November 1, 2024 • 42 mins
Here in Massachusetts, Question 4 on the ballot asks voters whether to legalize psychedelics. We welcomed both sides of the issue to join us in conversation. Dr. Nassir Ghaemi representing the “No” campaign and Emily Oneschuck representing the “Yes” campaign joined us to discuss!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Costin's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
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
(00:28):
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,
(00:52):
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
(01:13):
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
(01:36):
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
(01:57):
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.
(02:18):
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
(02:41):
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
(03:04):
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
(03:26):
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
(03:49):
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,
(04:17):
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?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
I can hear you?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Well, that's that's what we're fit. We're halfway there already.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
This is great, okay, And I can hear doctor Gomi.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
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.
Speaker 5 (04:57):
Yes, I'm director of the mood disorders program also at
self Medical Center.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
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
(05:24):
West Point as I understand that you also are a
military veteran.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
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
(06:00):
these psychedelics were legalized in some form of fashion here
in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
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.
(06:29):
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.
(06:50):
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.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Right.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
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.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
So how did you access how did you access the
alternatives if they at this point are not legalized in Massachusetts.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
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.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
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?
Speaker 4 (07:45):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
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?
Speaker 4 (08:25):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
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
(09:01):
so concerned about the legalization? What is it that you
are objecting to?
Speaker 5 (09:09):
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,
(09:32):
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
(09:54):
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
(10:15):
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
(10:36):
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
(10:58):
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
(11:21):
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
(11:42):
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.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
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
(12:15):
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
(12:36):
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,
(12:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
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
(13:52):
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,
(14:14):
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
(14:39):
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
(15:02):
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.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
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
(15:36):
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
(15:57):
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
(16:19):
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,
(16:40):
we try to give it to people when they work,
and we'd be willing to quite do that. That's our position.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
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
(17:08):
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?
Speaker 4 (17:23):
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.
(17:44):
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
(18:06):
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.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
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.
(18:39):
And I don't I don't want either of you to
engage in that sort of thing.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
So if you would just what she said.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
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.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
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
(19:21):
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
(19:43):
lead with curiosity.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Okay, enough, doctor me.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
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
(20:08):
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
(20:31):
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
(20:53):
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,
(21:13):
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,
(21:35):
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.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
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,
(22:17):
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
(22:37):
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
(22:58):
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.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
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
(23:38):
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
(24:01):
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.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
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,
(24:42):
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
(25:03):
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,
(25:23):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
It's Night Side with Dan on Boston's news radio. It's
Night Side with Dan Ray on Way Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
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
(26:11):
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.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
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,
(26:55):
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.
(27:18):
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
(27:39):
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
(28:01):
that's why the Massachusetts College of Emergency Physicians also opposes
this bollent question.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Okay, Emily, you wanted to add something, if you.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
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
(28:30):
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.
Speaker 5 (28:44):
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
(29:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
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
(29:44):
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
(30:07):
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.
Speaker 6 (30:20):
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?
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Is this? You know, do you go to a.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
Store to buy this?
Speaker 7 (30:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (30:43):
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
(31:03):
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
(31:24):
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.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So and that's assuming that this this legend.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Yes, you can't do that right now?
Speaker 5 (31:40):
Can I speak to the trained license facilitator claim.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Go right ahead, quick comment if you were so.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
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.
(32:08):
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.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
So what are the requirements here if this passes?
Speaker 4 (32:28):
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.
Speaker 5 (32:48):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
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
(33:17):
medical model.
Speaker 5 (33:18):
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.
(33:40):
That's difficult for the average position. Furthermore, one of these
five rugs, one of these five drugs causes party.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Go go right ahead, down, doctor, I'm sorry, don't turn
don't turnings microphone down? Please?
Speaker 5 (33:55):
No, I'm sorry. Did you hear me?
Speaker 2 (33:57):
No? I missed that. I'm not sure if you spell
one of the just finish that thought.
Speaker 5 (34:02):
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.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
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
(34:32):
able to make up your mind whether you're a yes
or no one for coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
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.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
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
(35:11):
or Emily one shock.
Speaker 7 (35:14):
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?
Speaker 2 (35:36):
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.
Speaker 5 (35:46):
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,
(36:07):
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
(36:28):
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
(36:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Get Emily in here. Real question. Well, it's a chance
at the cite websites too, by the way, go ahead, Emily.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
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
(37:29):
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
(37:52):
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
(38:12):
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.
Speaker 5 (38:22):
All right, Thank you, Emily, can I say one brief thing,
just one factual comment.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
You've got to be real, there.
Speaker 5 (38:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
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.
Speaker 3 (38:51):
It was best to Emily I vote to you know
for your position.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
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?
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Good question, Jack, Good question, Emilye. I need to really
quick answer. I'm crunched on time. Thank you, Jock.
Speaker 4 (39:13):
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
(39:36):
a lot of education.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Okay, collecting if you want to respond to that.
Speaker 5 (39:40):
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.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
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,
(40:18):
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.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
Emmy fromntalhealth dot org.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
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.
