In Massachusetts, a veterans-focused bill signed into law in August created a task force to study the benefits of alternative therapies, such as psilocybin, in treating veterans’ mental health disorders. The commission is charged with making recommendations regarding the provision of psychedelic therapy to treat veterans. His work continues.

Ideally, this commission’s recommendations would guide the Legislature on whether it should establish a framework for psychedelic therapy for veterans and what a safe and responsible model might look like. The Legislature could then consider the issue with input from experts and affected parties – often a more balanced way of deciding an issue than asking voters to approve a ballot question drafted by an advocacy group. If the therapy works for veterans, it could always be expanded to other groups.

At the same time, physicians must recognize that some patients may use psychedelics illicitly and must be prepared to have honest conversations about the potential benefits and risks of these medications, as well as potential interactions between the patient’s health status. a patient or their prescription medications and psychedelics.

Now that Question 2 is out of the way, expect plenty of acrimony in the months to come. It is for this reason: Question 2 ends the MCAS exam as a high school graduation requirement, but does not address the widely recognized need for a way to ensure that students acquire educational skills that go beyond simple trust in districts or schools.

After all, that was the haphazard approach Massachusetts took before the landmark education reform law of 1993, and at that time too many students were graduating without the skills they needed to succeed in college. work or university.

From legislative leaders to the Healey administration, there is recognition that going back to the good old days and the old ways won’t be enough, especially since Massachusetts has next to nothing in terms of state-mandated courses that students must complete to graduate.

House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka have previously addressed this issue publicly, earning them a rebuke from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the union that supported Question 2. “The State House is not Ron Mariano’s house or Karen Spilka’s house — the President and Senate President should refrain from thwarting the will of the people,” MTA Chairman Max Page said in a statement. another one of those combative and muted declarations that he seems to like to issue.

But the state’s largest teachers union should expect no less. After all, he self-funded a costly and misleading campaign on the MCAS, whose ads repeatedly suggested that Question 2 would “replace” the final exam. There was no replacement mechanism in the electoral question, which would be constitutionally difficult. The MTA has not even proposed a feasible replacement plan.

Also at issue is what role Gov. Maura Healey would play in efforts to establish a new statewide graduation requirement. But Healey would have to do more to make this effort successful. Although the governor has opposed Question 2 in a number of public statements, she has not campaigned vigorously against it. And because the Question 2 effort was significantly underfunded compared to the teachers union campaign, it hurt.

Sen. Jason Lewis, Senate chairman of the Legislature’s Joint Education Committee and a supporter of Question 2, has spoken about requiring all or nearly all students to take MassCore, the state’s high-level curriculum. State, as a condition of graduation.

Two problems: For starters, half of Massachusetts high schools don’t offer all of the courses MassCore recommends. Second, even if all started offering these courses, this provides little guarantee that they would be taught with rigor or that students would be held to a standard, realistic level of achievement.

The citizens of Massachusetts need to understand that a ballot question is a very blunt instrument, especially when used as a wrecking ball to overthrow a carefully constructed system. A real replacement will take some time to be agreed. That effort will be left to policymakers on Beacon Hill, who will need time and latitude to do the necessary work here.

The decisive victory for Question 2 on the ballot – eliminating the MCAS exam as a requirement for high school graduation – secures the Massachusetts Teachers Association’s status as a political force to be reckoned with. The 117,000-member national union that lobbied for the initiative also played a key role in passing the millionaires surcharge in 2022 and totally defeated a voting question on charter school expansion in 2016. Whether you like the union or not, this is an important show of force. At a time when citizens have lost faith in so many fundamental institutions, including “education” in general, it seems that voters continue to trust teachers.

This victory should give pause to plans telegraphed by legislative leaders aimed at fundamentally modifying or even abandoning the new law. In October, House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka, who opposed repealing the MCAS requirement, told reporters to the State House that they reserved the right to modify parts of the initiative if it passed. “We will see how big the margin is,” Mariano said.

Well, at least in Mariano’s hometown of Quincy, the margin (according to the latest Associated Press figures) was 57 percent to 43 percent, a double-digit gap of 14 percent. points that would be considered a landslide in most political campaigns. Spilka is from Ashland, which approved the question by a 54-45 margin. Framingham, the largest city in its district, approved the question by 16 percent. points.

Many of us remember when the property tax limitation initiative, Proposition 2 ½ adopted in 1980. Legislative leaders were so wary of the tax revolt movement that enacted the new law that they shifted funding responsibility from municipal governments to the state — with large increases in local aid — rather than changing the will voters. Question 2 passed Tuesday by a slightly larger margin than Prop. 2 ½.

Granted, a ballot initiative is just a law that can be changed by the passage of another law, but the state legislature already has a bad reputation with voters. It would be wiser for state House leaders to work with the MTA on implementing the new law rather than ignoring the message sent by voters.