six one seven
nine three one ten thirty. Back with my guest. We're talking about Question four, which is a initiative question here in Massachusetts dealing with the legalization and regulation of psychedelics. Emily one Chuck, a Navy veteran who has benefited, according to her representations, from treatments with these substances, and had to go off short at Jamaica and doctor Nasir Gami who's a psychiatrist and a professor of psych psychiatry a
Toughts University. We'll be back with questions and more conversation. Again, I appreciate both of the guests being as polite and respectful as possible. I think that's the only way anasts make progress on these complicated issues. Back at this after this On Nightside.
It's Night Side with Dan on Boston's news radio. It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Way Boston's news radio.
We're talking about Question four, the Massachusetts ballid initiative. Everybody get a chance to vote on five ballot initiatives will cover them all, and this is one that I think is probably, according to the polls, the one that is probably closest right now. The limited legalization regulation of certain natural psychedelic substances. I asked Emily, who's our guest, Emily one chock Navy veteran who has experienced the these psychedelic substances twice on a trips to Jamaica she took and
when she says she benefited greatly from them. And asked her about whether or not this is just a one step in the direction of full legalization, not just medical and analogize it to medical marijuana. Doctor Gami, you wanted to respond to what Emily had to say, I could make it a quick response. I'd appreciate it because I got packed lines. Go right ahead, doctor sure.
This will be my last colum before you go to callers. She mentioned that people are using it, so we should let more people use it, which I think is this questionable logic. And let me say that everything I'm going to say, listeners can go to the Massachusetts Psychiatry Psychiatric Society website and we have links there on a resources page to all of the scientific studies for all of
the percentages I'm giving you. The problem is that you know, we support giving it to the patients and who need it. But if you legalize it, to grow it in your home and give it recreationally, as this spound question has it, you expose the entire population to it, which makes it raises public health issues, which I have a degree in. There. You have problems with car accidents and hospitalizations. So with car accidents, there's an accident every four minutes in the state.
One hundred people die daily from car accidents in the country. People often cite veterans dying suicide by fifty people a day. Well, that's obviously a problem, but one hundred people also die from car accidents. That's why the Massachusetts State Police and the Boston Police Association opposed this question. And we know that regular hallucinogen users who admit that they drive under the influence and these drugs call it just a second
visual hallucinations and distortions. Separately, there is data now from California that hallucinogen users have a fifty percent increased rate of emergency room visits and hospitalizations versus only one percent with cannabis and alcohol. So these are known harms which are going to be extended to the entire population. And that's why the Massachusetts College of Emergency Physicians also opposes this bollent question.
Okay, Emily, you wanted to add something, if you.
Could do it, wrap it up, yep. So you know, these substances have already been decriminalized in Colorado for a year in the Department of Transportation and then Colorado Hospital Association show no uptick in any of the things doctor Gami is talking about, right, and that is a state that his past legislation that is almost identical to what we're doing here, right, So we already have a ground that we've seen this happen on. And there's eight cities
in towns in Massachusetts that have already done this decriminalized. Right, so this is already going on around us. And if what doctor gamis saying, you know, this was worst case scenario, we would already see it here.
I can respond to that. Please, well, I'll let him you've done when you're finished. Because decriminalization is not the same thing as legalization. We support decriminalization, which is just the legislature or a talent passing a law that people won't get criminal punishment for these substances. Support that legalization means you're growing in your spare bedroom, your teenager has
access to it, and nobody supports that. It's very different than just saying that that there's no criminal path punishment. The Colorado data is just one year the California data or the opposite. So and Colorado and Oregon have actually not been reporting data from the treatment centers that they've set up in terms of the effects of these drugs.
In Yeah, the only thing that I know about Colorado, and I've been trying to find Emily information on on on marijuana accidents and problems out there in Colorado seems to be hesitant to release that information. I think part of it is that there's no way that they can detect and if they can detect drunk drivers obviously with breathalyzers and blood alcohol content tests, but they are not able to actually look at someone and make a determination
if they're actually stone. But let me do this. Let me We got a bunch of calls wedding folks, So if it's okay, let's I'm going to ask people to direct questions, and I'm going to ask for quick responses if possible. I think we've we've laid out the questions. Both of you have laid out your positions really effectively. Let me go first off to Danielle in Charlestown. Danielle, I prefer a question as opposed to a speech. Go right ahead, Danielle.
Sure, Hi, Yeah, thanks so much for having me so uh my question, Uh well, Emily, I really like to hear a little bit more about you know, how you felt before and after uh using this therapy and also how does one get this?
