Within a community context, where people exist in relationship with one another and the organization is not driven by profit, responsible professionals can be trained and trusted to be prudent in assessing and applying these factors. If community facilitators are given the flexibility to provide an appropriate amount of facilitator supervision that gives attention to circumstances, it could reduce the cost of an individual session by more than 50%, depending on what facilitator-to-client ratio Oregon otherwise chooses.
Consider, for instance, the earlier Licensing Subcommittee recommendation that the ratio be 3:1. Suppose there is a 10-person group consisting only of people who are highly experienced as individuals and who have had years of association together as community without incident. Now suppose the group’s dose falls within a range 1.0-1.5g of dried cubensis mushrooms. Under these circumstances, it is conceivable that the group could safely and responsibly conduct the group session with only 1 facilitator present. Under a 3:1 ratio, they would need to have 4 facilitators on hand to “supervise.” Particularly, given the expectation of a non-directive approach, most of these facilitators will be sitting idle for most of the session. By allowing the group to exercise discretion in judging how many facilitators are needed, it could reduce its facilitation costs by up to 75%.
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to allow responsible communities to have such flexibility. The proposed framework would offer as a privilege the discretion to deviate from the generally applicable facilitator-to-client ratios that govern the rest of the M109 program. In exercising that discretion, the facilitators and service center operators would both be under a duty to ensure that group sessions have appropriate support under the circumstances of that session. Exercising good judgment in the amount of facilitation a ceremonial session needs will be a core competency of entheogenic/community facilitators. If a client or other person is hurt because a facilitator and service center failed to exercise reasonable judgment in the exercise of this discretion, they face administrative discipline—including possible permanent loss of licensure, depending on the seriousness of the mistake.
To help fill in any gaps that might be caused by a lower facilitator-to-client ratio, the framework would require a community to train and certify its members to provide “peer-support assistance” in-ceremony. A recent article by the Green Light Law Group describes peer support in the framework as “one client assisting another client during a ceremony.”