“Turn on, tune in, drop out.” In other words: use your intuition, connect, and never conform. This mantra of psychedelic counterculture was coined by Harvard Psychology professor Timothy Leary, who taught from 1959-1963. Leary was in charge of the Harvard Psilocybin Project, a set of experiments where often both researcher and subject ingested psychedelic substances. His controversial behavior, which included scandalous research methods, poor teaching abilities, and even distributing psychedelics to undergrad students, caused psychedelic studies at Harvard to be shunned for decades. However, these substances have now leaked their way into modern academia.
The seal is broken; money and resources are pouring into this uncovered stream of consciousness, even at Harvard. Moreover, U.S. federal and state laws surrounding psychedelics are being called into question for the first time since the 1980s. Massachusetts residents, despite the recent failure of ballot Question 4, will soon have the opportunity to make new rules and regulations around these substances. Now, we must carefully figure out how to proceed.
A book released in 2010 called The Harvard Psychedelic Club explores the problematic lives of some of Harvard’s most infamous psychedelic explorers, including Leary. This reflection on the past, however, is not just history—it is alive, and I’m living it.
I am Co-President of the Harvard Undergraduate Psychedelics Club, formerly known as the Harvard Psychedelics Club, and even more formerly known as the Harvard Science of Psychedelics Club. Founded in 2019, the numerous name changes signal a tumultuous past. It’s not easy to follow in the footsteps of professors who dealt drugs to students and hosted parties fueled by LSD and a number of other psychoactive substances. Though Leary could never be a part of the Harvard Undergraduate Psychedelics Club I know today, his history looms over us as a warning of what not to do.
When I first saw a sign for the Harvard Undergraduate Psychedelics Club during my freshman year’s club fair, I was struck by a range of emotions: confusion, curiosity, intrigue, and surprise. As a native of Kansas, a notoriously harsh state regarding drug use and possession, drugs have always had a simple connotation: bad. How, then, could a club like this exist at Harvard?
I joined the club and found a grounded community of brilliant, interdisciplinary students committed to advocacy, discussing current scientific research, and exploring human potential. I invite you to join us for a meeting, collaborative poetry party, or art show and decide for yourself if we’ve transcended the controversial reputation my club inevitably inherited.
Psychedelics are more than mere Schedule I substances. They are culture, revolution, technology, and art. They are consciousness expansion and spiritual exploration. Psychedelics are medicine.
Due to my executive role within the Harvard Undergraduate Psychedelics Club, I worked closely with proponents of a Massachusetts bill to decriminalize psychedelics last fall. I spoke on virtual panels with Students for Sensible Drug Policy, gave an interview to The Crimson, hosted public information sessions, and even tabled on Massachusetts Avenue outside of Harvard in support of the ballot. The bill, known as Question 4, was titled “Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances” and eventually failed on Nov. 5: 57% No, 43% Yes. This bill should have passed.
If Question 4 was established, four natural psychedelics would have been decriminalized statewide—ibogaine, psilocybin, DMT, and mescaline. Furthermore, a new state licensing board would allow recognized therapists to administer these psychedelics to their patients as mental health remedies; they’ve all shown immense healing potential in early studies, despite that research being federally illegal for decades. During the Obama administration, a science and technology memorandum loosened the regulations on experiments in the name of science. New rules allowed scientists to obtain permission from the DEA to study psychedelics, and universities like Johns Hopkins and NYU started groundbreaking research. Much like how cannabis is still federally illegal but some states choose to allow their citizens access, Question 4 would have been a progressive state-wide measure to allow psychedelics as mental health treatment and end arrests for possession.
Although I put a lot of effort into procuring votes, I nonetheless recognize some of the bill’s shortcomings. For example, Question 4 would have allowed adults over 21 to grow these natural psychedelics in their homes within a 12-foot by 12-foot space. The ambiguity of this measurement, such as the lack of a height specification and therefore a theoretically limitless amount of space, was cause for concern. However, such technicalities are not enough to outweigh the implicit benefit of offering key options for mental health treatment. Psychedelics have power where typical pharmaceutical drugs do not. For example, a recent study on psilocybin found that patients who ingested psychedelics only twice compared better on a wellness scale than those who received anti-depressants daily over the same six-week trial.
