Psychedelics, Law, and Religion- Spring 2025

  • Jay Michaelson

In recent years, there has been a radical shift in societal attitudes toward psychoactive compounds known as psychedelics. Once taboo, these compounds are now being evaluated for medical use and utilized for spiritual as well as recreational purposes among elites and privileged groups.

Of course, the use of psychoactive compounds did not begin in the 2020s, or the 1960s for that matter: indigenous populations have regarded them as sacred agents of healing and/or spirituality for centuries, perhaps millennia. Long before these compounds were labeled as ‘drugs,’ they were regarded as something akin to sacraments.

But now, the so-called “psychedelic renaissance” is rapidly advancing so quickly (despite some setbacks) that legal, theological, and pharmaceutical discourses are struggling to catch up.  It has posed novel legal, ethical, and philosophical questions, including the adjudication of religious claims, the boundaries of religious liberty, the tension between religion (or spirituality) and secular medicine, the balancing of civil liberties and public health, and the widely varying political consequences of consciousness expansion. 

While most of the changes in recent years have been in the medicalization context, this seminar will focus on religious contexts, which are also changing rapidly.  We will look at the range of religious uses of psychoactive compounds, the ways in which some of those uses are legally recognized while others are not, and the emerging questions in this rapidly evolving space.

During week six, Harvard will be hosting the first-ever symposium on psychedelics in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities. Attendance at any two hours of the symposium will replace the March 4 session. This will be a unique opportunity to learn about the cutting edge of this emerging field.

2 Psychedelics and the Law 101 2/4 2 Psychedelics and the Law 101 2/4

2.1. Marlan, “Beyond Cannabis,” 865-892

Marlan, “Beyond Cannabis,” 865-892

2.2. Marks, “Psychedelic Medicines,” 87-97

Marks, “Psychedelic Medicines,” 87-97

2.3. Victoria Litman, “Psychedelic Policy, Religious Freedom, and Public Safety: An Overview.” Ohio State J. of Crim. Law, 2023 1-19

Victoria Litman, “Psychedelic Policy, Religious Freedom, and Public Safety: An Overview.” Ohio State J. of Crim. Law, 2023 1-19

2.4. Courtwright, D. T. (2004). The Controlled Substances Act: how a “big tent” reform became a punitive drug law. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76(1), 9–15.

Courtwright, D. T. (2004). The Controlled Substances Act: how a “big tent” reform became a punitive drug law. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76(1), 9–15.

2.5. Carl Hart, Drug Use for Grown-Ups, 18-34

https://harvardwiki.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/162464230/Hart_pp._18-30.pdf?api=v2

AND 

https://harvardwiki.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/162464230/Hart_pp._31-34.pdf?api=v2

Carl Hart, Drug Use for Grown-Ups, 18-34

2.6 Excerpts from Controlled Substances Act 2.6 Excerpts from Controlled Substances Act

21 USCA § 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--

(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,

(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and

(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.

(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.

(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.

(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.

(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.

 

 

 

  • 801a. Congressional findings and declarations: psychotropic substances

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) The Congress has long recognized the danger involved in the manufacture, distribution, and use of certain psychotropic substances for nonscientific and nonmedical purposes, and has provided strong and effective legislation to control illicit trafficking and to regulate legitimate uses of psychotropic substances in this country. Abuse of psychotropic substances has become a phenomenon common to many countries, however, and is not confined to national borders. It is, therefore, essential that the United States cooperate with other nations in establishing effective controls over international traffic in such substances.

(2) The United States has joined with other countries in executing an international treaty, entitled the Convention on Psychotropic Substances and signed at Vienna, Austria, on February 21, 1971, which is designed to establish suitable controls over the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and use of certain psychotropic substances. The Convention is not self-executing, and the obligations of the United States thereunder may only be performed pursuant to appropriate legislation. It is the intent of the Congress that the amendments made by this Act, together with existing law, will enable the United States to meet all of its obligations under the Convention and that no further legislation will be necessary for that purpose.

(3) In implementing the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the Congress intends that, consistent with the obligations of the United States under the Convention, control of psychotropic substances in the United States should be accomplished within the framework of the procedures and criteria for classification of substances provided in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. This will insure that (A) the availability of psychotropic substances to manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, and researchers for useful and legitimate medical and scientific purposes will not be unduly restricted; (B) nothing in the Convention will interfere with bona fide research activities; and (C) nothing in the Convention will interfere with ethical medical practice in this country as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the basis of a consensus of the views of the American medical and scientific community.

 

 

 

  • 811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances

(a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing

The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e), the Attorney General may by rule--

(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he--

(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and

(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or

(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.

 

Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of Title 5. Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion, (2) at the request of the Secretary, or (3) on the petition of any interested party.

(b) Evaluation of drugs and other substances

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance. In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (c) and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of such subsection. The recommendations of the Secretary shall include recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule, if any, under which such drug or other substance should be listed. The evaluation and the recommendations of the Secretary shall be made in writing and submitted to the Attorney General within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a).

(c) Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.

(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.

(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.

(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.

(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.

(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.

(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.

(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.