Why The Psilocybin Opt-Out Measures Matter

As Oregon cities and counties ask residents to ban local access to psilocybin-assisted therapy this November, critics say forcing residents to travel long distances to access care only harms the people who need it most. 

Armand LeComte, a combat veteran from Oregon, put it best: “Traveling to another city in Oregon to get effective treatment might seem like a minor inconvenience, but it’s not. For people struggling to get out of bed everyday, driving to Portland might as well be flying to the Philippines—neither trip is going to happen.”

No matter what happens on November 8th, 2.5 million Oregonians across 137 cities and 10 counties will have access to treatment in the city or county where they live. That leaves 104 cities and 26 counties where voters will decide. Here’s a look at the places where voters are most—and least—likely to add to those totals, thereby cutting down the travel distance required to access treatment:

Most Promising: 

Residents of these eight jurisdictions voted in favor of Measure 109, a 2020 ballot measure that created a regulatory model for access to psilocybin-assisted treatment in the state, the first of its kind in the country. Elected leaders in these places are effectively calling for a re-vote. It’s likely that some of these jurisdictions will once again vote for access to psilocybin. 

• Counties: Clatsop (55% support for Measure 109), Clackamas (53%), Deschutes (51%) and Jackson (51%).

• Cities: Philomath (60% support for Measure 109),  McMinnville (54%), Redmond (52%), and Coos Bay (51%).

Plausible Pickups: 

Measure 109 came within five percentage points of passing in these jurisdictions: 

• Counties: Polk (51.4% opposed Measure 109), Marion (50.6% opposed), Curry (50.3%), Josephine (46.3%), Tillamook (48.6%).

• Cities: Keizer (46%).

Likely out of reach: 

Measure 109 lost by more than five percentage points in the remaining jurisdictions where a local opt-out measure is on the ballot this November. It’s not likely that voters in any of these jurisdictions will reject the opt-out and embrace local access to psilocybin treatment. 

This is not to say these places won’t come around over time. A number of jurisdictions that did refer the opt-out question to voters did so not because they oppose psychedelic treatment per se, but rather because of their perception that more time is needed to deliberate and conduct rule-making around how the treatment itself is carried out. 

Part of the tension is a mismatch between the deadline for sending questions to the November ballot and the timeline for the state to issue its final regulations at the end of the year. For example, in Clackamas County, the most populous jurisdiction to recommend opting-out, one commissioner acknowledged the “positive potentials coming from the use of psilocybin,” but said that in the absence of final rule-making, he felt it safer to take a wait and see approach by temporarily opting-out.