Speaker 5 (40:44):
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
(41:04):
just looked up their website at SAFECOMMUNITIESMA dot com.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
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
(41:31):
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
(41:53):
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
Speaker 4 (42:02):
Us appreciate it.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Costin's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
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
(00:28):
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,
(00:52):
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
(01:13):
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
(01:36):
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
(01:57):
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.
(02:18):
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
(02:41):
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
(03:04):
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
(03:26):
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
(03:49):
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,
(04:17):
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?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
I can hear you?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Well, that's that's what we're fit. We're halfway there already.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
This is great, okay, And I can hear doctor Gomi.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
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.
Speaker 5 (04:57):
Yes, I'm director of the mood disorders program also at
self Medical Center.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
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
(05:24):
West Point as I understand that you also are a
military veteran.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
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
(06:00):
these psychedelics were legalized in some form of fashion here
in Massachusetts.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
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.
(06:29):
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.
(06:50):
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.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Right.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
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.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
So how did you access how did you access the
alternatives if they at this point are not legalized in Massachusetts.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
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.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
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?
Speaker 4 (07:45):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
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?
Speaker 4 (08:25):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
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
(09:01):
so concerned about the legalization? What is it that you
are objecting to?
Speaker 5 (09:09):
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,
(09:32):
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
(09:54):
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
(10:15):
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
(10:36):
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
(10:58):
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
(11:21):
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
(11:42):
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.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
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
(12:15):
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
(12:36):
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,
(12:59):
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.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
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
(13:52):
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,
(14:14):
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
(14:39):
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
(15:02):
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.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
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
(15:36):
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
(15:57):
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
(16:19):
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,
(16:40):
we try to give it to people when they work,
and we'd be willing to quite do that. That's our position.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
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
(17:08):
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?
Speaker 4 (17:23):
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.
(17:44):
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
(18:06):
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.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
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.
(18:39):
And I don't I don't want either of you to
engage in that sort of thing.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
So if you would just what she said.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
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.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
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
(19:21):
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
(19:43):
lead with curiosity.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Okay, enough, doctor me.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
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
(20:08):
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
(20:31):
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
(20:53):
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,
(21:13):
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,
(21:35):
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.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
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,
(22:17):
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
(22:37):
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
(22:58):
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.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
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
(23:38):
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
(24:01):
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.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
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,
(24:42):
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
(25:03):
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,
(25:23):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
It's Night Side with Dan on Boston's news radio. It's
Night Side with Dan Ray on Way Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
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
(26:11):
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.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
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,
(26:55):
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.
(27:18):
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
(27:39):
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
(28:01):
that's why the Massachusetts College of Emergency Physicians also opposes
this bollent question.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Okay, Emily, you wanted to add something, if you.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
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
(28:30):
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.
Speaker 5 (28:44):
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
(29:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
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
(29:44):
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
(30:07):
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.
Speaker 6 (30:20):
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?
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Is this? You know, do you go to a.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
Store to buy this?
Speaker 7 (30:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (30:43):
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
(31:03):
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
(31:24):
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.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So and that's assuming that this this legend.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Yes, you can't do that right now?
Speaker 5 (31:40):
Can I speak to the trained license facilitator claim.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Go right ahead, quick comment if you were so.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
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.
(32:08):
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.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
So what are the requirements here if this passes?
Speaker 4 (32:28):
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.
Speaker 5 (32:48):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
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
(33:17):
medical model.
Speaker 5 (33:18):
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.
(33:40):
That's difficult for the average position. Furthermore, one of these
five rugs, one of these five drugs causes party.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Go go right ahead, down, doctor, I'm sorry, don't turn
don't turnings microphone down? Please?
Speaker 5 (33:55):
No, I'm sorry. Did you hear me?
Speaker 2 (33:57):
No? I missed that. I'm not sure if you spell
one of the just finish that thought.
Speaker 5 (34:02):
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.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
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
(34:32):
able to make up your mind whether you're a yes
or no one for coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
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.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
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
(35:11):
or Emily one shock.
Speaker 7 (35:14):
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?
Speaker 2 (35:36):
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.
Speaker 5 (35:46):
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,
(36:07):
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
(36:28):
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
(36:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Get Emily in here. Real question. Well, it's a chance
at the cite websites too, by the way, go ahead, Emily.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
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
(37:29):
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
(37:52):
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
(38:12):
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.
Speaker 5 (38:22):
All right, Thank you, Emily, can I say one brief thing,
just one factual comment.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
You've got to be real, there.
Speaker 5 (38:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
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.
Speaker 3 (38:51):
It was best to Emily I vote to you know
for your position.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
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?
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Good question, Jack, Good question, Emilye. I need to really
quick answer. I'm crunched on time. Thank you, Jock.
Speaker 4 (39:13):
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
(39:36):
a lot of education.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Okay, collecting if you want to respond to that.
Speaker 5 (39:40):
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.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
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,
(40:18):
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.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
Emmy fromntalhealth dot org.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
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.
Speaker 5 (40:44):
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
(41:04):
just looked up their website at SAFECOMMUNITIESMA dot com.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
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
(41:31):
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
(41:53):
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
Speaker 4 (42:02):
Us appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.