Eu opean Ci izens Ini ia i e: PsychedeliCa e
Bá ba a Inês Pi es Messias
Mas e 's Thesis
Sociology o Law
In e na ional Ins i u e o Sociology o Law
Oña i, 2024/2025
Supe iso : Ai o Jimenéz
Submi ed on July 24 h, 2025
Acknowledgmen s
My deepes g a i ude o my pa en s and sis e o all he uncondi ional suppo in e e y momen .
To my pa ne , o being he space whe e I could slow down.
To my mas e ’s p o esso s o opening many ho izons, bo h pe sonally and p o essionally, and o my
supe iso Ai o , o his en husias ic suppo and guidance.
To he IISL s a and he illage o Oña i, o hei hospi ali y and o aking ca e o us.
And o my wel e iends in Oña i, in whom I ound a home – and o whom I dedica e his hesis.
2
Table o con en s
Abs ac 4
1. In oduc ion 4
1.1. Pe sonal Backg ound and Rema ks 4
1.2. Thema ic Backg ound 5
1.3. Me hodology 6
2. The Eu opean Ci izens Ini ia i e 8
2.1. Backg ound 8
2.3. EU Legisla i e P ocess and Pa icipa o y Democ acy 10
2.4. Pas ECIs and S op Vi isec ion Case 11
2.5. Wha Makes a Success ul Signa u e-Collec ion Campaign? 14
2.6. E olu ion and C i ical Re lec ions 16
3. Psychedelics & PsychedeliCa e 17
3.1. Backg ound 17
3.2. O igins – His o y o Use and P ohibi ion 20
3.3. Cu en si ua ion 26
3.4. PsychedeliCa e 27
4. Psychedelics Go G ass oo s 28
Conclusion 31
Re e ences 33
3
Abs ac
This hesis examines he Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i e (ECI) PsychedeliCa e, i s as a pa icipa o y
democ acy ool o e o m psychedelic policy in he Eu opean Union, and beyond i s p ocedu al ole, as a
g ass oo s mo emen uniquely posi ioned o shape bo h he de elopmen and ecep ion o psychedelic
policies. By combining documen analysis, c i ical discou se analysis, and au oe hnog aphic insigh s, i
in es iga es he dynamics o democ a ic pa icipa ion and he e ol ing ield o psychedelics, ouching
upon i s his o ical ajec o y and he de elopmen o psychedelic-assis ed he apy (PAT) – he ocus o
PsychedeliCa e.
F aming he ECI as a o m o legal mobiliza ion, his wo k d aws on he pe spec i e o Michael McCann
(1994), who emphasizes ha he adjacen social mo emen is as signi ican as he legisla i e ou come
i sel . This wo k a gues ha al hough ECIs a ely esul in binding legisla i e change, he mo emen
behind hem – o en g ass oo s in na u e, as in he case o PsychedeliCa e – is c ucial as a ci izen-led
sociocul u al in e en ion. In his con ex , g ass oo s ac o s in he psychedelic ield a e c ucial in
engaging bo h legisla i ely and non-legisla i ely. The o me o e s a bo om-up al e na i e o op-down
go e nmen al o co po a e lobbying, helping o shape policy di ec ions and include ci il socie y in a ield
ha emains ulne able o cen alized, s a e- o ma ke -d i en in eg a ion. The la e enables e o s such
as awa eness- aising, public educa ion, and ha m educ ion, o mos impo ance o des igma iza ion and
he disman ling o he exis ing mo al panic. Ul ima ely, he p esence o a g ass oo s mo emen behind an
ECI on psychedelic e o m is no inciden al bu cen al o i s e ec i eness, bo h in campaigning and in
ensu ing he in eg a ion o PAT in a sa e, accessible, and non-ex ac i is manne .
1. In oduc ion
1.1. Pe sonal Backg ound and Rema ks
As a membe o an Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i e (ECI), du ing he cou se o he mas e s’ deg ee in
Sociology o Law, I became inc easingly awa e, mo e han when I i s joined he p ojec back in may
2024, o he ele ance and impo ance o his democ a ic ool in he con ex o pa icipa o y democ acy in
he Eu opean Union (EU). Addi ionally, du ing my s udies, as i ’s he e y ocus o his ECI, I was able o
explo e he ele an socio-legal dimensions o he psychedelic ield in he he apeu ic and medical con ex
ha PsychedeliCa e ECI ope a es on, bu also he sphe es o pe sonal use, in ma e s o public heal h.
These wo ich opics mo i a ed me hen, o w i e his hesis abou he ECI ool and PsychedeliCa e as a
case s udy.
Gi en such, i is hen impo an o acknowledge, a he e y beginning o his hesis, my own s andpoin .
