A climate for change: ICEERS and the challenges of the globalization of ayahuasca
Benjamin K. de Loenen, Òscar Parés Franquero, And
September 1, 2016 DOI: 10.4324/9781315551425-18 via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe legal status of ayahuasca is difficult for users, lawyers, authorities, and academics to understand and must be viewed within the international framework for controlling narcotics and psychotropics. Psychoactive substances have been produced, consumed, and traded throughout human history, playing spiritual, social, economic, and political roles in most societies. Social perceptions and political approaches toward these substances have shifted over time, with pleasure, individual freedom, health, morality, and state reasons all invoked to determine the level of social control, political intervention, or legal approach to their consumption, production, and trade.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Review |
|---|---|
| Topics | Ayahuasca |
| Keywords | Globalization Climate change Geography |
| Citations | 1 |
| Key finding | Ayahuasca's legal status is complex and must be understood within the broader international drug control framework, as psychoactive substances have historically played varied roles in societies and have been subject to changing social and political approaches. |
Abstract
Background: the broader drug policy context The legal status in which ayahuasca finds itself nowadays is not easy to comprehend, either for users, lawyers, authorities, or academics, and must be understood in the broader context of the international framework intended to control narcotics and psychotropics. The production, consumption, and trade of psychoactive substances has been a constant in the history of humankind and has played an important spiritual, social, economic, and political role in most societies and at all times (Schultes & Hofmann, 1979); the uses, social perceptions, and political approaches toward them have changed over time among different social contexts (Escohotado, 2008). Pleasure, individual freedom, health, morality, and even state reasons (Astorga, 1996) have been invoked when determining the level of social control, political intervention, or legal approach regarding their consumption, production, and trade.