Later on in Tuesday’s debate, another misleading claim by Ghaemi caught the ire of longtime Boston Public Radio Co-host Jim Braude, who elicited a smattering of laughs from the live audience in doing so.
“If this ballot question passes,” Ghaemi claimed, again incorrectly “it becomes the law [and] the legislature can’t change [it].”
“That is totally untrue…” Braude quickly chimed in, adding that he would know, because he “used to work on ballot campaigns.”
“They can repeal it. They can amend it. They can leave it as is. It’s a law like any other legislation.”
Perhaps without realizing it, GBH co-host Margery Eagen’s persistent line of questioning regarding the boundaries of his hardline stance on psychedelics evoked a number of seemingly self-contradictory comments from Dr. Ghaemi on the merits of psychedelic science.
In Massachusetts Psychiatric Society’s October membership newsletter, Ghaemi said that he “would never become a psychedelics expert… I’d rather spend research time on something helpful, not a dead end.” However, by the end of Tuesday’s half-hour back-and-forth, Dr. Ghaemi ultimately conceded that clinical use of certain psychedelics could offer at least some medical benefits.
“I can’t speak for anybody [else]… but I think very low dose psilocybin in a regular, medically supervised setting with a medical… or mental health professional for PTSD alone… I think that’s possible.”
The Yes campaign’s Oneschuk particularly excelled at WBUR on Thursday morning – the broadcast of which was simulcast live on Boston’s WBZ Channel 5 news. However, during both nearly half-hour debates, Oneschuk offered a series of commanding rebuttals to a number of misleading statements made by Ghaemi.
When confronted by Dr. Ghaemi about the potential cardiotoxic side effects associated with the use of ibogaine, Oneschuk tactfully noted the unlikelihood of widespread use of ibogaine outside of clinical settings – at least in part due to the documented ecological complexities associated with iboga importation as making it “impossible” to grow in Massachusetts’ climate.
As for Ghaemi’s claims of future psychedelic harms to public health, Oneschuk brushed off his rhetoric as “fear-mongering.”
“My whole job in the Navy was assessing risk,” said Oneschuk, “I dealt with disposing bombs… I don’t take risk lightly, and I know that the benefit is worth it.”
Towards the end of Thursday’s debate on WBUR, Dr. Ghaemi was once again called out on the spot by Oneschuk – this time for incorrectly stating that Q4 would “specifically exclude medical professionals and mental health professionals” from obtaining licensure to provide psychedelic services.
“[Medical professionals] are not being excluded from this,” Oneschuk clarified, “That is straight misinformation that [Dr. Ghaemi] has been spreading.”
Up next for the Yes and No on 4 campaigns is a debate on Thursday, October 24th at Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health – hosted by the graduate school’s affiliate chapter for the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions, which in addition to Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) is one of the two Kevin Sabet-founded Washington D.C.-based organizations backing the opposition coalition