Beyond the direct psychedelic referenda in Massachusetts and some locales in Oregon, the reconstitution of the federal political landscape after tomorrow’s U.S. elections could also have an impact on the immediate future of psychedelic policy reform, research and drug development.

Of course, this election isn’t about psychedelics, and I certainly don’t suggest that voting on the basis of what one deems to be ‘good for psychedelics’ to be a display of exemplary citizenship. There are much more fundamental and pressing issues that should inspire voters, like questions of democratic integrity, rule of law, and reproductive rights; to name only a few (in this Brit’s opinion, at least!).

But, given our beat is psychedelics, I pounded the virtual pavement to find out how psychedelics researchers, drug developers, and advocates think a Trump vs. Harris win might impact the field.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given how polarising American politics has become, the vast majority of people I spoke to did not want to give their thoughts on the record. And, those that did were generally rather vanilla. Can you blame them?

MAPS founder Rick Doblin’s response sets the tone: “The field of psychedelic research will move forward regardless of the outcomes of the election”, he told me, adding: “We’ve managed to create bipartisan support, and that will continue.”

Similarly, Psychedelic Medicine Coalition founder and CEO Melissa Lavasani told me that, “regardless of election outcomes, the foundation that has been built authentically within the federal government on the issue of psychedelic medicine is strong.”

“I think we are in a powerful moment with the PATH Caucus in the House and leadership in the Senate fully engaged in the issue, as well as buy-in at the career staff level from Health and Human Services in the Executive branch, where psychedelic medicines have become an unstoppable force”, she continued.

Echoing a sentiment shared by others, Lavasani believes that the momentum built around psychedelics has reached such a point that it’s not going to “come to a screeching halt.”

The conviction of Lavasani and Doblin is likely somewhat founded. Psychedelics have become a remarkably bipartisan issue at a time when such cross-party issues are few and far between.

While Doblin and Lavasani, both psychedelic advocates and lobbyists, in one way or another, were keen to provide an optimistic-either-way picture, others we spoke to gave a more practical appraisal of what each presidency might mean for psychedelics.

Stanford associate professor and, among other things, psychedelic researcher Boris Heifets laid out the landscape as he sees it, with a Harris presidency representing a continuation of the ‘status quo’ with regards to psychedelics and a Trump administration inviting ‘radical reform’.

“The policies I’ve heard espoused by the Trump team include deregulation and cuts to the NIH and FDA, like stripping the patent protections and price controls that pharmaceutical companies currently receive for developing new medicines”, Heifets said. That could be coupled with “a pushback against decriminalization and harm reduction of ‘hard drugs’ as seen in Oregon, which has been conflated with immigration and law-and-order concerns.”

The result? “A heavily consumer-driven approach to science and medicine”, Heifets thinks, which would likely favour state-by-state decriminalisation efforts as opposed to the pursuit of pharmaceutical development and FDA approval. “For the record”, Heifets was keen to add, “I strongly disagree with legislating approval of drugs for therapeutic use.” “It cuts both ways”, he continued, pointing to the ‘near miss’ with the abortion pill mifepristone, which the Supreme Court could have restricted access to during a case heard earlier this year.

Heifets is bearish on a Trump administration, then. “Overall, we would see a further erosion of trust in science and medicine”, he said…