I was just reading through a thread about various churches using entheogens legally in the United States and it got me thinking.

Let's for a second assume that DMT is removed from Schedule 1...

At this point the most likely thing that would happen would be that DMT would be put into Schedule II. While this still isn't ideal, it is a step in the right direction. What would DMT be prescribed for? Would one have to take their dose (likely injected since smoking method can effect the actual dose so much) in the doctor's office under medical supervision, or could you just go pick up your changa presciption and smoke at home? What do you think are the pros and cons of each? I know when Strassman did his studies he mentioned that he felt like the setting off the hospital room tended to be a negative influence on some people even though they were in a relatively quiet part of the hospital.

Scenario #2, DMT is decriminalized.

Do we allow anyone access to DMT? Should we do background checks concerning the mental health history or criminal history of those who want to use it? I think one regulation most people could agree on is a minimum age limit to purchase/use it. Is the decriminalization model superior or more dangerous than the Schedule II model?

I would love to hear anyone's input on this. Personally I don't think decriminalizing DMT would be a good first step although it is a goal to strive for. Realistically if we ever want to see DMT available for the masses I believe it would have to have proven it's worth and safety under the administration of the Schedule II model.

I see it provided in the form of aya or pharma in clinical settings. Once psychedelic therapy is legitimatized. What needs to be done unique is to develop a framework(s) to do that within.

in scenario #2

we create an organization that gives elaborate courses on how to treat these substances (DMT and other psychedelics) and how to get the most of the experiences (like the OHT). Once DMT is decriminalize we can make these courses both theoretical and practical, leading people through their first experiences in a safe environment with trained professionals (instructors) that know how to react in crisis situations or in situations in which the traveler could greatly benefit from the instructors presence. The idea of the course should be to prepare individuals for safe/responsible and beneficial use on their own.

At the end of the course people would get a license allowing them to aquire the substances by showing the license.

The organization would also offer instructors to guide already certified travellers, single or in groups, offer adequate rooms/space for rent with apropriate facilities to help travellers stay safe and have a nice environment. There could also be community rooms where travellers could meet other travelers to help them gain new insights into the subject and socialize. Instructors could also help in the integration process, being trained in how to guide people into reflecting on their experiences and learning from them.

The idea is that without education these substances are very dangerous because they are so powerful. If we can provide proper education and a kind of framework in which they can be taken free from religious or other connotations - simply staying safe - we can greatly reduce the chances of people messing up. We could create a set of safety rules and braking them would be punishible - like the obvious "driving under the influence". You could get your license revoked by braking some or get problems with the law for others. People that go through the course learn about all the things that can go wrong and how to deal with negative trips or crisis situations. People that just want to get high will still have to pass the course so at least they have some basic guidelines that they had to learn to keep them safe and if they still don't stay safe it is obviously a character problem and they should get their license revoked. Since the organizations would also offer spaces to take the substances no one has any excuse for doing it in unsafe places and if they do they should get their license revoked.

The organization could have different levels of licenses allowing people a certain amount each month, and in order to proceed along the levels you could either take advanced courses or apply in some other way - writing an essay about integration, volunteering at the oranization's trip rooms, etc. under the guidance of an instructor. This is one way of getting a reality check before you are allowed access to larger amounts which can easier lead to delusional behavior. Perhaps licenses could also be made renewable only by attending some kind of meeting or passing a little refresher exam every two years or whatever. Instructors would need to have quite strict guidelines by which to certify or not certifiy individuals. It should not be based on "liking" or "disliking" a person.

Well, that's my idea for regulating psychedelics. This system works well for other things, I don't see why it shouldn't for entheogens.

Manufacture clean material, make comprehensive information and knowledge available to anyone who seeks it and give it to self-determined people. From my perspective, there's no need to play the DMT police.

Great post Enoon! That seems like a sensible regulatory structure for psychedelics.

Another thing worth considering regarding Scenario #1 is that if went into effect the government would almost certainly provide synthetic DMT rather than an extract. It would be nice to have an accessible source DMT with a high purity and of a standardized quality. If DMT were only decriminalized however, the "market" (I hate to call it that) would still be flooded with a vast array of different extracts with some quite possibly containing other alkaloids as well. I think decriminalization of DMT would lead to a lot more selling because everyone who tries it isn't willing to extract.

