Ayahuasca in the English courts: legal entanglements with the jungle vine

Ayahuasca occupies a legally ambiguous position in English law. Although its psychoactive component, DMT, is a Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, neither ayahuasca itself nor the plants used to make it are listed. This chapter examines this ambiguity through the prosecution of self-proclaimed shamanic practitioner Peter Aziz. It argues that prosecuting activities involving ayahuasca under these circumstances constitutes an abuse of process, violating the principle of legal certainty guaranteed by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Study at a glance

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).