Ayahuasca in the English courts: legal entanglements with the jungle vine
September 1, 2016 DOI: 10.4324/9781315551425-19 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Historical analysis |
|---|---|
| Topics | Ayahuasca |
| Keywords | Jungle Vine Law Genealogy |
| Citations | 1 |
| Key points | Argues that the legal ambiguity surrounding ayahuasca in English law renders prosecutions for its use an abuse of process, conflicting with the principle of legal certainty under Article 7 of the ECHR. |
Abstract
This chapter considers the hazy status of ayahuasca in the English legal system through a consideration of relevant international provisions, domestic legislation, and case law, and focusing in particular on the prosecution of self-proclaimed shamanic practitioner Peter Aziz. The core ambiguity is that, while the psychoactive component of ayahuasca, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), is scheduled as a Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), neither ayahuasca itself, nor the plants that are typically combined to constitute it, are listed. A central claim of this chapter is that the confusion this generates renders prosecution for activities involving ayahuasca an abuse of process, conflicting with the requirement for legal certainty, enshrined within Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).