Personally I like some aspects of the idea that DMT is most accessible to those willing to do the work. If you don't want to try DMT enough to physically work with the plants and procure it I'm not sure how serious you are about trying it yourself. I'm not saying that only people who extract should be allowed access to DMT, but it certainly gives you some insight who wants to try it the most.



For either of these scenarios to be realistic in anyway you have to play DMT police on some level. If their was no regulatory structure in place neither scenario has a real chance of being successful.

On the other hand, legality is in the eye of the beholder. The urge to regulate things created the mess in the first place. The first natives who discovered Ayahuasca didn't ask for permission or acquired a license, they just ingested it.

If DMT is "good" or "bad" that may be in the eye of the beholder, but the legality issues are completely objective. You may not agree with the laws but they are they whether you choose to accept them or not. I'll concede your point that the urge to regulate things is part of what caused this problem in the first place however that is a huge oversimplification of history and doesn't mean all regulations are evil and we should go full Laissez-faire.



Comparing civilizations that are thousands of years old to the populace of today is an apples and oranges argument. Also, I'm fairly sure that in at least some cultures there were rules and rituals that shamans put in place for those they drank ayahuasca with.

Regulation and increased commodification go hand in hand.

Not interested

yes, ufostrahlen, but then they developed culture and cultural context in which the people of their culture take these substances - and this we don't have. So to avoid people taking it recklessly without any understanding of the subject, we give them a framework, an education, after which they are free to do whatever they like.

Of course a lot of people can handle DMT or other psychedelics without ever having to do a course, but some can't. Lots of dangerous situations could be avoided if people had some kind of idea of what they were doing. Creating a course and a license is not about restricting people, it's about giving people the information they need to be able to treat these substances in a reasonable and intelligent way.

I base the idea and structure on the scuba diving community. Scuba diving is regulated in a very similar fashion as I've described above. Once obtained the license divers are pretty much self sufficient and can dive on their own or join clubs and groups for diving. THe reason why only licensed divers are allowed to dive is because there's certain inherrant dangers to diving. Before there were organizations that managed licenses people were getting badly hurt or into unnecessary accidents during diving, since they simply didn't know any better. The courses enabled people to dive in a safe manner and diving accidents are much lower than they were before licenses. This is the thing I want to see happen with psychedelics.

A 'license to trip,' makes me uncomfortable.

I'm totally in favor of creating an organization that centers around education, we could even make classes free if people would donate money to it (I picture this as a 501(c)3 organization,) but I don't like the thought of the government dolling out licenses.

As for Scenario 1, the guys at Johns Hopkins seem to have a lot of success with their set up, which is a relaxed, living-room like environment in a quiet part of the Behavioral Pharmacology Wing. It's in a medical facility, so there's quick access to sedatives and antipsychotics if people need them, but the room itself looks nothing like a hospital room.

Imo, this can be done (and is being done) without state regulation. Even with legal, socially-accepted substances, people engage in stupid/risky behavior. Regulation doesn't curb that, education does. Education can (and, imo, should) be done without regulation. Regulation invites a whole host of problematic institutions into the equation.

I'm not quite sure I understand you. DMT is already completely illegal, that is about regulated as it gets. Either of the scenarios above would require some regulations, but in the end you are still deregulating DMT and giving more people access to it. Substituting looser regulations in place of a complete ban seems like progress to me.

While neither scenario I posited is perfect, I think that both are superior to the current status quo where DMT is completely illegal.

If you want DMT becoming a FDA approved medicine, start collecting money.



Another problem: you can't patent DMT. But who will compensate your billion dollar expenses for "adequate and well-conducted clinical trials"?


Man made law isn't natural law. If natures gives you the power to override man made law, then what?


Okay, that's horrible. They were free in the first place to do whatever they like. It's you who made them unfree. The only thing you can do is offering them your guidance. But if they refuse your guidance, then what? Force them? With weapons? Put them in jail?

Like I said, in the scuba diving community this worked very well and the state regulation is actually a lot of times modeled after the dive-organizations regulations. The problem with the education part is that if you don't have any way to regulate it, how will you know if someone did their homework or not / if someone knows what they are doing or not? You won't and so you can't avoid people hurting themselves in totally unnecessary situations.

