Do not conflate debates on regulating therapeutic use of psychotropic substances with those on the legalization of their non‐therapeutic use

Abstract

However, the risks from blurring the boundaries between therapeutic and recreational use will persist even with stronger evidence. One expression of this de-scientization, which will persist, is the ominous tendency to adopt untested traditional rituals, like shamanistic practices, into therapy, which undermines credibility and risks patient safety. Involving non-professionals, such as shamans or healers, also compromises the field ’ s credibility. Additionally, public pressure on regulatory authorities can hinder or contradict the search for scientific evidence. Moreover, the medicalization of recreational use of psychedelics risks bureaucratizing a civil rights issue. Recognizing the consumption of psychedelics as a civil right requires regulation rather than medicali-zation. Restricting access to the medical framework compromises individual freedom, creating financial and administrative barriers that exclude some people and leading to inequalities in access. Medical bureaucratization would finally also oversimplify psychedelic experiences, neglecting the diversity of individual motivations and cultural contexts. Finally, the scientific support for the therapeutic efficacy of psychedelics cannot in itself be an argument for the legalization of non-therapeutic use. The current hype is certainly problematic, as emphasized by the authors, but again only to the extent that no distinction is made between the two domains and their two inherent logics. Hyping itself is not necessarily the problem, as long as it serves to dynamize research and does not substitute research with public pressure.