Vol. 5 No. 2 (2023): July - Decembre 2023
Brain health and clinical neuroscience

Psychedelics and European legislation: social and health repercussions between prohibitionism and anti-prohibitionism

pdf (Italiano)
  • Sara Ballotti,
  • Matteo Defraia,
  • Samuele Giovagnini,
  • Fernando De Lucca,
  • Stefano Roti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.194

Published 2023-12-07

Keywords

  • psychedelics,
  • drugs,
  • anti-prohibitionism,
  • legislation,
  • European Union

How to Cite

Ballotti, S., Defraia, M., Giovagnini, S., De Lucca, F., & Roti, S. (2023). Psychedelics and European legislation: social and health repercussions between prohibitionism and anti-prohibitionism. Phenomena Journal - International Journal of Psychopathology, Neuroscience and Psychotherapy, 5(2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.32069/PJ.2021.2.194

Copyright (c) 2023 Sara Ballotti, Matteo Defraia, Samuele Giovagnini, Fernando De Lucca, Stefano Roti

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Research on the use of psychedelic substances for the treatment of mental distress is finding renewed interest in recent years. The history of human cultures has always been linked to substance use; this link has, in modern times, undergone scientific research into its effects, with promising results. In the 1960s, social tensions led the United Nations to produce three international Conventions to regulate and limit the "drug" phenomenon. An investigation of the legislative landscape reveals different modes of expression in the alternation between prohibition and anti-prohibition. This paper shows that the most antiprohibitionist countries have seen an increase in the publication of scientific articles concerning the therapeutic use of psychedelics and the positive health, economic, cultural, social spillovers of said use.
pdf (Italiano)

