Bill proposes authorizing mushroom-derived psilocybin as a PTSD treatment in Michigan
Legislation has been introduced to decriminalize the use of psilocybin in Michigan specifically for use as a treatment in post-traumatic stress disorder.
Michigan Rep. Mike McFall, D-Hazel Park, hosted a press conference Wednesday in Lansing with Michael G. Smith Jr. As his guest to present the bill. Smith is retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of sergeant first class, and said he has used microdoses of psilocybin to help mitigate his symptoms related to PTSD.
Psilocybin is a naturally occurring substance in some species of mushrooms and classified as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Despite the federal legal status, some states and cities have legalized it for certain uses.
PTSD is a combination of mental health responses that can emerge after particularly stressful or traumatic experiences. The symptoms can include depression, anxiety or withdrawal, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
"It's a targeted, responsible step forward," McFall said about the proposal. "If we have evidence that something helps, and we know people are turning to it already, then we shouldn't be penalizing it."
House Bill 4686 has six additional sponsors and has been referred to the Committee on Families and Veterans. The bill is intended to allow anyone age 18 and older to possess up to 2 ounces of a substance that contains psilocyn for personal use, if that person has a medical record that includes "a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder."
Those who could benefit, McFall said, include military veterans, first responders, survivors of violence and trauma.
He cited what he called "promising research" that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has begun, seeking on whether psychedelics such as psilocybin would be helpful. Preliminary research suggests that over 80% of veterans noticed improvements in their symptoms.
The announcement was scheduled for June, which is PTSD Awareness Month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Cuomo will stay in NYC mayor's race after conceding Democratic primary to Mamdani, CNN has learned
Andrew Cuomo will not drop out of the New York City mayoral race by the Friday deadline to remove himself from the general election ballot, sources tell CNN. That leaves in place contingency plans he had established before the Democratic primary to challenge Zohran Mamdani and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams in November. The former New York governor, who quickly conceded the Democratic primary race on Tuesday night to Mamdani, has not fully committed to running an active campaign through the summer and fall. But Cuomo will keep the place he already secured on the 'Fight & Deliver' ballot line for the November election, three sources say. Cuomo is calculating that the full city's electorate would be significantly different from Democratic primary voters who were energized by Mamdani's focus on affordability and his campaign's online videos. His camp also believes Mamdani and his policy ideas, from a rent freeze to city-operated grocery stores, will receive increased scrutiny now that Mamdani is positioned to secure a Democratic primary win once ranked-choice votes are allocated next week. Notably, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have praised Mamdani since Tuesday but declined to endorse him. And two House Democrats from swing districts in the New York suburbs criticized him after Tuesday's results put him in position to win the primary, while Republicans have sharply criticized Mamdani and tried to tie national Democrats to him. Mamdani is poised to face Adams, who opted out of this year's Democratic primary and is running as an independent himself, as well as Republican Curtis Sliwa. Cuomo staying on the November ballot leaves the door open for the former governor to resume his bid for a political comeback, four years after he resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment that he has denied. Cuomo was long considered the front-runner in the mayoral race but faced progressive anger over the sexual harassment cases as well as his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic while mayor, driving much of the liberal enthusiasm for Mamdani. Cuomo's bet would be that he could become a safe harbor for moderates and progressives concerned about Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, or Adams, who was indicted on federal bribery charges before President Donald Trump's administration dismissed them contingent on Adams' cooperation with immigration enforcement. He could also keep his ballot line without campaigning, as he did in 2002 when he dropped a Democratic primary bid for governor but remained on the ballot as the Liberal Party candidate. For now, however, Cuomo has not set a timetable for making a final decision on whether to actively campaign or when to re-launch a prospective campaign. 'There's no clock ticking,' one source said.
Associated Press
32 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Kentucky Senate hopeful Nate Morris pledges his loyalty to President Trump
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Republican businessman Nate Morris entered Kentucky's competitive campaign Thursday to succeed longtime Senate power broker Mitch McConnell, branding himself as a political outsider and loyal supporter of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement. Morris joins U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and ex-state Attorney General Daniel Cameron as GOP heavyweights vying for their party's nomination next spring in the Republican-leaning Bluegrass State. He said his campaign would become a referendum on McConnell's Senate record, and he tried to link his two Republican rivals to the longtime senator, though Morris has his own past ties to McConnell. 'You have two McConnellites who owe everything to Mitch McConnell versus the outside business guy that's running as the MAGA candidate,' Morris said in a campaign release. 'I think that contrast is gonna be very, very striking to Kentuckians all over the state because they've had enough of Mitch.' Morris joins the Senate race with far less name recognition than his main rivals but has his own advantage — he can tap into personal wealth he accumulated as a tech entrepreneur to unleash an advertising blitz to make himself more of a household name in the coming months. He staked out a hard line on immigration in announcing his candidacy. He said he supports a moratorium on immigration into the United States until every immigrant currently in the country illegally is deported. The GOP contenders are following the same playbook — lavishing praise on Trump in hopes of landing the president's prized endorsement — seen as potentially decisive in determining who wins the primary. Morris hopes to connect with Kentuckians by touting his family's blue-collar roots, plus his staunch support for Trump in a state where Trump dominated the past three presidential elections. Morris — a ninth-generation Kentuckian with family ties to Appalachia — was raised in a union household by a single mother and attended public schools, his campaign bio said. Many of his relatives worked at an auto plant, including his grandfather, who headed the local auto union, it said. 'I have been able to live the American dream because of how great this country is,' Morris said. Morris founded Rubicon, one of the country's largest waste and recycling companies. Starting with a $10,000 line of credit, Morris served as CEO for more than 12 years, growing the company to nearly $700 million in annual revenue while creating hundreds of jobs, the bio said. The company later ran into financial difficulties, which could provide fodder for Morris' rivals. Barr's campaign immediately went on the attack, questioning Morris' authenticity by pointing to a campaign donation it says Morris gave to Nikki Haley, a Trump campaign rival in 2024. And Barr's team claimed Morris championed diversity initiatives as a businessman, contrary to Trump's policies. 'Nate Morris is pretending to be MAGA now, but he can't run from all the liberal trash in his past,' Barr's campaign said Thursday in a statement. 'Kentucky conservatives won't fall for this fraud.' The wide-open race was set in motion when McConnell — the longest-serving Senate party leader in U.S. history — announced in February, on his 83rd birthday, that he wouldn't seek reelection in 2026 and will retire when his current term ends. His departure will end an era in Bluegrass State politics. Through the decades, McConnell ensured that his home state received plenty of federal funding. Back home, he was a key architect in his party's rise to power in a state once dominated by Democrats. But McConnell has drawn criticism from fellow Republicans wanting to succeed him as they jockey for support from Trump and his supporters. Morris' attacks on McConnell were by far the most caustic, blasting the senator earlier this year for opposing a handful of Trump's nominations. All three leading GOP contenders, however, have ties to the venerable Kentuckian. Cameron is a former McConnell aide and the senator helped launch Cameron's political career. Barr has referred to the senator as a mentor and Morris worked as an intern in McConnell's office. The state's two Democrats holding statewide office — Gov. Andy Beshear and Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman — have both said they will not enter the Senate race. Beshear is seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2028, while Coleman is viewed by many as a looming candidate for governor in 2027. A top legislative Democrat, state House Minority Floor Leader Pamela Stevenson, is seeking the Senate seat. Kentucky hasn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since Wendell Ford in 1992. ___
