Why is psychedelics illegal

Imagine skiing down a mountainside using the same trail every time. Beyond PTSD, psychedelic drugs also offer promise for depression and anxiety treatments. A Johns Hopkins study from last year observed how adults with depression responded to two doses of psilocybin — and they thrived. The psychedelics outperformed other currently existing antidepressants four-fold.

In another study, a participant who had taken many anti-anxiety medications that had never helped his depression finally got better after facilitated therapy sessions with psilocybin.

He was stuck thinking the same negative thoughts over and over , and the psilocybin helped him cut that circuit short so he could heal. The legislation allows adults to exchange psychedelics with each other, so long as no money is involved. It would essentially sanction party drugs, argued Republican Sen. Pat Bates of Laguna Niguel. But social sharing also opens up liability questions that concern Mitchell, the neuroscientist.

As decriminalization movements gain traction on the West Coast, some Native American groups in the Southwest remain concerned it could encroach on their traditional practices. The peyote cactus — a natural source of the psychedelic drug mescaline — is central to religious ceremonies for the Navajo Nation. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that some Navajo were upset by cities considering ordinances to decriminalize peyote. They fear it would diminish the natural supply of peyote, which is already a vulnerable species.

While it would still be illegal to possess a peyote cactus, the bill would allow mescaline from other types of cacti. In , Oakland became the first city in California to decriminalize all psychedelic plants. Less than a year later, Santa Cruz passed a similar measure. But those are some of the most progressive enclaves in California. The Assembly has a bloc of moderate Democrats — some of whom represent swing districts — who sometimes side with Republicans to kill liberal legislation. According to Charlotte Walsh of the anti-prohibitionist Ayahuasca Defense Fund , that kind of blanket drug prohibition is a violation of international human-rights law.

Walsh sees parallels between the drug war and the legal battles for racial equality, as well as gay and reproductive rights. She and her colleagues across Europe and North America hope to use the U. Bill of Rights and the European Charter on Human Rights to build a cognitive-liberty-based case against drug prohibition. I spoke with Walsh recently about her current efforts and the prospects for success at home and abroad.

Morin: What would a human-rights-based drug defense look like? Walsh: Generally, when people are prosecuted for psychedelic use, the defense focuses on technicalities rather than challenging the prohibitive framework itself. Rights-based defenses have historically been either pleas for therapeutic or religious exemptions from prohibition.

Morin: What is the legal basis for drug prohibition? Walsh: Within the parameters of the U. Misuse of Drugs Act [equivalent to the U. Controlled Substances Act] the issue is ostensibly based around the idea of harm. We have an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which is a group of scientists in different realms that the government consults when a drug is going to be scheduled or reclassified.

The council then carries out a wholesale review of the substance and makes a recommendation for or against prohibition or reclassification. There has been a trend though where the government will ask the Advisory Council to carry out such a review and then just completely ignore their results and do what they want to do.

Morin: What results have they been ignoring? Walsh: There was an extensive U. That study showed that alcohol is the overall forerunner in terms of harm, and tobacco comes close after that.

A lot of the Class A drugs [equivalent to Schedule I in the US] and psychedelic drugs in particular were at the opposite end of that scale showing very low risk of harm. Morin: Did the government refute the study or did they ignore it?

Walsh: They basically ignored it. In relation to the alcohol and tobacco findings, obviously nobody has called for their prohibition. An alcohol user can alter their consciousness freely despite the proven risks while a psychedelic user faces heavy punishment. Morin: Is that an admission that the harm-based justification for prohibition no longer applies?

Walsh: Basically, and it goes beyond that. We have a recently elected Conservative government in the U. Walsh: Any substance that alters your emotional state or mental functioning. It openly states that we [the government] think we have the right to stop you from altering your psychological state. Morin: I assume there are exemptions for alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. Walsh: Yes, for culturally accepted substances.

This legislation is potentially so broad that prior to its enactment the government felt compelled to write to bishops to reassure them that the incense used in church services would not become illegal, despite its being mildly psychoactive.

If pulled off correctly, this would maximize the best possible outcomes and minimize the worst. Supervisors could help prevent accidents, and they could walk people through good and bad trips, letting users relax and get something meaningful out of the experience. There are risks to the controlled setting. If a supervisor is poorly trained or malicious, it could lead to a horrific trip that could actually worsen someone's mental state.

This is why regulation and licensing will be crucial to getting the idea right. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, argued for a looser model that could, for example, allow psychedelics to be sold over the counter. So long as you have people who have to go through some sort of gatekeeper, or who can be denied, you're going to continue to have a black market," Nadelmann said.

But the black market demand for psychedelics is very small, with only 0. So allowing over-the-counter sales would likely have a tiny benefit at best on public health and criminal groups' profits from the black market.

The debate about which model works best will likely go on for some time, especially if different places test different approaches. There's no doubt it will be tricky to hash out exactly how to legalize and regulate these drugs, as some states are learning with marijuana. But if we know the benefits to public health and well-being are real, it's irresponsible to let the potential go untapped.

It may soon be time for America to seriously consider legalizing LSD, magic mushrooms, and other psychedelic drugs. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding.

Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all.

Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. The most convincing argument for legalizing LSD, shrooms, and other psychedelics.

Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. Related Imagine if the media covered alcohol like other drugs. Next Up In Explainers. Delivered Fridays. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email required. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Notice and European users agree to the data transfer policy.

For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page. The Latest. Why movies tilt the camera like this By Marie Cascione. Soul food and the stories it tells about America By Jamil Smith. The Taliban, explained By Sam Ellis. Facebook is quietly buying up the metaverse By Peter Kafka. Sign up for the newsletter Sign up for The Weeds Get our essential policy newsletter delivered Fridays. Give Give.