Iowa House passes measure legalizing psilocybin use
The state House voted 84-6 on Monday to advance legislation that would create a psilocybin licensing board within the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. The legislation now goes to the state Senate for further consideration.
The House-approved bill would create a panel of experts to set up a framework to offer psilocybin as a treatment option for people with certain mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It would limit its use to 5,000 patients who are at least 21 years old and only allow it to be administered in clinical environments with psychiatric support. The bill would not legalize recreational use.
State lawmakers who supported the measure cited the benefits that it could provide for military veterans, law enforcement officers and others prone to PTSD.
State Rep. John Wills (R), a military veteran who handled the bill on the floor Monday, said he had researched the use of psilocybin and cited work from the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research that showed the drug's effectiveness for treating people with PTSD.
A recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found more Americans are embracing the use of psilocybin, which is also used to treat depression and substance use disorders. The drug isn't approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but several states have moved to decriminalize it or allow it in treatment settings, like the Iowa proposal.
'I will tell you, right now the only option these veterans have, the only option these people with PTSD have, is to be on mind-altering, life-altering drugs for the rest of their lives,' Wills said on the House floor. 'I'm a scientific type of guy … this stuff actually works.'
Republicans hold majorities in both the House and Senate in Iowa, but it's unclear when the Senate may take up the proposal.
A spokesperson for Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) didn't immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on her position.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's approval rating dips in new poll: What recent surveys show
A new poll puts President Donald Trump's approval rating near record lows, noting an "erosion of support" among one of the president's most reliable groups of supporters: men. The University of Massachusetts Amherst survey released Monday, Aug. 4, found public support for the Republican leader has dropped six percentage points since its April poll, giving Trump a meager 38% approval rating. With a corresponding 58% of poll respondents disapproving of his job performance, the figures mark one of the lowest ratings seen in recent months − and follow a string of major national polls with similarly low approval ratings. A historical analysis by Gallup shows Trump's approval ratings in the first July of both of his terms are lower than those of any other modern president. Pope Leo XIV: Poll finds Americans view new pope more favorably than all of these prominent figures 'Trump's approval ratings, already historically low for a newly elected president, continue to sink with close to 6-in-10 Americans (58%) expressing disapproval of the job that Trump is doing in office," the UMass Amherst poll's director, Tatishe Nteta, said in an Aug. 4 press release. "While Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans and conservatives, Trump's time in office is viewed more negatively across genders, generations, classes and races, with majorities of each of these groups disapproving of Trump's performance." The poll, conducted in partnership with YouGov July 25-30, interviewed 1,000 respondents nationally. The margin of error is 3.5%. What is President Trump's approval rating? Aggregations of recent approval polling from The New York Times and RealClearPolitics place Trump's approval between 44% and 45.8%, respectively, with a 53% and 51.4% disapproval as of Aug. 6. The UMass Amherst poll shows a significantly lower approval mark compared to these averages. The survey found Trump's net approval rating dropped to -20 as he surpasses the six-month mark of his second term in office, with discontent focused especially on his handling of immigration, tariffs, inflation and the Jeffrey Epstein crisis. More Trump news: Poll shows most Americans disapprove of Epstein approach. Here's how many. Opinions on Trump's approach to inflation and tariffs jockeyed for the lowest ratings, both collecting a 31% approval, followed by 32% approving his stance on civil rights. Approval of his stance on immigration fell nine points among respondents compared to the April survey. The Epstein controversy continues to stay top of mind for many Americans, a topic that has weighed Trump down in recent polls. Among the participants in the UMass Amherst poll, more than three-fourths said they have "read, seen or heard about Jeffrey Epstein" either some or a lot, and 70% said they believe the president is handling the issue either "not too well" or "not well at all." Nearly two-thirds (63%) believe his administration is hiding information about Epstein. New Trump poll shows drop in support among men In April, men were a significant source of support for the president's then-44% approval rating, with 48% of men telling pollsters they approved of Trump's performance. Three months later, that number has dropped by nearly 10 points, with 39% of men expressing approval of the president in July − only one point higher than his overall approval rating. Among women, support is even lower at 35%, and has also seen a drop since April, by four percentage points. Joe Rogan: Trump admin is 'trying to gaslight you' over Epstein scandal 'In addition to losing support among men, Trump has seen approval for his presidency crumble among political independents, a critical swing constituency,' said Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and a co-director of the poll, in a news release. 'While 31% of independents approved of his presidency in April, that number is now down 10 percentage points to 21%." The UMass Amherst poll results echo similarly low approval polling by Gallup, which marked the lowest approval rating yet of his second term, at 37% as of July 25, and a Reuters/Ipsos poll released July 30 that gave him a 40% approval. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Five things to know about possible FBI involvement in Texas redistricting battle
