I have been working in marketing and advertising for more than a decade; but today I apply these same skills to advocate for the people whose lives are affected by the issues that impact them. I am Co-Founder of Decriminalize Nature Virginia. I know firsthand that when you build strong connections with your local community, you can accomplish powerful things through grassroots activism. This is why I find the Massachusetts Question 4 campaign a perfect example of what happens when you lose that connection. The Question 4 campaign focused on allowing voters to grow and possess natural psychedelics. Although the campaign had millions in funding from the national New Approach PAC and a team of experienced consultants, along with extensive national media coverage, it was clear based on polling from early on (such as 38% of voters supporting the home-grow provision) and even as recently as one month prior to election day ("strong support" was 42%), this was not a "no-brainer" on paper. What went wrong? The money did not go wrong, but rather how it was utilized. Without a unifying message for the public to take away from a campaign, even the most well funded campaigns will fail. Additionally, the Open Circle Alliance was established as a non-profit organization less than six months before the election and was able to receive a substantial amount of money under the guise of "education," with the group reportedly spending in excess of $120,000. However, it is difficult to show whether the public was able to see or hear anything meaningful from those efforts. In a video I created at the time, I called it outrageous to think that a budget of that size would not produce an obvious online presence. For example, with $1,000 I could have purchased Instagram advertisements targeting tens of thousands of potential supporters. With $5,000, I could have paid individuals to distribute flyers, recruit volunteers and engage with voters in person. How much money is actually being wasted on advocacy efforts that produce nothing?
It's not just the money that was wasted. It was a disservice to the cause itself. Advocacy, particularly for psychedelic reform, relies heavily on education. You cannot reasonably expect voters to support a policy if they do not understand it. Education is more than running commercials or posting vague messages about the healing properties of substances. Education means connecting with people where they are, and showing them how a measure will help their community. The Question 4 campaign viewed education as something to check off a list, as opposed to the foundation upon which its success would be built.
The first step to change, however, begins at the grassroots level. Organizations, local groups, and community members can partner together to host educational events and provide information to the public (including their own stories) about how natural medicine has been able to assist veterans, trauma survivors, and families. In addition, social media efforts can provide basic explanations as to what a measure will do, as well as what it will not do. While these types of social media campaigns may not require millions of dollars, they do require an honest and genuine effort to educate others about the issue. As Psychedelic States of America’s article pointed out, the most damaging issues for the Question 4 campaign was the division between the national funders and the local advocates within the community which created distrust and made it difficult for the community to understand what the goal of the campaign was. When there are conflicting messages regarding a campaign's goals, it creates confusion and makes it difficult to establish credibility. People can sense when a group is not working together and when a group is being dishonest with its message Although many of those involved in Question 4 were sincere advocates for reform, advocating for reform is just one aspect of what needs to take place in order to achieve reform. I have seen this time and again. Well-meaning donors give money to causes they believe in, but when that money is spent ineffectively and/or without transparency, people begin to lose faith and become disengaged. The psychedelic reform movement has vast potential; however, it deserves better than campaigns that equate spending money with achieving results. Reform is not achieved through expensive advertisements or large budgets — it is achieved through knowledge. Voters want clarity, not dram. One of the most significant lessons learned from Question 4 is that it is the people that drive momentum. Future psychedelic policy efforts would be wise to prioritize educating the public rather than advertising to the public. Local messengers, grassroots networks, and measuring success based on the number of meaningful discussions and shifts in public understanding are all good ways to approach future policy efforts. As I reflect on the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent on ineffective outreach, I am left wondering what could have been accomplished if that money had been placed in the hands of community educators and healers. Thousands of dollars could have been used to hold public forums, develop harm reduction programs, and produce multimedia education campaigns. However, instead of accomplishing something worthwhile, the money disappeared into inefficiency. Money can enhance advocacy, but money can never replace advocacy. Advocacy requires responsibility, and responsibility is defined as a process of accountability. It is not about assigning blame. If the psychedelic reform movement is going to be successful, we need to start establishing credibility. It is not the size of the budget that changes hearts and minds, it is the story you tell and the people who believe in that story.