Senator Scott Wiener unveils therapeutic psychedelic bill in response to Governor Newsom's veto of 2023 decriminalization bill. SB 1012 could regulate medical use of five psychedelic drugs
As always, a very informative and enlightening article. I do want to point out a couple of instances where I think word choice is problematic. I think the use of the word "many" and "further" in the following quote are two examples: "Due to these and other financial barriers, many potential operators have abandoned their plans to enter the Oregon market (or gone out of business), further reducing program revenue." There are now 42 Service Center licenses submitted with 21 approved so there are several licensed and potential service centers believing they can be financially viable. "Many" is subjective, "some" arguably would have been better. Similarly, using the word "further" is fairly absolute. How do you know that? The word "potentially" would have been better and I would suggest a caveat, as in "Although it remains to be seen...".
I also question the logic in "' 'California’s current approach to mental health has failed to fulfill its promise. Californians deserve more tools to address mental health issues'." followed by "Can Wiener deliver on that promise or will his bill become a financial burden on the state?" I don't see how the alternative assumption that the bill "becomes a financial burden on the state" is implied as the only alternative possible. California has an order of magnitude greater millionaires than Oregon which raises an accessibility and affordability issue but doesn't assume that SB1012 won't help Californians. It is also too early to forecast the demand in California as compared to Oregon, especially when I think there is some probability that there are more Californians interested in psilocybin than Oregonians that opted out in sufficient numbers to enable a financially viable program not reliant on California tax dollars.
As always, a very informative and enlightening article. I do want to point out a couple of instances where I think word choice is problematic. I think the use of the word "many" and "further" in the following quote are two examples: "Due to these and other financial barriers, many potential operators have abandoned their plans to enter the Oregon market (or gone out of business), further reducing program revenue." There are now 42 Service Center licenses submitted with 21 approved so there are several licensed and potential service centers believing they can be financially viable. "Many" is subjective, "some" arguably would have been better. Similarly, using the word "further" is fairly absolute. How do you know that? The word "potentially" would have been better and I would suggest a caveat, as in "Although it remains to be seen...".
I also question the logic in "' 'California’s current approach to mental health has failed to fulfill its promise. Californians deserve more tools to address mental health issues'." followed by "Can Wiener deliver on that promise or will his bill become a financial burden on the state?" I don't see how the alternative assumption that the bill "becomes a financial burden on the state" is implied as the only alternative possible. California has an order of magnitude greater millionaires than Oregon which raises an accessibility and affordability issue but doesn't assume that SB1012 won't help Californians. It is also too early to forecast the demand in California as compared to Oregon, especially when I think there is some probability that there are more Californians interested in psilocybin than Oregonians that opted out in sufficient numbers to enable a financially viable program not reliant on California tax dollars.
Thank you,
Chris