What you are thinking of is an ideal world in which people are self-responsible and act rationally and intelligently all the time. But we don't live in that kind of world. If we want to avoid psychedelic-accidents filling the papers and people's impression of psychedelics being that they will make you jump out of windows or similar things, we will have to have some kind of regulation. Perhaps it's not the ultimate way, but it's a step in the right direction and given time perhaps we can do away with licenses once psychedelic use becomes less taboo and education/understanding is more ubiquitous. But this is a question of generations and not something that we can expect to happen over night.

Do you think drivers licenses are a bad idea too?

I don't think you understand the terminology you are using.

Illegal substances are entirely unregulated. They are criminalized and unregulated.

So, for the example you present:

Decriminalization refers to the removal of all criminal laws relating to the use/possession/manufacture/sale of DMT.

Regulation is aimed at ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of the therapeutic goods which are covered under the scope of the regulation. In most jurisdictions, therapeutic goods must be registered before they are allowed to be marketed. There is usually some degree of restriction of the availability of certain therapeutic goods depending on their risk to consumers.

Legalization refers to the use of criminal laws to regulate or control the use/possession/manufacture/sale of DMT by determining the legal conditions under which the use/possession/manufacture/sale of DMT can take place. It can vary between rigid controls under legalized state controlled systems to privatizing the manufacture/sale of DMT via a legally defined framework. It would likely be accompanied by strict criminal penalties for anyone that operates outside the legal framework.

Neither of those are required for decriminalization. Marijuana is not approved as medicine by the FDA and is decriminalized in many states and legal in a couple as well. Also, when I initiated this post I was working under the assumption that the following scenarios had already happened. Where would we go one DMT was schedule II, not "how do we get DMT to schedule II".



I'm not here to argue over man-made law or natural law or anything of the sort. I was just saying DMT being illegal is not "in the eyes of beholder". United States criminal law is objective.

Give me a little credit ...did I not already point out that people misuse legal, sanctioned substances all the time? You don't need an alcohol permit to drink, you just need to reach a culturally-prescribed age, which varies from country to country.

Imo, smoking DMT is a lot closer to drinking than it is to driving a car...but that's NOT to say I want to see a world with psychedelic "liquor stores" or anything of the like. In fact, that's entirely my point. Alcohol is legal and regulated...and is essentially controlled by a few major corporations while being one of the most profitable (and recession-proof) industries in the world. I do not want to see such commodification of psychedelics.

Imo, no matter what, we're never going to see 100% of people using any mind-altering substance safely, regardless of the educational efforts that we make. I don't think created state-regulated (and commodified) channels for psychedelics will create a world I want to see, when it comes to the availability and use of psychedelics. I'm not interested in corporate control of psychedelics...I'm interested in an end to legal penalties and restrictions on information, availability, and use. Imo, decriminalization leads to that, regulation does not.

Criminalization *is* regulation. While an illegal drugs distribution may not be regulated in anyway it's possession and consumption certainly is.



Decriminalization refers to the removal of all criminal penalties, not the laws themselves. The removal of all criminal laws regarding DMT would be legalization not decriminalization.



Sure.



How does legalization refer to the use of criminal laws to regulate or control a substance? Legalization does the complete opposite by removing said laws. You really lost me now...

Mhh, I think federal law still deems MJ a schedule I substance. But if they deregulate it, you probably won't need a smoker's license. You don't need one in Colorado, do you?


US criminal law is completely subjective, as possession and manufacture of DMT is illegal. Yet every US citizen is producing it in its brain. What's objective there?

Not in the sense that "regulation" is used when referring to controlled substances.


Legalization does not "remove said laws." Not by a long shot.

Look at alcohol, which is legal. Here are a few cursory examples.

There is a minimum age to drink, violation of this on either side (sale or consumption) incurs legal penalties.

The production of alcohol for sale is highly regulated. Companies that violate regulations in production are subjected to legal penalties. Similarly, individuals who violate these laws are subjected to legal penalties (see: moonshiners).

You are required to obtain permits to produce or sell alcoholic beverages. If you do so without obtaining said licenses, you will be violating the law and subjected to legal penalties.

Does this help clarify?

Criminalized substances are NOT regulated. Their possession/manufacture/sale/etc is criminalized (you could use "controlled" if you wanted to, I suppose), not regulated.