Being pa o he objec I p oposed mysel o s udy demands ha I ake on wo di e en oles. One o he
esea che , schola and social scien is ha equi es me, a he e y leas , no o be a ached o he ou come
o ad ocacy, so a he han engage, obse e and documen . The o he , as pa o a ci izens' mo emen , o
he ac i is , pushing a dissiden poli ical agenda. Bu is ha eally he case? Schola s and in ellec uals a e
in a “p i ileged” posi ion when i comes o knowledge, so as Noam Chomsky (2017) pu s i , “i is he
esponsibili y o in ellec uals o speak he u h and o expose lies” (p.16). O he wise a isk o
con o ming o he powe s uc u es in place and pe pe ua ing injus ices. So, he ole o he esea che is
no one a he han engaging – bu pe haps be o e engaging. One can a gue, bo h oles, wi h each o he ,
ge s onge , and socie y may bene i mo e om hem.
4
1.2. Thema ic Backg ound
In ecen yea s, he EU has made e o s o in eg a e pa icipa o y democ a ic mechanisms, among which
he ECI s ands ou as a a e example o legally ins i u ionalized ci ic engagemen . Pa allel o his, a
“Psychedelic Renaissance” has gained momen um ac oss medical, academic, a is ic and ac i is ci cles –
eigni ing deba es abou he legal s a us o psychedelic subs ances in bo h he apeu ic and pe sonal-use
con ex s. In hese ci cums ances, ini ia i es like PsychedeliCa e eme ge a he in e sec ion o pa icipa o y
democ acy and psychedelics. By le e aging he ECI, ci izens a e no only demanding legisla i e
econside a ion o psychedelic p ohibi ion bu also challenging he deepe no ma i e ensions be ween
law, science, and social alues ha ha e his o ically shaped he go e nance o hese subs ances. Thus, he
main esea ch ques ion is – Can he ECI ool be used o e o m psychedelic policies in he EU? To answe
i , he p esen wo k will be di ided in h ee pa s, explo ing di e en subques ions.
Pa I. The Eu opean Ci izens Ini ia i e
Focusing on he subques ion – To wha ex en can ECIs lead o subs an i e legal o policy e o m a he
Eu opean le el? Touching upon de ini ion and p ocess, his o ical de elopmen , b oade p ocesses he ECI
ep esen s, compa ison wi h bo h o he EU democ a ic mechanisms, and ou comes o pas ini ia i es.
Pa II. Psychedelics & PsychedeliCa e
Elabo a ing on – Why a e ci izens coming oge he o demand psychedelic policy e o m? Explo ing
de ini ions and his o y o psychedelic uses and p ohibi ion, cu en s a e o policy and ield, hen mo ing
on o he case s udy o PsychedeliCa e.
Pa III. Psychedelics Go G ass oo s
In e oga ing – Wha is he ole o such a ci izen-led o ganiza ion shaping he psychedelic ield? An
in e sec ion o he p e ious chap e s, explo ing he need o g ass oo s in ol emen in his con ex .
The ECI has been ex ensi ely discussed (G eenwood, Weisski che , Bouza Ga cía & Villa ), bu mos ly
om a Eu opean Law pe spec i e, and none o he wo ks a e simul aneously ocusing on he heme o
ad ocacy, limi ing he explo a ion o he ECI’s po en iali y. Tosun & Schaub (2021) o ins ance, ocus
a he speci ically on na a i e s a egies (s o y elling, cos -bene i aming, e idence as pe suasion)
employed by ECIs, bu ail o add ess he connec ion be ween he na a i e s a egies and hema ic
con en . This de ici is agg a a ed especially when i comes o he socio-legal issues aised by ECIs. In
gene al, he li e a u e has no ye engaged much wi h ECIs h ough a socio-legal analy ical lens, a gap his
hesis aims o add ess. As a esul , Sa igny's heo e ical pe spec i es and he deba e o legal mobiliza ion
and g ass oo s o ganiza ion will be in eg a ed, ele an o u he unde s and he b oade dynamics and
wha he ECI i ac ually is – a bo om-up social mo emen looking o in luence he law.
On he psychedelics side, he impo ance o bo om‑up o ganisa ions in shaping his apidly eme ging
policy space emains s ikingly unde ‑analysed. Much o he exis ing schola ship in his “Psychedelic
Renaissance” s ill g a i a es owa d biomedical e icacy ials, ma ke o ecas s, o high‑le el egula o y
pa hways, lea ing g ass oo s ac o s o he ma gins. Ye ci izen‑led ini ia i es such as PsychedeliCa e
illus a e ha no ma i e change in his domain is being d i en as much om he g ound up as om expe
commi ees o co po a e boa ds. This hesis poin s o he impo ance his ype o g ass oo s mobilisa ion,
5
as i ope a es bo h as a legal igge and as a cul u al p ojec : i con es s pa en s, os e ing Indigenous
knowledge and equi y conce ns, and p o ides educa ion ha o mal egula ion alone canno deli e .