References

  1. Samorini, G. (2018). Archeologia delle piante inebrianti. Youcanprint SelfPublishing
  2. Samorini, G. (2012). Droghe tribali. Milano: Shake Edizioni.
  3. McKenna, T. (2019). Il cibo degli dei. Alla ricerca del vero albero della conoscenza. Bologna: Piano B. Edizioni.
  4. Wasson, R. G., Hofmann, & A. Ruck, C. A. P. (1998). Alla scoperta dei misteri eleusini. Milano: Apogeo.
  5. Binet J. (1974). Drogue et mystique: le Bwiti des Fangs. Diogène, vol. 86, pp. 34-57.
  6. Tzvetan T. (2005). La conquista dell'America. Torino: Einaudi.
  7. Passie T. (1997). Psycholytic and psychedelic therapy research 1931-1995, Hannover: Laurentius Publ.
  8. Pollan M. (2022). Come cambiare la tua mente. Milano: Adelphi.
  9. D’Arienzo, A., & Samorini, G. (2023). Italian psychedelic therapies of the past century: an historical overview. Drug Science, Policy and Law, Vol. 9: 1–12.
  10. Estrada, A. (1981). Vita di Maria Sabina: la sciamana ei funghi allucinogeni. Roma: Savelli.
  11. Grof, S., & Grof, C. (2010). Respirazione olotropica. Teoria e pratica. Nuove prospettive in terapia e nell’esplorazione del sè. Milano: Apogeo.
  12. Antunes, H. F. (2022). Between prohibitionism and religious freedom: Legal Disputes Concerning an Ayahuasca Church and the United States Government. Novos estudos CEBRAP, 40, 463-478.
  13. De Verges, G. (1974). Constitutional Law: Freedom of Religion: Peyote and the Native American Church. American Indian Law Review, 2(2), 71-79.
  14. Fletcher, M. L. (2006). American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
  15. Michaelsen, R. S. (1984). The Significance of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 52(1), 93-115.
  16. Osmond H. (1957). A review of the clinical effects of psychotomimetic agents. Ann.N.Y.Ac.Sci. 1957; 66: 418-34
  17. D’Arienzo, A., & Samorini, G. (2019). Terapie psichedeliche, vol. I e II. Milano: Shake.
  18. Grof S. (1970). The use of LSD in psychotherapy. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 3: 52-62
  19. Scarcella, B. (2018). La rivoluzione di fumo. Propositi nazionali di legalizzazione delle droghe leggere alla prova delle Convenzioni internazionali. Diritto penale contemporaneo n. 3, 213:244.
  20. Bianco, M.I. (2023). La normativa italiana in tema di stupefacenti al banco di prova del modello proibizionista sovranazionale. Tra necessaria dissuasività delle pene, rispetto del principio di proporzionalità e recupero del tossicodipendente. Questione Giustizia
  21. Single convention on narcotic drugs. (1961). Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite.
  22. Convention on psychotropic substances. (1971). Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite
  23. McAllister, W. (1991). Conflicts of Interest in the International Drug Control System. Journal of Policy History 3, 4, pp. 494-517
  24. United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. (1988). Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite
  25. EMCDDA (2019). Italy country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  26. INCB (2019). Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2018. Vienna: International Narcotics Control Board
  27. Stevens, A. (2019). Is policy ‘liberalization’ associated with higher odds of adolescent cannabis use? A re-analysis of data from 38 countries. International Journal of Drug Policy 66: 94–99.
  28. EMCDDA (2019). Estonia country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  29. EMCDDA (2019). Lithuania country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  30. EMCDDA (2019). Slovenia country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  31. EMCDDA (2017). Croatia country drugs report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  32. EMCDDA (2019). Sweden country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  33. EMCDDA (2019). Finland country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  34. EMCDDA (2019). Denmark country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  35. EMCDDA (2019). Belgium country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  36. EMCDDA (2019). Germany country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  37. EMCDDA (2019). Poland country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  38. EMCDDA (2019). Finland country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  39. EMCDDA (2019). Austria country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  40. EMCDDA (2019). Spain country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  41. EMCDDA (2019). Czechia country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  42. EMCDDA (2019). Malta country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  43. EMCDDA (2019). Portugal country drug report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  44. Hughes, C., & Stevens, A. (2007). The effect of decriminalization of drug use in Portugal. The Beckley Foundation drug policy programme
  45. EMCDDA (2000). Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  46. Trigo de Roza, A. (2007). Presentation: Conference on quasi-coerced treatment and other alternatives to imprisonment. Paper presented to Conference on quasi-coerced treatment and other alternatives to imprisonment Bucharest.
  47. Council of Europe (2007). SPACE I (Council of Europe Penal Statistics), Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/prisons_and_alternatives/Statistics_SPACE_I/List_Space_I.asp), retrieved on from.
  48. Tavares, L.V., Graça, P.M., Martins, O., & Asensio, M. (2005). External and Independent Evaluation of the “National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs” and of the “National Action Plan for the Fight Against Drugs and Drug Addiction – Horizon 2004”. Lisbon: Portuguese National Institute of Public Administration.
  49. Frank, M. (2021, March 27). Psychedelic drug research comes to Berlin. Berliner Zeitung. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/en/psychedelic-research-comes-to-berlin-li.148455
  50. Mertens, L. J., Koslowski, M., Betzler, F., Evens, R., Gilles, M., Jungaberle, A., Jungaberle, H., Majić, T., Ströhle, A., Wolff, M., Wellek, S., & Gründer, G. (2022). Methodological challenges in psychedelic drug trials: Efficacy and safety of psilocybin in treatment-resistant major depression (EPIsoDE) – Rationale and study design. Neuroscience Applied, 1, 100104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nsa.2022.100104