Another concern, regarding children or pets accidentally consuming these substances, is valid. That said, criminalization does not affect the rate of drug consumption. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized personal use amounts of all drugs. Contrary to popular belief, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to a major uptick in drug use. In fact, research indicates that “drug-related harms” decreased, at least in the short term.
Coming from Kansas, I had higher hopes for Massachusetts. Other states, including Colorado and Oregon, have passed similar measures to what was proposed here. Is this initiative to allow more plants for medical use that different from the decriminalization and legalization of cannabis, an issue Massachusetts put to rest almost ten years ago?
Curiously, there are eight cities where psychedelics have already been decriminalized in this state. There are eight cities where possession isn’t prosecuted, where people are free to self-medicate as they please, as is their human right; where police can stop wasting their efforts controlling what plants people eat. Cambridge is one of these cities, and I am grateful to live in a place that takes this issue seriously. Decriminalization is a great starting point, but this city-wide level of regulation still prevents the existence of centers for psychedelic-assisted therapy that Question 4 would have allowed. Therefore, more steps forward are necessary to truly reap the benefits of these substances.
A major selling point of psychedelics, and one of the core reasons why Harvard has started to accept psychedelic research back under their umbrella, is that they have the potential to treat the untreatable. According to the National Institute of Health, psychedelics can combat PTSD and chronic depression, also known as ‘treatment-resistant depression.’ I use the word ‘combat’ modestly because, in reality, psychedelics are blowing modern pharmaceuticals away in their ability to treat these illnesses.
The U.S. government classifies Schedule I substances as those that have no known medicinal purpose and have a high risk of abuse. Psilocybin, objectively, does not fit either of these descriptions; neither do LSD, MDMA, and many other psychedelics. In contrast to what the federal government preaches, scientific analyses explain the benefits of psychedelics for a plethora of brain ailments, including addiction disorders, PTSD, and chronic depression. Moreover, these substances do not act on dopaminergic receptors and users attain a quick tolerance, making it almost impossible to become physically or psychologically dependent.
It’s clear that psychedelics are still receiving criticism for their stained history. Regardless, these substances are here to stay. Even though Question 4 failed in November, the legal march for psychedelics is well underway. Other local initiatives are sprouting across the nation, including more already in Massachusetts. The Federal Government may not openly recognize the benefits of these atypical drugs, but that does not mean we, the people, can’t.
If we want to live in a world of wider liberty, then it’s time to take action. I am only human so much as I am able to make choices for myself and act independently. I am not trying to argue that psychedelics are a universal panacea, or that Question 4 had no issues, or that these substances have no negative effects of which to be cautious. I simply believe that everyone deserves a choice on what they ingest, how they want to seek medical treatment, and how they spend their free time. Psychedelics have been slandered and lumped in with ‘hard drugs.’ A more rational modern conversation would group them with societally accepted substances such as marijuana, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, and some pharmaceuticals.
A common idiom is that the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, but the second best time is right now. Luckily, the roots of psychedelics are ancient; most scholars agree that humans have used psychedelics for thousands of years. Now, we have the power to nurture this ancient tree. Hindrances, like the failing of Question 4 and the spread of misinformation, are like vines we can slowly prune away. Soon, the blossoms of autonomy will propagate, and modern society will realize what we have been missing. Is there any other similarly promising field of science that has been illegal to research for 50 years? Don’t wait to support psychedelic research—grab on now, and rise with the canopy. The longer we wait, the more we will inevitably have to climb.
Chase Bourbon ’27 (chasebourbon@college.harvard.edu) is Co-President of the Harvard Undergraduate Psychedelics Club.