By analysing PsychedeliCa e h ough he combined lenses o legal mobilisa ion heo y, Sa ignian
socio‑legal e olu ion, and Moo e’s semi‑au onomous social ields, his hesis he e o e makes h ee
speci ic con ibu ions. Fi s , i concep ualises ECIs as legal-cul u al mo emen s po en ially capable o
media ing he science‑law gap a ound psychedelics. Second, i o e s an inside accoun o campaign
s a egy, e ealing some ac ics such as na a i e aming, coali ion‑building, digi al o ganising ools, and
coun y speci ic s a egy. Thi d, i demons a es ha g ass oo s pa icipa ion is no me ely an accesso y o
policy e o m bu a subs an i e sa egua d agains he isks o op‑down medicalisa ion and comme cial
cap u e, ensu ing ha u u e egula o y amewo ks emain a uned o he his o ical injus ices and
communi y needs.
1.3. Me hodology
This hesis employs quali a i e esea ch and analysis, explo ing he no ma i e ensions su ounding
psychedelic subs ances, as well as i s ele an socio-legal dynamics, and PsychedeliCa e ECI. I employs
documen analysis, o ins ance, Regula ion (EU) 2019/788), ins i u ional documen s om he Eu opean
Commission, p e ious ECI campaign documen s, and epo s. Also, a compa a i e analysis o all he
exis ing pa icipa o y democ acy ools and adi ional law-making s ECI; and a c i ical analysis o he
ou comes o each ECI is also employed o u he explo e he po en iali y o he ool.
C i ical discou se analysis (Fai clough, 2013) was employed speci ically o e eal ideological elemen s
and powe ela ions ha lay benea h legal ex s, such as he San F ancisco o dinance agains Opium Dans.
Addi ionally, na a i e analysis (Riessman, 2008) was unde aken o explo e media na a i es in he 60’s
and 70’s ega ding psychedelics.
The s udy in eg a es heo e ical amewo ks d awn om socio-legal heo y, pa icula ly legal mobiliza ion
heo y (McCann, 1994; Lehoucq & Taylo , 2020), g ass oo s (Smi h, 1997), classical socio-legal heo y
(Sa igny, 1831), biopowe (Foucaul , 1965, 1973, 2003), and Semi-Au onomous Social Field (Moo e,
1973). Legal mobiliza ion heo y ouched upon s a egic in oke o legal igh s and mechanisms (like he
ECI) o in luence socio-poli ical agendas and legisla i e amewo ks, h ough a olun a y ci izen-led
manne . Sa igny si ua es legal phenomena wi hin he e ol ing consciousness o socie y, hus helping
ame ECIs as po en ial esponses o socie al shi s in no ms, alues, and pe cep ions. Foucaul , on he
o he hand, helps o unde s and he powe dynamics in he psychedelics medical and media aming;
Moo e’s heo y la e conce ns he no ma i e con lic be ween he scien i ic and legal ields when i comes
o he sa e y and medical use o psychedelics.
An au o-e hnog aphic (Ellis, 2004) elemen is in eg a ed, as I e lec c i ically on my posi ionali y wi hin
he campaign, acknowledging how his pe spec i e in o ms and limi s he analysis and in eg a es inside
insigh s, such as bes p ac ices o campaigning. Such da a collec ion in ol ed pa icipa o y obse a ion
in campaign e en s such as he PsychedeliCa e Feb ua y campaign launch in he Eu opean Pa liamen
(EP) (B ussels), whe e obse a ions we e documen ed sys ema ically in e lec i e esea ch dia ies,
alongside in o mal discussions wi h o he campaigne s. Also, I add bu also e en s on he ield, such as
Con e ences – 2nd Mul idisciplina y con e ence: Science o Psychedelics in P ac ice, I a ended in
6
Zag eb in Ap il, o he Psychedelics Law Boo camp a Ha a d Law School, in Bos on, July 2025. This
me hodology seeks o in e wine EU law and psychedelics, highligh ing he applicable socio-legal
phenomena and explo es how law, scien i ic knowledge, ci il socie y, and his o ical na a i es in e ac o
shape con empo a y psychedelic policy discou se in Eu ope. Au oe hnog aphy p o ides a an age poin ,
as i allows access o in o mal p ac ices, s a egic discussions, and u he dimensions o ac i ism
ypically inaccessible o ex e nal obse e s.
O e all, his me hodological app oach aimed o in e wine EU law, psychedelic policy, and exis ing
socio-legal dynamics.