  51. Goodwin, G. M., Aaronson, S. T., Alvarez, O., Arden, P. C., Baker, A., Bennett, J. C., Bird, C., Blom, R. E., Brennan, C., Brusch, D., Burke, L., Campbell-Coker, K., Carhart-Harris, R., Cattell, J., Daniel, A., DeBattista, C., Dunlop, B. W., Eisen, K., Feifel, D. & Malievskaia, E. (2022). Single-Dose psilocybin for a treatment-resistant episode of major depression. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(18), 1637–1648. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2206443
  52. Mason, N. L., Kuypers, K. P. C., Müller, F., Reckweg, J., Tse, D. H. Y., Toennes, S. W., Hutten, N. R. P. W., Jansen, J. F. A., Stiers, P., Feilding, A., & Ramaekers, J. G. (2020). Me, myself, bye: Regional alterations in glutamate and the experience of ego dissolution with psilocybin. Neuropsychopharmacology, 45(12), 2003–2011. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-0718-8
  53. Bouso, J. C., Doblin, R., Farré, M., Alcázar, M. Á., & Gómez-Jarabo, G. (2008). MDMA-Assisted psychotherapy using low doses in a small sample of women with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2008.10400637
  54. dos Santos, R. G., Osório, F. L., Crippa, J. A. S., Riba, J., Zuardi, A. W., & Hallak, J. E. C. (2016). Antidepressive, anxiolytic, and antiaddictive effects of ayahuasca, psilocybin and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD): A systematic review of clinical trials published in the last 25 years. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, 6(3), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2045125316638008
  55. dos Santos, R. G., Osório, F. L., Crippa, J. A. S., Riba, J., Zuardi, A. W., & Hallak, J. E. C. (2016b). Antidepressive, anxiolytic, and antiaddictive effects of ayahuasca, psilocybin and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD): A systematic review of clinical trials published in the last 25 years. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, 6(3), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2045125316638008
  56. José Carlos Bouso - Blossom profile. (2022, June 1). Blossom. https://blossomanalysis.com/people/jose-carlos-bouso/
  57. Arquivo de Investigacao. (n.d.). SafeJourney. Retrieved October 17, 2023, from https://www.safejourney.pt/investigacao/
  58. Teixeira, P. J., Johnson, M. W., Timmermann, C., Watts, R., Erritzoe, D., Douglass, H., Kettner, H., & Carhart-Harris, R. L. (2021). Psychedelics and health behaviour change. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 36(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811211008554
  59. Carhart-Harris, R. L., Williams, T. M., Sessa, B., Tyacke, R. J., Rich, A. S., Feilding, A., & Nutt, D. J. (2010). The administration of psilocybin to healthy, hallucinogen-experienced volunteers in a mock-functional magnetic resonance imaging environment: A preliminary investigation of tolerability. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25(11), 1562–1567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881110367445
  60. Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Bolstridge, M., Demetriou, L., Pannekoek, J. N., Wall, M. B., Tanner, M., Kaelen, M., McGonigle, J., Murphy, K., Leech, R., Curran, H. V., & Nutt, D. J. (2017). Psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression: FMRI-measured brain mechanisms. Scientific Reports, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13282-7
  61. Understanding neuroplasticity induced by tryptamines (UNITY) -. (2020, July 29). Understanding Neuroplasticity Induced by TrYptamines (UNITY) -. http://project-directory.lido-dtp.ac.uk/projects/understanding-neuroplasticity-induced-by-tryptamines-unity/
  62. Awakn life sciences - Revolutionary treatments for addiction. (2021, January 21). Awakn Life Sciences. https://awaknlifesciences.com/
  63. Sessa, B., Higbed, L., & Nutt, D. (2019). A review of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (mdma)-assisted psychotherapy. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00138
  64. Carhart-Harris L. R. (2018). The entropic brain-revisited. Neuropharm (2018), 142: 167-78.
  65. Carhart-Harris L. R., et al. (2014). The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states by neuroimaginig research with psychedelic drugs. Front. Hum.Neurosci., 8:20.
  66. Blossom. (2021, December 15). Blossom. https://blossomanalysis.com/
  67. Bewley-Taylor, D.R. (2012). International Drug Control: Consensus Fractured. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  68. McLean, K. (2018). A kind of peace: Tracking the reflexive and resilient drug war, International Journal of Drug Policy 51: 117–120.
  69. UN CEBC (2019). Summary of Deliberations. New York: United Nations.
  70. Cecho, R., Baska, T., Svihrova, V., & Hudeckova, H. (2017). Legislative norms to control cannabis use in the light of its prevalence in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary. Central European Journal of Public Health 25(4): 261–265.
  71. Hughes, B., Matias, J., & Griffiths, P. (2018). Inconsistencies in the assumptions linking punitive sanctions and use of cannabis and new psychoactive substances in Europe. Addiction 113(12):2155–2157
  72. Kotlaja, M.M., & Carson, J.V. (2018). Cannabis prevalence and national drug policy in 27 countries: An analysis of adolescent substance use. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(7): 1082–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18814184.
  73. Maloff, D. (1981). A review of the effects of the decriminalization of marijuana. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall: 307.
  74. Rogeberg, O., & Stevens, A. (2016). Liberalization and adolescent cannabis use – issues with interpretation and country coding. PlosOne. URL (accessed 1 November 2019): from http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=87919.
  75. Simons-Morton, B., Pickett, W., Boyce, W., ter Bogt, T.F.M. & Vollebergh, W. (2010). Cross-national comparison of adolescent drinking and cannabis use in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. International Journal of Drug Policy 21(1): 64–69.
  76. Stevens, A. (2016). Inequality and adolescent cannabis use: A qualitative comparative analysis of the link at national level. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 23(5): 410–421.
  77. Vuolo, M. (2013). National-level drug policy and young people’s illicit drug use: A multilevel analysis of the European Union. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 131(1–2): 149–156
  78. Reuter, P., & Stevens, A. (2007). An Analysis of UK Drug Policy. London: UK Drug Policy Commission.
  79. EMCDDA (2006). Annual report 2006: The state of the drugs problem in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Most read articles by the same author(s)