It’s interesting that out of all this, what’s really coming forth is what the ESC stated their original intention was in the first place, the creation of a dialogue. However, I think one of the big overlooked issues at play in this whole scenario is, as Jamie so eloquently put it at one point, “The ayahuasca community has become a cult of personalities.” The current “dialogue” is taking place between figureheads, "experts" and organizations hashing out a political soap opera for public consumption. In order for this to become a truly beneficial dialogue it needs to be fully inclusive. One of the very valid points that has been repeatedly lobbied is the lack of indigenous voices in the discussion, that is a very important part of it, but I would like to expand that a little further and posit that what is really lacking are the voices of the whole global ayahuasca using community. Whether they live in a village upriver from Iquitos or in the suburbs of middle America, the people I feel have the most to contribute to this conversation are the unknown masses who tend their gardens and maintain their daily lives around a dedicated personal or community medicine practice.

There is a strong agenda toward the promotion of tourism in the "official" dialogue taking place and much of the discussion focuses around who gets to regulate/manage this decidedly lucrative industry. I suspect this may be one of the bigger unwritten factors motivating these disagreements. I think this leads back Snozz's post about identifying the general trends in the overall community beyond the scope of any one organization. There has been a lot of rhetoric thrown around about sustainable practices and ensuring safe and beneficial outcomes across the community, yet simultaneously all these organizations are emphasizing a model that is inherently unsustainable and destructive toward the entire community. The stewardship of ayahuasca is not the responsibility of any organization, certifying body, government, or native tribe. The responsibility lies on the individual level, it's up to each of us to create a relationship with the medicine and to ensure our personal work is in right relation to the living community around us, whether that work is taking place in the maloka or in our living room.

I have to admit I have been impressed with the mature, intelligent, and rational manner the ESC has consistently responded to the criticism that has been lobbied against them. Especially in light of the immature name calling and mud slinging that was taking place in the Facebook group early on. I think in the end this whole controversy may prove to be beneficial for everyone as it's moving toward the creation of a more truly open dialogue. I see that the discussion will be moving to ayahuasca.com in March and I sincerely hope this will open up the dialogue to the entire global community and help us all move toward a healthier model of global healing guided by the wisdom of the master teacher plants.

So to respond Snozz, I think you've made a lot of great points and there isn't anything that I really disagree with. Unfortunately I simply lack the time to be able to respond as thoroughly as I'd like

I guess my question is how do we do this? As Jamie pointed out, the ESC just released a statement apologizing and expressed their interest in opening dialogue--I think that's something to take advantage of. How can we ensure that the right voices are being heard in this dialogue, and how can we draw connections between the rhetoric of the ESC and that of the institutions which are calling the ESC out? Aside from these conversations, what does that look like and who leads the way in such an endeavor?

As far as the "low fruit on the tree" analogy, I agree but what I was really trying to get at was not that we should do this, then that, then that, etc... (X,Y,Z), taking advantage of easier targets first. I completely understand the problematic nature of a reductionist approach. Not to get off topic, but to draw a comparison to a well known issue; I think of the "indict the killer cops" mantra that is now so common in the anti-racist campaigns taking place across the US, and how folks tend to zone in on the argument of good cops vs bad cops, and whether or not Michael Brown and others deserved to be shot...shouldn't we be calling into question the entire paradigm of the prison industrial complex and the supposed need for police at all, and not just pushing for the incarceration of what are perceived to be "crooked cops"? Shouldn't we be questioning the fact that these "killer cops" never saw trial in the first place, and not debating whether or not their victims "deserved" to be murdered? The reductionist approach is harmful and it censors out the larger issues at hand which we should really be discussing, but it's comfy and it provides some of the worst of the bunch to hop on the bandwagon and look good shouting "indict the killer cops" on the news. So I feel you there.

Really I think that this whole shenanigan with the ESC serves as an opportunity to do exactly what it is that you are suggesting. I'm not saying that we should hop on the bandwagon, wait and focus exclusively on the ESC until we find a more convenient time to address the inconsistencies of these other groups. What I was really trying to get at was that this charade has provided a golden opportunity. The conversation has already been started, now how can we take advantage of that and extend the conversation to make it more real, more relevant, and make those pointing the fingers more accountable?

In retrospect, I think it's bold of me to suggest that the work of the ESC is more imminent than the work of any other group--to be honest I didn't even consider how Amy impacts indigenous communities just through the promotion of Aya tourism, so my earlier statement is indeed problematic. I think the nature of the reaction to the goals of the ESC does speak for itself however, and I guess in a nutshell I'm just wondering how we can use this reaction to the advantage of the ayahuasca community at large.

I wish I could spend more time responding to each of your points, but I'm writing this on the fly and to be honest there isn't anything you said that I think really needs to be contested and/or elaborated on.