7
2. The Eu opean Ci izens Ini ia i e
2.1. Backg ound
This sec ion add esses he ques ion – To wha ex en can ECIs lead o subs an i e legal o policy e o m
a he Eu opean le el? I se s he ounda ion o unde s anding pa icipa o y democ acy, on which
PsychedeliCa e is based. I will begin by explaining wha an ECI is, i s de ini ion, legal basis, and
pu pose. I will hen explo e he his o y and e olu ion o he ool, how and why i was c ea ed,
highligh ing he challenges i aims o ackle. To con ex ualize i s ele ance, some s a is ics will be
p esen ed. Following his, he chap e ou lines he p ocedu al s eps in ol ed in launching and submi ing
an ECI. I hen in oduces he heo e ical amewo k o legal mobiliza ion o si ua e he ECI wi hin he
b oade sys em o democ a ic ools and bo om-up legal s a egies. This includes an analysis o he
g ass oo s na u e o ECIs and hei unc ion as a o m o legal mobiliza ion. I will hen be compa ed o
adi ional EU law-making wi h he ECI mechanism, as well as wi h o he pa icipa o y democ acy ools
a ailable o EU ci izens. I hen con inues by assessing he conc e e ou comes o pas ECIs o e alua e
hei po en ial, including a li e a u e e iew on bes p ac ices o success ul campaigning. Finally, he
chap e concludes wi h a discussion on he e olu ion o he ECI and some c i ical e lec ions on i s
ins i u ional s eng hs and limi a ions.
Es ablished unde he T ea y o Lisbon in 2009, h ough he A icle 11(4) o he T ea y on Eu opean
Union (TEU) and he A icle 24(1) o he T ea y on he Func ioning o he Eu opean Union (TFEU), his
ool is ope a ional since 2012, one yea a e i s adop ion by he Eu opean Pa liamen (EP) in he
Regula ions (EU) No 211/2011 and (EU) 2019/788. The ECI allows EU ci izens o p opose new
legisla ion o he EC. Acco ding o his ins i u ion, o e 1000 people ha e launched ECIs since i s
incep ion (Eu opean Commission, Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e, n.d.). O he 142 p ojec s submi ed, only
119 we e egis e ed, ei he ully o pa ially. Rejec ed ini ia i es included p oposals o s op ade wi h
Is aeli se lemen s o add ess B exi (“B i ish iends—s ay wi h us in EU”, 2018; “S op B exi ”, 2017).
All 23 ejec ions we e based on he ini ia i es alling ou side he EC’s powe s. The i s egis e ed ECI,
“F a e ni é 2020,” aimed o enhance EU exchange p og ammes like E asmus o s eng hen solida i y, bu
i ailed o each he equi ed h eshold o u he analysis.
A he beginning o he cen u y, dis us and disin e es in EU poli ics, dec easing adhe ence o EP
elec ions, he I ish ejec ion o he T ea y o Nice – we e all symp oms o a hia us be ween he EU and i s
people (Eu opean Commission, 2001). Such led he Commission o iden i y, in he 2001 whi e pape , a
democ a ic de ici and open EU go e nance as one o i s main objec i es. I was he goal o open up “ he
policy-making p ocess o ge mo e people and o ganisa ions in ol ed in shaping and deli e ing EU
policy” (Eu opean Commission, 2001, p.4), combining di e en ools such as legisla ion, social dialogue,
unding, and ac ion p og ams.
Twen y yea s la e , some o he exis ing ools and mechanisms in place can be easoned back o his whi e
pape . The inc eased powe s a ibu ed o he EP, and ci izen in ol emen in policy-making h ough
ins umen s like ECI, EP pe i ions, and public consul a ions. All hese p o ided ci izens wi h a
mechanism o in luence EU legisla ion and ac i ely pa icipa e in shaping Eu opean policies.
8
When i comes o he ECI p ocess, he ini ia i e mus (i) es ablish a ci izens' commi ee, a g oup o se en
o ganize s, esiding in se en di e en EU coun ies; (ii) ollow he egis a ion equi emen s – ha ing a
i le, subjec ma e , objec i es, and s a ing all sou ces o unding and suppo . Only hen, hey’ll be able
o ini ia e he (iii) signa u e collec ion (a hei chosen da e) and hen ga he , a leas , one million
s a emen s o suppo (signa u es). The e is a minimum limi o signa u es o each coun y, depending on
i s popula ion. Fo ins ance, he h eshold o Po ugal is 15,120, o Ge many 69,120, and o Mal a
4,320, and hese h esholds mus be achie ed in a leas se en di e en membe s a es wi hin a pe iod o
wel e mon hs since he campaign launch. A e his, (i ) he s a emen s o suppo a e e i ied and ( )
submi ed. The Commission examines i wi hin h ee mon hs and decides on he app op ia e ac ion,
whe he ha means legisla i e ac ion o no (Eu opean Commission, Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e, n.d.).
