What U.S. Voters Really Think About Psychedelics: An Interview with the Co-Author of a New UC Berkeley Report

Written by Hannah Barnett, in conversation with Tyrone S. Sgambati

In May 2026, the UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics published findings from its second UC Berkeley Psychedelics Survey, which tracks changes in U.S. voter perceptions of psychedelics. The report, A Rising Tide of Cautious Support, compares results from the 2025 survey with those from its inaugural 2023 edition, highlighting shifts in public attitudes and awareness.

Report co-author Tyrone J. Sgambati

The survey identified four key trends: growing exposure to psychedelics, low trust in professional sources of information, increasing support for scientific research and regulated access, and persistent concerns about safety and stigma.

To explore what these findings reveal about changing public attitudes in the United States, Drug Science Head of Communications Hannah Barnett spoke with report co-author Tyrone J. Sgambati.

At the end of the interview, we reflect on how these trends compare with recent polling from the United Kingdom.

Who should communicate psychedelic science to the public?

Hannah: Your report reveals an apparent tension between public trust and public support. Historically reputable sources of information, such as medical professionals, mental health experts, and professors, were not seen as highly trustworthy by many voters. Yet support for scientific research and regulated access to psychedelics appears to be increasing.

I also noticed that “scientists” themselves were not included as a response option for trustworthy sources of information. That stood out to me because Americans often report higher confidence in scientists than in other public figures or institutions.

So how do we strike the right balance between accessibility and scientific backing? If the public does not fully trust other experts, is it up to scientists themselves to take on more of that communication role?

Tyrone: That’s a good question, and you point to an omission in our data that we have kicked ourselves for and will be including moving forward. It is important to gauge people’s trust in scientific researchers directly.

For many people, scientific research comes to them through medical professionals or mental health professionals, so it is an open question how they would respond to scientists as a distinct category.

One thing that stands out is that the patterns of trust we see reflect broader patterns of trust in the U.S. population. In the report, we show differences in trust by political orientation. Conservatives show particularly low levels of trust in medical professionals and educational professionals, such as college professors or instructors. That is consistent with other research showing that Democrats tend to have higher levels of trust in these groups, while trust among Republicans or conservatives has eroded.

So I’m not sure what the exact prescription is for scientists themselves, because we do not yet have a number for trust in scientists specifically. But I do think scientists should be cautious and aware that there are low levels of trust across the board when communicating about psychedelics. That means treading carefully and centering trust-building before making big claims in either direction.

How can scientists communicate better about psychedelics?

Hannah: Following on from that, how do you think scientists could communicate this better to the public? Were there any insights from the survey about what might be most resonant?

Tyrone: I think scientists need to meet people where they are. At the end of the report, we include some qualitative responses, and what stood out is that voters often have very basic questions that may seem like foregone conclusions to scientists working in this area. People asked about things like whether psychedelics kill brain cells, whether they melt holes in people’s brains, and whether they are addictive.

It is important to understand the historical context of these drugs, especially in the U.S. People may be desperate for new treatments, particularly for mental health conditions that have been difficult to treat, but they are also concerned about these substances. They may worry about being labelled an addict, or about the health consequences.

Scientists might be tempted to quickly dismiss some of those fears and move on to more nuanced risks, such as HPPD. But I think there is a need to spend time on the most basic questions about safety, addiction, and health risks. A lot of voters are still not very informed.

What did voters seem most unsure about?

Hannah: The report also had a fairly high proportion of “don’t know” responses, which you often see in surveys on niche topics with a general population sample. Were there any particular information gaps that concerned you the most?

Tyrone: The one that stood out to me most was around relative safety, which also connects to some of Professor Nutt’s work.

Twenty-four percent of respondents said they did not know whether psychedelics were safer than tobacco, and 22% said they did not know whether psychedelics were safer than alcohol.

Only 20% said they were pretty or extremely sure that psychedelics were safer than tobacco, and only 18% said the same in relation to alcohol.

That was a big surprise to me, especially for tobacco. In the U.S., tobacco use has declined significantly, and there is widespread acknowledgement of the role of smoking in lung cancer. So it was striking that many voters were still unsure how psychedelics compare to substances like tobacco and alcohol.

Why does support for therapeutic access outpace support for decriminalisation?

Hannah: The report shows that support for therapeutic and medical access increased substantially, while support for removing criminal penalties barely changed. Do you think the public is drawing a strong distinction between “patients” and “users”? And what might that mean for broader drug policy reform, including decriminalisation or legalisation?

Tyrone: Yes, I think so. One common thread across the results is that voters have significant concerns about safety, but are also supportive of making research easier for scientists. Those things seem directly connected. People may think psychedelics show promise, and may have read about their potential efficacy, but they still have basic questions: Are they addictive? Do they cause crime? Are they safe?

That is where scientists have an important role, because they can help answer the concerns voters are voicing. On the distinction between patients and users, Figure 7 is useful. We asked about different levels of access, including making psychedelics illegal, providing regulated access, and decriminalising them. People clearly viewed groups with a diagnosis, or groups perceived as vulnerable to diagnosis, differently.

For example, 37% of voters said anyone aged 21 or over should have regulated access. But for veterans, people with addiction, people with depression, and people receiving end-of-life care, support for regulated access was 48% or higher. So yes, people are making a clear distinction between use designed to help someone in need, particularly in a regulated medical or therapeutic context, and more recreational or casual use.