Is this? You know, do you go to a.
Store to buy this?
Yeah?
Thank you so much. So, I you know, before I went to Jamaica, I was having like all kinds of physical manifestations of anxiety and depression, and I was unable to enjoy like any part of my life because of what I was dealing with. And the thing the experience there helped me process a lot of emotions that I otherwise couldn't have touched and I could, you know, go into a more detail, but essentially it like accelerated therapy
for me by probably like a decade. And just to hit on you know, like how you can access this here. It's not a store, right, you'd go to a therapy center. You would do you know, an extensive intake with a trained and licensed facilitator. You would go and have a supervised session. You would be you know, you'd have to have a plan, someone have to come drive you home, and then you have all these integration sessions afterwards to help you work through what came up.
So and that's assuming that this this legend.
Yes, you can't do that right now?
Can I speak to the trained license facilitator claim.
Go right ahead, quick comment if you were so.
As we've family and I have debated this three times and you're not saying exactly what the ballot question says, which is that it requires that these so called facilitators not be limited to being medical professionals and mental health professionals in order gone they are high school graduates, and in this ballid question, they're only required to take the equivalent of about a one month of training on hallucinogens. I've had four years of medical school, four years of
psychija residency, thirty years of practice treating over ten thousand patients. There. You will not have medical and mental health professionals at these facilities, but are rather high school graduates for the one month course.
So what are the requirements here if this passes?
So if this passes, that'll be decided during the two year rulemaking process. Right, They'll be overseen by the commission, the advisory board that this bill sets up. And what we're seeing in Colorado is a baseline that requires one hundred and fifty hours of classroom. I think it's like fifty hours of practicum and then another fifty hours of like overseeing fractus.
Right, which is grossly inadequate. I mean, we've have tens of thousands of hours for the average position around this is practicing medicine without a license.
Basically, I'm not sure if you've ever witnessed the psilocybin session, but generally what happens is, you know, the you've predicipent in just the medicine and then lies down with an iphold and generally the cries for four to eight hours. And that is you know, and then has helped processing what's gone on after that, And it's very different than medical model.
Well, the problem, Emily is that you have to select that participant. And if you have, if you're one of five percent of the population hundreds of thousand of people in the state who have bipolar illness or severe depression, you're more prone to having well screening and orgon to ask someone whether they've ever taken lithium before. A high school graduate can't tell whether someone has bipolar illness or not.
That's difficult for the average position. Furthermore, one of these five rugs, one of these five drugs causes party.
Go go right ahead, down, doctor, I'm sorry, don't turn don't turnings microphone down? Please?
No, I'm sorry. Did you hear me?
No? I missed that. I'm not sure if you spell one of the just finish that thought.
Okay, okay, one of the five subfaces also causes heart attacks cardiac arrest, which is obviously not something a high school graduate would be prepared for.
Okay, let me pause here, and let's take a break, and we will try to get to at least a couple more callers. Right after the break, Danielle and Chiles Non thank you for your call. We'll be back on night Side with a final segment talking about question four. And I think that these two guests have stated their positions pretty clearly and should help all of you be able to make up your mind whether you're a yes or no one for coming back on Nightside.
Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news Radio. Now back to Dan ray line from the Window World Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
All right, let's keep rolling here. I'm gonna I'm gonna ask again the questions. If you could just direct the question and then if we could get I wanted to try to get as many calls and as we can. I have full lines, folks, So work with me here if you will. James, James, you are next on nights I go ahead, James, your question for either doctor Gomi or Emily one shock.
All right, Dan, thanks for taking my call. Just a generic question. Seems there's a bit of a veteran focus, and we know veterans kind of have a suchen abuse problem, so with this add to it, and there's also a veteran suicide issue, is there any research around this helping or actually increasing suicides for either of the proponents or opponents?
Okay, doctor Gomi, let me let doctor Gomi start with this one, and then Emily, I'm going to ask you both to be as quick as you can if possible, on this Doctor Gomi.