As an ins umen ha allows ci izens o p opose a legisla i e change, he ques ion is aised whe he ECI
e lec s a b oade social shi , one ha is ou pacing he legal amewo ks. In o he wo ds, does i poin o a
possible lag be ween social and legal? Acco ding o Neil Mahoney (2022), in he same lines as Sa igny’s
(1831) idea o law exis ing in he “consciousness o people” (Mahoney, 2022, p.25), legal e olu ion keeps
“a peace behind social e olu ion” (p.113). P oposing ha law ollows socie y as i changes. So is he ECI
a mechanism ha seeks o “co ec ” he lag be ween he social and he legal? On he one hand, i can be
a gued ha Sa igny and Mahoney a e e e ing o a b oade legal change, pe haps a change in legal
cul u e1, ha he legal change p oposed by an ECI likely won’ igge . Ano he possible a gumen is ha
one million ci izens a e no necessa ily a big enough sample o call i social e olu ion, bu ins ead, maybe
a poli ically engaged o in ellec ual eli e, p oposing some so s o change, wi hin a speci ic opic. Whe he
he ECI cap u es a social e ol ing consciousness o me ely channels he ambi ions o a ocal mino i y
emains an open ques ion, discussed la e on he speci ic case o PsychedeliCa e.
2.2. ECI as Bo om-up, G ass oo s, Legal Mobiliza ion
None heless, ega dless o whe he he numbe o suppo e s is pe cei ed as la ge o limi ed, he success
o he ECI is dependen on he social mo emen behind. Gi en he scale o coo dina ion and public
engagemen , i ep esen s a signi ican ac o collec i e mobiliza ion. In his sense, he ECI can be
unde s ood as a o m o legal mobiliza ion, whe ein he law is delibe a ely and s a egically employed in
an explici , sel -conscious way, h ough he in oca ion o a o mal ins i u ional mechanism (Lehoucq and
Taylo , 2020). Addi ionally, McCann’s (1994, 2006) b oade iew on legal mobiliza ion is pe haps mo e
adequa e o desc ibe he ECI. No solely ocusing on he li iga ion side bu also legisla i e ad ocacy, wi h
abili y o shi public pe cep ion, e ame public deba es, gene a e awa eness, empowe ma ginalized
g oups (by p o iding hem wi h he esou ces o in luence he poli ical a ena – in heo y), and pe haps
e en in luence he legal cul u e.
Acco ding o Bouza Ga cia & G eenwood (2014) “Ci izens’ ini ia i es a e by na u e a o m o
mobilisa ion o g ass oo s” (p.249). A g ass oo s o ganiza ion is acco ding o Da id H. Smi h (1997) a
“locally based, signi ican ly au onomous, olun ee - un, o mal non-p o i g oups ha mani es
subs an ial olun a y al uism and use he associa ional o m o o ganiza ion” (p.2). As seen in Zeege s
(2016) wo k, no e e y exis ing ECI quali ies as a g ass oo s o ganiza ion, bu i s impo ance emains
1 Conside ing Co e ell’s idea o legal cul u e as he gene al en i onmen , he law, ideas, beha iou s o people.
9
● add essing a less echnical issue, making i easie o public engagemen 8
The inside ins i u ional knowledge, coupled wi h g ass oo s mobiliza ion and an easy- o-g asp na a i e,
is hen highligh ed. Addi ionally, d awing e lec ions om pa icipan obse a ion, e lec i e esea ch
dia ies, and in o mal discussions in PsychedeliCa e, some o he ollowing p ac ices a e highligh ed:
● ha ing clea , common online pla o ms and ools o sha ed wo k, de ined be o ehand – such as a
calenda , documen sha ing, and daily cha – o acili a e communica ion wi hin he o ganiza ion
● obus und aising plan o collec ion and implemen a ion, om he ou se
● ha ing compensa ed oles alongside olun a y posi ions
● ansla ion o communica ion ma e ial (websi e, social media, lye s, e c) in each na ional
language
Toge he , hese poin o a model o success ul ECI campaigning ha combines being legally p ecise,
ha ing na a i e powe , g ass oo s agili y, and ins i u ional engagemen , sugges ing ha campaigns which
s a egically balance hese elemen s s and a be e chance o achie ing mo e isibili y and impac .
2.6. E olu ion and C i ical Re lec ions
The mos ecen changes o he ECI we e in oduced h ough Regula ion (EU) 2019/788, which came in o
e ec on 1s o Janua y 2020. These changes we e in oduced as a esul o a call o e ision by he EP,
he Eu opean Ombudsman, he CoR, he EESC, ECI o ganise s, and schola s (Salm, 2018). The mos
se ious p oblems poin ed ou we e he “1. lack o legal s a us o he ECI ci izens' commi ee; 2. a igid
and non- anspa en admissibili y check; 3. di icul condi ions o he collec ion o signa u es; 4. a high
numbe o in alid signa u es; 5. he Eu opean Commission's weak ollow-up p o isions o success ul
ECIs” (p.4).