It is also interesting that while support has increased for scientific research and therapeutic access, support for making psychedelics available as prescription medicines or legal for therapeutic use is still only in the 40s. By contrast, support for making psychedelic research easier is almost 65%. That suggests people are curious and see promise, especially for regulated medical use, but are less supportive of decriminalisation or recreational access.

Could growing conservative interest in psychedelics reshape public opinion?

Hannah: I assume the survey was conducted before Trump’s executive order on ibogaine and other psychedelics. One thing that stood out to me was that support for therapeutic access was actually higher for depression than for veterans. That surprised me because one of the dominant political narratives around psychedelics in the U.S. seems to be that veteran PTSD is the most politically acceptable pathway.

Do you think increasing conservative interest in psychedelics, particularly around veterans and PTSD, could shift public opinion among conservatives?

Tyrone: Yes, absolutely. We plan to administer a new survey this year, so we will be able to follow up on this. The psychedelic space has been in flux for many years, and the last couple of years have created some strange bedfellows. Conservatives have increasingly become part of this conversation. Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas, is one example. Now Trump’s executive order has also positioned veterans as key potential beneficiaries of these treatments.

That sits alongside groups like MAPS, which have advocated for psychedelic research for many years without a conservative political bent.

So I do think the conservative side of the issue is gaining momentum. Even before the executive order, that seemed to be happening. In our report, conservatives were one of the groups where we saw larger-than-average increases in proximity to psychedelic use over time.

I expect the executive order may have accelerated that progression. But it remains to be seen how sustained the effect will be. There is so much happening in the Trump administration that it is unclear how long this will stay in the public’s mind, and whether there will be tangible follow-through.

In the weeks after the executive order, there was a lot of media interest in our work and in the issue more broadly, but that has already started to taper off. So yes, I would expect some effect, but it depends on what comes next.

Do voter surveys miss younger perspectives?

Hannah: Because the survey sampled registered voters rather than the broader population, do you think the findings might underrepresent younger people, less institutionally engaged people, or people who cannot vote, such as migrants? Do you have any sense of what the trajectory might look like among younger generations?

Tyrone: My guess is yes, although I do not have a fully informed answer on exactly what the results would look like. RAND recently published a report by Michelle Priest and Beau Kilmer using a nationally representative 18+ sample. It is not a one-to-one comparison because they did not ask exactly the same questions, but there are some useful comparison points.

In our registered voter sample, younger people generally have more permissive attitudes toward psychedelics. They tend to have greater proximity to use and more support for policy proposals. However, in Michelle’s work, which differs methodologically in several ways, there were slightly lower endorsements for access — only by a few percentage points. That could be because they asked about specific substances, while we asked about psychedelics more broadly.

Our survey used an expansive definition of psychedelics, including psilocybin, LSD, DMT, ayahuasca, 5-MeO-DMT, mescaline, ibogaine, ketamine, and MDMA. That is a limitation in some ways, because people likely have different beliefs about each substance. But we were trying to capture high-level associations with the category of “psychedelics.”

Based on our data, younger and more liberal people tend to have more permissive attitudes. By that I mean they are more likely to support access and policy reform, have fewer safety concerns, and hold less stigmatising views of psychedelic users.

So in a broader nationally representative sample, which would include more younger people and may be more liberal on average, my guess is that estimates for access and policy reform would go up, perceived safety would go up, and stigma would probably go down. But that is a hunch based on the data we have, rather than something we can say definitively.

Why does familiarity with psychedelics coexist with safety concerns?

Hannah: One finding I found interesting was that Black voters and conservatives showed increased proximity to psychedelic use, yet concerns about addiction and harms remained relatively high. How do you interpret that apparent disconnect?

Tyrone: One important point is that the concern items were new this year, so we cannot compare them directly over time. It is possible that proximity increased and concern decreased at the same time, but we only present 2025 results for those concern items.

It is true that those groups still show higher-than-average concern. But although Black voters, voters aged 65 and older, and conservative voters showed larger-than-average increases in proximity to psychedelic use, all three groups are still below the national average for proximity. That seems consistent with them also having above-average concern about psychedelic safety.

Hannah: Thank you for your time!

Tyrone: Thanks for having me.

What do these findings mean for the UK? 

While this survey focuses on U.S. voters, many of the findings mirror trends seen in the United Kingdom. Polling commissioned by Drug Science and conducted by YouGov in 2021 found strong public support for psilocybin research and for reducing barriers to scientific investigation, with majorities across demographic and political groups supporting reforms that would facilitate medical research and development.

More recent YouGov polling commissioned by Psilocybin Access Rights (PAR) suggests that public support in the UK may have strengthened further. In a survey of more than 2,100 UK adults, 68% supported access to psilocybin-assisted therapy for end-of-life psychological distress, 61% supported its use for physical and neurological conditions, and 53% supported its use for serious mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, PTSD, OCD, eating disorders, and addiction. Notably, support exceeded opposition across every age group, region, and major political party. (See image, below, for full polling findings).

Source: PAR (Psilocybin Access Rights), 2026

Taken together, the U.S. and UK findings suggest that public opinion is increasingly distinguishing between recreational drug policy and evidence-based medical access. While voters may continue to express concerns about safety, addiction, and broader legalization, there appears to be growing support on both sides of the Atlantic for rigorous scientific research and carefully regulated therapeutic use. For policymakers in the UK, the question may no longer be whether the public is ready to have a conversation about psychedelic-assisted therapies, but whether regulation and policy are keeping pace with both the emerging evidence and public sentiment.