Yes, okay, So briefly, none of these five substances has been proven to prevent suicide, so the claim that they will help suicide again is a possibility but not known. We need to stay with science, not science fiction. Darding addiction, the Gavin Foundation, which is a major substance abuse treatment group in the state, opposes to this position this palate question, and many addictions psychiatrists are concerned just because these subtances
are natural doesn't mean they're safe. Opium is natural too, and obviously unhi addictive, and again a lot of people say these drugs don't have physiological withdrawal symptoms, but neither does cocaine, and yet it's still addictive. Addiction is a psychological abuse, a situation, and people do have that problem with these substances. Actually, hallucinogen users about seventy percent of them use cocaine, fifty percent use opiates, versus only seven
percent of non hallucin gen users using cocaine opiates. So there is an association of these drugs. Even though people have talked about maybe they might be helpful for addictions, the actual evidence so far, again we're going by the known harms, is that most people who use these subtances also use other substances of abuse, and in one study there was a fivefold increased rate of heroin abuse in people who use hallucinogens. Again, all those links website, let me.
Get Emily in here. Real question. Well, it's a chance at the cite websites too, by the way, go ahead, Emily.
Yep.
So no, this has been really big for the veteran community, and there are just to bring up there ur clinical studies with psilocybin and PTSD, and you know, I've seen this personally helped so many veterans. That's there's a reason that the VA is studying this and putting resources towards it.
There's a reason that many leading institutions and researchers are focusing on veterans and doing this and a lot of these, you know, all a lot of these substances have tremendous potential to help with substance abuse, right, you know, like specifically, people go to these when they are struggling and have run out of other options. I know people personally within the state that have turned to these as you know, a last resort when dealing with opiate addiction and have
had tremendous relief. So you know, there's there's a McLean psychiatrist that just wrote an op ed that really saying these are non addictive. You can find it on Psychedelic Alpha. There's there's a lot of folks doing a lot of really profound research in this because they see it help people.
And so you know, to your to what you're saying about veterans, like you know, in my eyes and the eyes of the campaign and the supporters, like this is the best thing we can do because what we currently have just isn't doing the job.
All right, Thank you, Emily, can I say one brief thing, just one factual comment.
You've got to be real, there.
Are there's not a single clinical study of psilocybin and PTSD and human beings. Yet people are talking about it, but nothing's been done or published.
Okay, James, thank you for your call. I'm going to try to get one call in. Uh. Jack, you have about a minute. We're flat out at time. You can ask a quick question. I'm going to ask for especially quick responses ahead.
It was best to Emily I vote to you know for your position.
Uh.
But and I did have a good trip when I used tell us do it? But how would you make sure that people don't have bad trips? So to speak?
Good question, Jack, Good question, Emilye. I need to really quick answer. I'm crunched on time. Thank you, Jock.
I'll be very quick. So what I say, you know, with a bad trip, there's difficult trips, and a bad trip is usually when you don't have support and you're not in the right set and you don't have the right setting. And how you prevent that right is like the information is having the right people around you. It's having care if you need it, and knowing who to reach out to for help. So my, you know the thing I could say that is public resource information and a lot of education.
Okay, collecting if you want to respond to that.
Comment, yeah, my comment will be brief. That's exactly the reason why we need to have psychiatrist, physicians and mental health professionals selecting the people that should get these substances. So that's how you avoid bad trips, and that's not what would happen with this ballad question.
Okay, it's been a great conversation. Thank you Jack for your brief question. I really do appreciate the callers in the line. I'm sorry I took the callers who called first. For the callers in the line, I'd love to get from both of you a website that people who haven't voted and haven't made up their mind on this. Emily, I'll start with you. Where can people go? Give me a website that they would be that they can get the information that you would like them to see before they vote.
Emmy fromntalhealth dot org.
Very for mental health dot org. Emily, thank you very much, doctor Gami. Where could people go, uh to get the information you would like them to see if they don't have a chance to listen to this.
The Massachusetts psychiatri Society is a volunteer society. We have a position paper on our website, and I said, as I said, links to scientific studies. It's probably easiest just to Google search the name Massachusetts Psychiatric Society will pop up. But the official website for the no opposition to this ballot question is the Coalition for Safe Communities, and I just looked up their website at SAFECOMMUNITIESMA dot com.
Okay, to both of you, I thank you. It's obviously it's an emotional issue. I thank both of you for complying with my requests. I think it was edifying and I wish you both best of luck on Tuesday. For those who didn't get through, what you can do over the weekend if you'd like is listen to this. I'm hoping that Noel will get all of our hours posted tonight at nightside on Demand dot com so you can listen to this hour. Emily, both you and doctor Gami.
Thank you both very much, and you folks are able to pull this down. This will hopefully be posted sometime by early tomorrow morning meeting six o'clock in the morning by our overnight staff, and you can pull it down and put it up on your websites and share the information. And I want to thank both of you for conducting yourselves as professionally and as polite as you did tonight. Thank you so much both, Thanks for having
Us appreciate it.