The Regula ion (EU) 2019/788 hen aimed
(5) o make he Eu opean ci izens' ini ia i e mo e accessible, less bu densome and easie o use
o o ganise s and suppo e s, and o s eng hen i s ollow-up in o de o achie e i s ull po en ial
as a ool o os e deba e. I should also acili a e he pa icipa ion o as many ci izens as possible
in he democ a ic decision-making p ocess o he Union. (L 130/55)
The e o ms ackle he p oblem o di icul condi ions o signa u e collec ion by imp o ing he
use - iendliness o online collec ion. Fu he mo e, i in oduces he ECI Fo um o be e suppo and
guide o ganise s and implemen s communica ion ac i i ies o inc ease ci izens’ awa eness o he ECI
(Eu opean Commission, Re iew, 2023). These e o ms we e analysed in a 2023 Re iew by he EC, whe e
ECI o ganise s oiced some con ibu ions. They s a e ha hey pe cei e he ECI as mo e e ec i e han
o he pa icipa o y mechanisms – such as public consul a ions, pe i ions, o o ing – in e ms o isibili y
and ci izen engagemen .
Howe e , hey simul aneously highligh ed he ECI’s limi ed poli ical impac , along wi h ongoing
challenges ela ed o campaigning and communica ion, which con inue o pose signi ican ba ie s o i s
8 Al hough he au ho men ions STOP-TTIP! ECI has an example ha b oke h ough his ba ie , by p esen ing a
echnical issue in an amenable o m, aising public deba e.
16
success. Many desc ibed he ECI as a "weak ins umen ," no ing ha la ge, es ablished o ganisa ions a e
o en eluc an o in es ime and esou ces in suppo ing ini ia i es. This eluc ance may be pa ly
explained by he ins i u ional posi ioning o he ool. As Commissione Ma oš Še čo ič – hen esponsible
o he ECI – emphasised, he ins umen was designed “no o NGOs, bu o all ci izens” (Eu Ac i ,
2011). Empi ical e idence also sugges s ha campaigns led by la ge , well- esou ced o ganisa ions ha e
been no ably ewe han hose ini ia ed by eme ging o ad hoc ci izen g oups (Bouza Ga cía & Del Río
Villa , 2012). Addi ionally, he epo e eals some o ganize s c i iquing he one million h eshold as oo
high, wa ning ha he ECI, pa adoxically enough, isks becoming a ool accessible only o well- esou ced
ci il socie y ac o s. So he EC seems o igno e he s uc u al inequali ies in he mobiliza ion capaci y o
smalle ad ocacy g oups, c ea ing an ins i u ional double bind.
In pa allel, some schola ship has been c i ical o he ECI, simila ly poin ing o i s weakness, bu ega ding
ins i u ional esponsi eness9, which u ns i in o a a he symbolic ins umen (Bouza Ga cía & Del Río
Villa , 2012; G eenwood, 2018) wi h s uc u al inequali ies in mobiliza ion (Weisski che , 2019).
Mo eo e , a PsychedeliCa e, i ’s poin ed ou ha he Commission's insu icien communica ion e o s,
as he ECI lacks isibili y among EU ci izens, despi e he Eu oba ome e esul s showing 64% o
awa eness (Eu opean Commission, Re iew, 2023). I add ha a signi ican pa o ou e o s has been
ocused on explaining he ECI i sel . In a esou ce-cons ained campaign, e e y ac ion and
communica ion e o coun s, and campaigne s ha e been unde aking ounda ional educa ional wo k ha
a guably should ha e been he esponsibili y o he Commission i sel .
3. Psychedelics & PsychedeliCa e
3.1. Backg ound
This sec ion will elabo a e on – Why a e ci izens coming oge he o demand psychedelic policy e o m?
Beginning wi h he de ini ion and o igins o psychedelics, including some necessa y discu si e
cla i ica ions o he e ms “psychedelic” and “d ug”. I will hen o e a de ini ion and discussion o
Psychedelic-Assis ed The apy (PAT) and, om he e, ace he his o ical use o psychedelics – in and
ou side clinical p ac ice – om Indigenous use o hei in oduc ion o he Wes . This is ollowed by an
explo a ion o he his o y o p ohibi ion, beginning wi h colonial supp ession and leading in o he
p ohibi i e legal amewo ks ha eme ged in he 1960s. A na a i e analysis o media will be included o
highligh how public discou se was shaped. To unde s and he deepe socio-legal dynamics a play, he
chap e hen d aws on he heo e ical con ibu ions o Michel Foucaul and Sally Falk Moo e. I p oceeds
hen o examine he cu en global and Eu opean con ex s ega ding psychedelic egula ion and discou se,
be o e in oducing he cen al case s udy o his hesis: he PsychedeliCa e.
