Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 6/22/2022
AMHERST – The Amherst Town Council resumed a lengthy discussion from May 16 with the intention to vote on a “A Resolution Protecting Adult Access to Plant Medicines and Prioritizing Public Health Responses to Controlled Substance Possession” during its meeting on June 13.
The non-binding resolution, while lacking the ability to alter current laws or enforcment policies, would show the council’s support of decriminalizing the possession and use of entheogenic or psychedelic plants and fungi after their inclusion in the Controlled Substances Act of 1971. It cites the resurgence of heroin and opioid deaths and depression and mental health struggles in Massachusetts communities.
It resolves that the council maintains that it should be the practice of Amherst’s departments, agencies, boards, employees, etc., should consider said plants among the lowest law enforcement priority in the town. It also supports state legislation that would codify the message of the resolution.
Adam Klem, one of the resolution’s community sponsors and member of the University of Massachusetts Amherst club called Bay Staters, spoke during public comment.
“I’m speaking in support of the plant medicine resolution which you will be voting on I’m supposing soon tonight, which prioritizes mental health services rather than arrests for substance possession,” Klem said. “I just want to remind you all that this resolution has been passed unanimously in Cambridge, Somerville, Easthampton and Northampton. This year has been the worst for drug overdoses on record, rates of depression and [post-traumatic stress disorder] are at an all-time high and our state is disproportionately affected by the crisis with these rates of mental illness and addiction higher than the national average. In relation to the plant medicines, a 2017 study shows that a single experience with psilocybin mushrooms reduces the use of opioid use by 40-50 percent which is unlike anything we currently have for this crisis.”
Council President Lynn Griesemer established a 15-minute time limit on the topic before it would be moved to the end of the other action items.
“I want to vote yes but I think I have to vote no and I think I need to explain why,” said Councilor At-Large Andy Steinberg. “The reason I want to vote yes is I do not like the idea ever of having criminalization of the use of a substance by an adult unless there are actual findings of dangerousness for an adult to make that decision. That said, it needs to be clearly understood that the town of Amherst cannot pass such a law within the town of Amherst and the resolution, while it doesn’t exactly do that, has been interpreted by a lot of people to achieve something that we don’t have the power as a council to do.”
The time limit expired and a number of eager listeners would have to wait even longer for the vote. When the discussion eventually came back around, District 1 Councilor and co-sponsor of the resolution Michele Miller explained that there is nothing about the resolution that creates policy. “We can’t create policy, it’s a non-binding resolution and at the local level what that means is that we’re making a strong moral statement and we’re supporting state-level action. That is true for all of the resolutions that we’ve passed.
“I believe that this resolution at it’s heart is about harm reduction, it’s about reversing racist policies, it’s about giving people options and alternatives about their mental and physical health and wellness, and it’s about standing for rehabilitation as opposed to penalization and dare I say it may even be about adding pleasure to one’s life,” Miller said. “I feel like Amherst prides itself on being a progressive community and I want nothing more than to wake up tomorrow feeling that this council has embodied that value.”
District 3 Councilor Dorothy Pam, District 2 Councilor Pat DeAngelis and Griesemer all spoke in opposition to the resolution.
“I think that this is like everything but the kitchen sink,” Pam said. “It starts stressing the words ‘plant medicine’ again and again, and then it includes everything, all controlled substances. I’m just feeling like we’re being pushed along too fast to do too many things at once … I just feel like there’s too much pressure here in trying to do too many things at once that really are not our job and our business.”
DeAngelis said, “I want to say that I’m having a hard time voting against this, but I am going to vote no. The lowest level of law enforcement priority is what this resolution is asking for and we have that already in Amherst. I spoke with the chief of police, and he conferred with his other two captains and he conferred with me. He said this is our lowest priority, we do see it as a health issue.”
Council Vice President and co-sponsor of the resolution Ana Devlin Gauthier sided with Miller, saying that regardless of the concerns, this is not a binding resolution that can dictate policy and is simply an opinion of the council.
“It’s saying we believe that it should be our policy, it’s not saying that we have gone through the process to change said policy,” Gauthier said. “If this exists as our lowest priority as Pat was saying, that’s great. This resolution puts an opinion that supports what we already do. That doesn’t mean that we should change anything about what we’re doing, it’s just saying we believe that this should be the case. It already is? Great.”
Griesemer said the resolution had too much material in it the way it is and would support a simple resolution calling on state legislature to look at something but the language in the resolution ultimately goes beyond the role of the council.
Miller said she felt like the vote wouldn’t pass and tried to find a solution to appease more councilors for strong, united support. She eventually made a motion to refer the resolution back to the Governance, Organization and Legislation Committee for substantive review, legal review if needed and consultation with town departments. The motion passed with nine in favor and four opposed. Members of the public hoping for a final decision will have to wait a little longer.