Several Republicans are opening the door to getting the FBI involved in forcing Texas Democrats to return to the state amid a protest over an even friendlier congressional map the GOP wants to pass. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel this week, urging the agency to help Republicans bring back Democrats to the Lone Star State. President Trump left open the possibility on Tuesday, saying 'they may have to.' The statements from Trump and Cornyn mark a remarkable escalation in an already heated redistricting battle that started in Texas and has since fanned out across the country. But the comments invoking the FBI's assistance are raising questions around whether that's even possible. Here are five things to know about possible FBI involvement in the Texas redistricting battle: Why are Republicans calling for FBI involvement? Some Republicans are calling for the FBI's involvement after Texas Democrats left the state beginning on Sunday to block Republicans from passing a new map that would offer the Texas GOP five additional pickup opportunities in the House. Democrats broke quorum, meaning the minimum number of lawmakers needed to conduct legislative business, in an effort to stall passage of the maps in the state's lower chamber. They left for states including New York and Illinois, which Republicans point out were also gerrymandered by Democrats. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) have called for the lawmakers that fled to be arrested, and Abbott has already started the process of trying to remove at least one Democrat from office. But Democrats can technically stay out of the state as long as they want, which is why some Republicans have floated the use of federal law enforcement to compel them to return to Texas. What has the FBI said so far? So far, the FBI is staying mum on the issue. The FBI declined to comment when contacted by The Hill regarding the push to get them involved in bringing back Democrats to Texas. Attorney General Pam Bondi has also not said anything publicly about the issue. One looming question is how much pressure Trump puts on the Justice Department and FBI to act as the standoff continues. Does the FBI have the power to bring Democrats back to Texas? Some experts that spoke to The Hill appeared skeptical that the FBI could intervene in the matter, noting that the agency is concerned with violations of federal law while the Texas standoff is primarily an issue concerning individual states. 'I don't see why the FBI would be involved in this at all. I mean this is Texas politics and the FBI has no business trying to enforce Texas state law,' said Richard Painter, who served as associate counsel to the president in the White House Counsel's office during former President George W. Bush's second term. 'The only federal law that I think is being violated in Texas and in Illinois and several other states is voting rights,' said Painter, who's now a law professor at the University of Minnesota. 'I think gerrymandering violates voting rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court's not willing to do anything about it.' Painter's comments allude to a Supreme Court ruling in 2019 that gerrymandering is a political matter, not a legal one, and thus doesn't fall under the purview of federal courts. He said that if he were detained by the FBI in that situation and they said he needed to return to the Lone Star State, 'I'd be filing for a writ of habeas corpus tomorrow, and I think I'd win.' Another expert poured cold water over the idea as well. 'There's no offense against the United States. There is no reasonable basis that arresting Texas legislators will prevent the commission of a federal crime,' wrote Anthony Michael Kreis, an associate professor at Georgia State University College of Law, in a post on X, linking to an article by The New York Times regarding Cornyn's call to get the FBI involved. 'This is simply @JohnCornyn asking for the unconstitutional, lawless, and arbitrary federal power,' he added. Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said she wasn't sure, when asked about whether the FBI can compel Democrats to return to the state and if Trump can require officials to do this. 'Seems like an inappropriate use of federal law enforcement powers to address a political issue, and I don't see what the federal offense would be,' she told The Hill in an email. How are Democrats responding? Democrats have heavily criticized Republicans' efforts to push the FBI to get involved in detaining Texas lawmakers. 'Impeached Ken Paxton and twice impeached Donald Trump are threatening to send the FBI after Texas House Democrats. It's an illegal, authoritarian move that will not stand,' tweeted Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), one of the original lawmakers that fled the state in 2003 to deny Texas Republicans during mid-decade redistricting. Speaking to late night host Stephen Colbert on Tuesday, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) said 'they've not broken any federal law,' when asked about whether the FBI could get involved. 'And frankly, in the state of Illinois, we're not going to let them get taken away. We're going to protect those Texas House Democrats.' Meanwhile, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) wrote on X that doing so would be 'indefensible.' 2024 Election Coverage What other means is the GOP using to pressure Democrats? Republicans aren't facing many good options in terms of forcing Democrats to come back to the state. Abbott on Wednesday filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Democratic leader Gene Wu from his seat in the Texas state House. And Paxton has also called for the ouster of the Democrats who fled. But so far the GOP's options appear limited. There's no question that Democrats will come back eventually — they will have to at some point after being away from their families and constituents for so long, and also must address other hot-button issues in the state like flood relief. The real question is how long Democrats will stay away, which will be determined by lawmakers' stamina and resources.