Today, "psychedelics" emains a luid and con es ed e m, "a blank can as on o which all manne o
biases, agendas, and belie s can be p ojec ed" (Ha a d Di ini y School, 2025, p. 62). This openness
in i es bo h hype – many ecen a icles pose psychedelics as a cu e o mi acle d ug – and unimp essed
scien i ic skep icism – dismissing psychedelics as me ely inducing a psycho ic-like s a e o deli ium.
Acco ding o he Eu opean Union D ug Agency (EUDA, 2024), psychedelics in clinical con ex s a e
9 As p e iously seen, none o he ECI’s wi h a posi i e esponse om he Commission we e ac ually able o igge
ull legisla i e changes.
17
di ided in o classical se o one gic subs ances (such as lyse gic acid die hylamide (LSD), psilocybin
mush ooms, mescaline, and 5-MeO-DMT) and a ypical subs ances (like ke amine and
3,4-Me hylenedioxy-me hamphe amine (MDMA)). Classical psychedelics p ima ily ac as 5-HT2A
ecep o agonis s, p oducing al e ed s a es o pe cep ion, mood, and cogni ion – commonly esul ing in
isual dis o ions, senso y shi s, and expanded awa eness. Resea ch shows psychedelics such as LSD and
psilocybin a e also physiologically sa e, p esen ing no oxic known quan i ies and do no ha e an
addic i e p o ile (Johnson, 2008).
This di e s signi ican ly om o he well-known “d ugs.” None heless, o he pu pose o his hesis, he
e ms will o en be con la ed and, hough imp ecise, psychedelics conside ed a ca ego y wi hin he
b oade umb ella e m “d ugs.” I is impo an o no e ha he e m “psychedelic” i sel lacks clea
consensus. A ypical subs ances o en de y s anda d classi ica ion ye a e s ill g ouped unde he
psychedelic label; as a esul , a new subca ego y has eme ged o accommoda e hem. Ke amine, o
ins ance, is equen ly desc ibed as a psychedelic despi e di e ing in bo h s uc u e and mechanism o
ac ion. Jo alemon (2024) opens he deba e u he by conside ing he inclusion o subs ances like
me hamphe amine (“me h”), which is ne e ypically e e ed o as a psychedelic bu has shown e ec s
simila o MDMA in some s udies (Molla, 2023, as ci ed in Jo alemon, 2024). Likewise, PCP (“angel
dus ”) unc ions simila ly o dissocia i e psychedelic ke amine. These subs ances, howe e , a e la gely
excluded om he popula ca ego y o psychedelics, possibly due o hei associa ions wi h c iminali y,
dange , and social s igma. Jo alemon a gues ha wha cu en ly coun s as a “psychedelic” goes beyond
neu ochemical mechanisms, legal s a us, o subjec i e expe ience. Ra he , he e m now se es o
di e en ia e – signaling ha ce ain d ugs a e “good” o “heal hy” enough o be endo sed, while o he s
a e deemed oo “bad” o “dange ous” o include. Ideally, mo e p ecise ca ego iza ion would be used, as
each psychedelic subs ance ope a es in dis inc ways. Howe e , gi en ha he ocus o his disse a ion is
on he socio-legal dimensions o psychedelics, he b oade , less p ecise usage o he e m will be adop ed.
PAT, on he o he hand, is a modali y o men al heal h ea men ha combines psycho he apeu ic
in e en ions wi h psychedelic subs ances such as LSD, psilocybin, and MDMA. Resea ch, suppo ed by
clinical ials, shows ha psychedelics ha e genuine he apeu ic po en ial, in o e ing long- e m
alle ia ion o symp oms in pa ien s su e ing om psychopa hologies such as PTSD, TRD, majo
dep essi e diso de (MDD), end o li e anxie y, obsessi e–compulsi e diso de (OCD), subs ance use
diso de s (SUD), psycho ic condi ions, and o he s (Pe ez Rosal, e al., 2024).
A gumen s in a o o PAT s a e ha al hough psychedelics ca y ecognized isks, hey p esen
signi ican sa e y le els. One d ug expe a ing s udy ( an Ams e dam, e al., 2015) pe o med in he EU,
using he mul ic i e ia decision analysis model o e alua ing d ug ha ms, uled LSD, MDMA (Ecs asy),
and Psilocybine (Magic mush ooms), subs ances wi h he leas le els o ha m, as shown in Figu e 1.
Figu e 1
G aph showing he o e all ha m o subs ances
18
F om “Eu opean a ing o d ug ha ms” ( an Ams e dam, e al., 2015). I shows ha alcohol (sco e: 72),
he oin (55), and hen c ack (50) a e he mos ha m ul subs ances; psychedelics being he leas ha m ul.
