PSA's Psychedelic State(s) of The Union #4: November 17, 2025

Latest Psychedelics Hearing in Massachusetts features Familiar Faces, New Foils

Grassroots parties and profit-minded players converge on Beacon Hill to talk psychedelics once again

By Jack Gorsline

Last week, members of the Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Recovery heard testimony for two competing legislative proposals that would establish pilot programs for psychedelic-assisted therapy in the state.

H.2203, An Act Establishing a Pilot Program for Access to Regulated Psilocybin, and H.4200, An Act Authorizing a Pilot for the Use of Psychedelics in Licensed Treatments, share the goal of exploring therapeutic uses for psychedelics but differ in scope. The former, introduced by state Rep. Marjorie Decker, would create a broad psilocybin access program, while the latter, sponsored by state Rep. James O'Day and Sen. Cindy Friedman, proposes a narrower pilot program that could incorporate a wider range of psychedelic compounds like MDMA or ibogaine in licensed treatment facilities.

New precedents and psychedelic complexities to consider

This latest hearing follows a record number of psychedelics-related proposals being filed in Mass back in January. Furthering the trend, in July the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society (MPS) became the first branch of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to formally endorse multiple psychedelic decriminalization bills.

The path forward, however, hasn’t been entirely cohesive. In one case, grassroots plant medicine advocates criticized Colin Beatty, the co-founder of a Massachusetts-based healthcare organization focused on treating adults with PTSD, anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders. Beaty testified in favor of S.1400 at a June 30 joint committee hearing but explicitly opposed broader decriminalization measures proposed in other legislation.

By Graham Moore

The list of problems with the Question 4 campaign is long, and this postmortem will examine the major issues in depth one by one.

Part 1 (released on October 17, 2025) analyzes the decision to run a policy out of touch with public opinion as indicated by polling, against the recommendations of the Massachusetts ACLU and Dewey Square Group strategists hired by the campaign.

Part 2, initially released in installments as Part 2.1, Part 2.2, and Part 2.3 (on October 21, October 31, and November 6, 2025), analyzes the campaign’s costly handling of a polarizing psychedelics activist and underground practitioner.

Part 3 (released on November 8, 2025), analyzes the campaign’s decision to divert resources to a new nonprofit, co-founded by a close associate of Yes on 4’s campaign director, while polling behind.

Part 4 (released on November 17, 2025), analyzes the campaign’s decision to portray itself as led by a local female veteran who had suffered PTSD while the official campaign director was a non-veteran, white male, with no history of serious mental illness, operating from 3000 miles away in California.

WHY THE CAMPAIGN FELL SHORT

4. The Campaign Faked Veteran Leadership of the Ballot Committee

A Campaign Director—with a Catch

Although local veteran Emily Oneschuk was initially characterized by the ballot committee in a December 2023 press release as “grassroots outreach director,” it was not long before she was portrayed as a central strategic leader of the campaign. As early as January 2024, then New Approach deputy policy director Jared Moffat introduced Oneschuk to me as the ballot committee’s campaign director, as reflected in a January 8 text exchange. There was no pushback or correction in response to my written characterization of Oneschuk as “campaign director” and, in fact, Moffat affirmatively claimed she would be “leading.”

Ironically, Moffat would eventually become Yes on 4’s official campaign director himself while remaining based in California and, to my knowledge, never identifying himself as the campaign director publicly.

Officially, Oneschuk’s title became “grassroots campaign director,” as she clarified to me on January 9, 2024, but this was not supposed to reflect greatly diminished strategic or operational authority. I was told by Moffat that Oneschuk, who had no prior campaign experience, would be the ballot committee’s public-facing strategic and operational leader, while a more experienced professional would handle the nuts and bolts behind-the-scenes.

Moffat told me that this complementary, non-grassroots campaign director had not yet been hired. In fact, in a text thread on January 30, Moffat indicated the campaign had not started interviewing for the position in response to me floating a candidate. As late as February 21, in response to Oneschuk giving me the impression the ballot committee had selected a candidate, Moffat texted: “Long story short we have not hired a new campaign director. Emily [Oneschuk] was probably thinking of Stefanie [Jones] but she hasn’t been hired and would not be overseeing the whole campaign.” Sometime in the next few months, Moffat told me the decision was made to use existing staff to fill the non-grassroots campaign director role, but I only received notice Moffat had become “campaign director” in September 2024 when he Bcc’d me on an email to prospective donors.

Consequently, for the first half of 2024, my understanding was that Oneschuk practically was “the campaign director,” albeit an unconventional one. This was reflected in my contemporaneous correspondence, including with Oneschuk herself. In a January 31 to February 1, 2024, email thread with Oneschuk regarding a potential role with the campaign, I thanked Oneschuk for being “a campaign director beyond my wildest hopes” and she not only did not correct me—she replied with enthusiasm: “We are going to crush it and I’m psyched.” A couple months later, in an email to a friend, I described the ballot question campaign as “the campaign led by Emily Oneschuk, the grassroots campaign director for Massachusetts for Mental Health Options.” As late as June 6, 2024, in a text exchange with me, Oneschuk personally approved a public description of her “grassroots campaign director” role as being “the campaign’s central organizer.”

Correspondingly, Oneschuk was referred to in the media as leading the campaign. On January 24, 2024, Marijuana Moment characterized Oneschuk as “a Navy veteran and campaign director for Massachusetts for Mental Health Options.” On March 27, 2024, the Boston Globe wrote “Oneschuk directs ‘Massachusetts for Mental Health Options.’” On March 28, 2024, the State House News Service described Oneschuk as simply “the campaign director for Massachusetts for Mental Health Options” (emphasis in italics mine). From the beginning of 2024 onward, Oneschuk was publicly presented by the ballot committee as both a high-ranking organizational leader and a spokesperson, even long after she relinquished leadership internally.

Get ready to dive into the world of psychedelic writing with Mattha Busby in this unique Author Spotlight Series event at InnerMost PBC, hosted by The Psychedelic Writers Guild!!

On Monday, November 24th, join us in NoMad, Manhattan, for an engaging fireside chat hosted by Psychedelic State(s) of America and PWG founder Jack Gorsline featuring readings and reflections from journalist Mattha Busby, author of “Psychedelics, A Pocket Primer”. The fireside chat will be followed by a live Q&A, book signing, and an opportunity for guests to connect.

This event is made possible by The Psychedelic Writers Guild in partnership with Psychedelic State(s) of America and Psychedelics for Climate Action (PSYCA)and InnerMost PBC hosting as a venue partner.

Doors open at 6:00pm. Please register using the link below and spread the word with anyone in New York City.

We hope to see you there!

Get Ticket(s) Here

Until next time,

The Psychedelic State(s) of America Team