NBC News
23 minutes ago
- NBC News
A salty twist: Diabetes risk study says french fries are a culprit
Craving french fries? Dunking your spuds in a deep fryer might be a recipe for elevating your risk of Type 2 diabetes. According to a study published Wednesday in the journal BMJ, swapping out your weekly dose of frites for boiled, baked or mashed potatoes could lower your risk of this chronic condition. The authors examined the diets of more than 205,000 adults in the U.S. who responded to questionnaires about what they ate over nearly four decades. Among those who consumed potatoes, the authors looked at which people developed Type 2 diabetes, a disease that leads to persistently high blood sugar levels. Eating three weekly servings of french fries, they found, was associated with a 20% increased risk of Type 2 diabetes. But consuming the same amount of boiled, baked or mashed potatoes did not appear to be linked to the disease. The vast majority of the 1 in 10 people with diabetes in the U.S. have Type 2. The condition can increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes or kidney damage. The findings underscore that the way foods are prepared is key to their overall health risks or benefits, said Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, the study's lead author and a postdoctoral research fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Not all potatoes are created equal,' he said. 'Even a small amount of french fries, less than one serving in the week, is associated with a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes.' Unlike boiled or baked potatoes, french fries are deep-fried in oils that usually contain trans or saturated fats. The way the body metabolizes those fats can contribute to insulin resistance — when cells don't respond properly to insulin, a hormone that helps regulate blood sugar. Regular consumption of fried foods can also lead to obesity and inflammation, both of which raise the risk of Type 2 diabetes. 'When you fry the potatoes, the energy content — calories — increases because of the fat they absorb. If you eat many servings of french fries, it predisposes [people] to weight gain,' said Candida Rebello, the director of the nutrition and chronic disease program at Louisiana State University, who wasn't involved in the study. The study relied on data collected between 1984 and 2021, when several different frying methods were popular. Most fast-food chains today prepare fries using vegetable oils like canola, sunflower, soybean or peanut oil. But during the 1980s, beef tallow was common. And in the early 1990s, restaurants shifted to partially hydrogenated oils. (The oils were a major source of trans fat in the U.S. diet and were largely phased out of the food industry by 2018.) Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said the seed oils used today are 'poisoning' Americans and contributing to high levels of obesity in children. He has advocated for restaurants to switch back to beef tallow, a recommendation that isn't backed by scientific research. 'Beef tallow is high in saturated fats and other harmful fats. We definitely don't recommend that,' Mousavi said. One limitation of Mousavi's study is that it did not account for people adding unhealthy ingredients to their boiled, baked or mashed potatoes. 'What do people add to baked potatoes? Butter, bacon, cheese, sour cream,' said Shannon Galyean, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, who wasn't part of the research. 'Then we also don't know, did they eat it with the skins?' Galyean said potato skins contain nutrients such as fiber, which helps with blood sugar control. And potatoes, when they aren't deep-fried or slathered in butter, can be a useful source of potassium, which helps regulate blood pressure. 'Definitely, potatoes can be considered a healthy food when you don't fry it, or when you don't add lots of fat to it,' Galyean said. Mousavi said baking french fries at home with a healthier oil, such as olive or avocado oil, could help lower one's diabetes risk compared to eating them from fast-food restaurants. Swapping out potatoes with whole grains, such as farro or whole-grain bread or pasta, could make an even bigger difference. These foods have a lower glycemic index, meaning they're less likely to spike blood sugar levels. His study found that whole grains, when compared to all types of potatoes, were less likely to elevate one's diabetes risk. White rice, on the other hand, had a stronger association with Type 2 diabetes than either of these foods. Megan Mulcahy, the director of communications at Potatoes USA, a marketing and research organization that supports potato consumption, said fries can 'absolutely be part of a healthy eating pattern when enjoyed in moderation.' Galyean said it's important to consider a person's overall diet, which has a greater impact on their health than any individual food. Nutritionists generally recommend a colorful plate with a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and healthy proteins such as fish, beans or nuts. 'People don't eat just one thing, they eat meals,' Galyean said.
