(Part 2 of a three-part series)
Previous story in the series: Fox Rothschild Cannabis Attorney Analyzes Psychedelics Rage and Changing Public Perceptions
The first part discusses the growth and specificity of psilocybin therapy as it becomes legalized in the states, possible parallels with cannabis legalization, and the need to educate the public about what psychedelics actually do and don’t do. Needed.
In terms of the educational component of psychedelics, some bills in New York and Virginia go directly to rescheduling at the state level. While studies have been done and many are ongoing, all of these substances are still federally illegal.
How does this condition compare to cannabis?
“If you look at what’s happening in the United States, people have talked about rescheduling cannabis for a long time. And it’s not going anywhere,” joshua horn, a lawyer for Fox Rothschild’s cannabis practice told Benzinga. “So I think a state can always reschedule on its own, because many states have their own version of federal law, and are likely to do so.”
Horn says the difference between cannabis and psilocybin hinges on the amount of research being done by publicly traded companies. “And so, maybe in that context of rescheduling, if you think it will eventually be an FDA-approved drug, it will be more common on a federal basis as well,” he predicts, though rescheduling is still “a difficult decision.” Take it and watch till the end.
Why? “It just seems like people don’t want to deal with it at the federal level, like they do with cannabis.”
But in the end, Horn believes that if most states have any form of legal cannabis and/or legal psilocybin, the federal law becomes somewhat irrelevant.
“I think that happened to a great extent for cannabis, and I think eventually will happen with psilocybin. I suspect it will again take longer, because of the historical public perception of people that they stumbled upon mushrooms. And get out. I think it’s going to be a slow process,” he said.
Non-criminalisation and potential discretion
So how does the fact of not being rescheduled coexist with the federally illegal status of psychedelics in practice?
Can the decriminalization model leave room for police discretion? Horn believes it does.
“I think the decree is important, because too many people, especially people of color in America, are subject to too many prosecutions,” he said. “For example, where I’m from in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, cannabis is decriminalized and so people grow it on the street and aren’t really concerned about it. And so I think it’s Important, but again, it’s still subject to the risk of law enforcement discretion depending on what the decrime looks like.
In Philadelphia, it seems to be a matter of weight. For the psilocybin decriminalization model, he believes that something more uniform in terms of weight/amount would do. “And thus, you take away the conscience because history has shown to a degree that if there is room for conscience, people of color are wrongly prosecuted.”
New Hampshire Bill There is a case for decriminalization where neither the Advisory Board nor the Service Centers are requested. What would be the characteristics of this approach?
Horn believes that states sometimes adopt a bill that isn’t very specific, leaving it to later figure out how it will roll out. “And usually what will happen is they’ll set up some government authority to regulate it, which in turn will adopt rules about how it should play out.”
Decriminalizing therefore serves as the first step, upon which state regulators assess how and if it will play out. And, should that process be favorable, the next step will probably be to organize psilocybin clinics. “I think that’s part of the decision tree, the process: walk before you run, crawl before you run,” Horn said.
next in seriesLessons from Cannabis: Social Equity, Adult Use Programs, Commercialization and Regulation for Psychedelics