On he o he hand, esea ch shows ha psychedelic e ec i eness, when compa ed o es ablished
dep ession ea men s, shows no signi ican di e ence when i comes o pa ien s’ imp o emen
(Ca ha -Ha is e . al, 2021), as shown in Figu e 2.
Figu e 2
Psilocybin e sus Esci alop am o Dep ession
F om “T ial o Psilocybin e sus Esci alop am o Dep ession” (Ca ha -Ha is e . al, 2021). These
indings can, oo, be ead in wo di e en ligh s, depending on he p ojec ed agenda. On one hand,
psychedelics can be iewed op imis ically – as sa e, e ec i e, and essen ial inno a ions ha o e
19
ea men op ions compa able o es ablished me hods. O , on he o he hand, om a mo e skep ical
iewpoin , he equi alen e icacy o psychedelics o exis ing ea men s may be seen as insu icien
jus i ica ion o hei clinical adop ion.
3.2. O igins – His o y o Use and P ohibi ion
The e m “psychedelic” was i s coined by psychia is Humph y Osmond in 1956, in a le e o Aldous
Huxley: “To a hom Hell o soa angelic, jus ake a pinch o psychedelic.” O iginally in oduced in
clinical se ings – such as Osmond’s LSD esea ch a Weybu n Men al Hospi al wi h pa ien s s uggling
wi h alcoholism (Dyck, 2008) – he e m has since e ol ed in meaning. Osmond’s esea ch ma e ials we e
supplied by he Swiss company Sandoz, whe e Albe Ho mann disco e ed LSD in 1943 and la e
syn hesized psilocybin. Be ween 1943 and 1970, LSD gene a ed nea ly 10,000 scien i ic publica ions,
leading o i s desc ip ion as “ he mos in ensi ely esea ched pha macological subs ance e e ” (Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess, as ci ed in Feilding, 2019). Beyond medical esea ch, LSD a ac ed a en ion om
ci ilians, he mili a y, and he media.
Fo me Ha a d psychologis Timo hy Lea y became a p ominen LSD ad oca e in he 1960s, p omo ing
i s use as pa o a new spi i ual mo emen ha blended eligion, philosophy, and psychedelics (Sessa,
2020). An accomplished academic, Lea y disco e ed psychedelics du ing a ip o Mexico and began
esea ching hem in Ha a d, alongside colleague Richa d Alpe . Accoun s say hei esea ch became
inc easingly uns uc u ed, leading o accusa ions o unp o essional conduc . Bo h we e e en ually
dismissed om he Uni e si y. Lea y wen on o publicly ad oca e o psychedelics and hei widesp ead
use, becoming closely associa ed wi h he coun e cul u e and an i-wa mo emen s (Sessa, 2020). Alpe
la e became he spi i ual eache Ram Dass.
A ound he same ime, he Wes me he p ac ice o inges ing psilocybin mush ooms wi h an a icle by
J.P. Mo gan’s Vice P esiden , Go don Wasson, Seeking he Magic Mush oom, published in LIFE
Magazine (Williams e al., 2022). He desc ibed his expe ience aking he subs ance in 1955 wi h Ma ía
Sabina, a Maza ec cu ande a, in Oaxaca. This d ew widesp ead a en ion and spa ked a wa e o ou is s
isi ing he own, om spi i ual seeke s, hedonis s, o schola s, which ul ima ely esul ed in signi ican
di icul ies o Sabina. She was a es ed, he house bu ned, and she e en ually died in po e y (Ge be e
al., 2021), as a esul o e ealing hese subs ances o o eigne s, who dis up ed he peace o he own.
In oducing psychedelic mush ooms o he Wes ea ned Go don Wasson bo h p aise and c i icism. On he
one hand, jou nalis Michael Pollan, in his bes selling book How o Change You Mind (2018), c edi s
Wasson wi h e ealing o Wes e n audiences ha mush ooms could be mo e han jus poison o ood.
Also, hanks o Wasson, Ho mann ecei ed and syn hesized psilocybin, helping o pa e he way o 50s
psychia ic esea ch, opening he medical ield o he he apeu ic po en ial o psychedelics. On he o he
hand, Ge be e al. (2021) e eal ha Wasson sha ed he cu ande a’s iden i y wi hou he consen .
Ini ially, he used he pseudonym "E a Mendez" o p o ec Ma ía Sabina’s iden i y and pledged no o
publish he pho og aphs. Howe e , la e , his ag eemen was b eached and he eal name was disclosed,
along wi h images in Mush ooms, Russia, and His o y, each uni cos ing 125$ U.S. dolla s, a he ime
(S a o d, 1992). Bo h iews a e impo an and ma k he beginning o he Wes ’s con ac wi h psilocybin –
an in e ac ion s ill ull o e hical complexi ies oday. Ye , he implica ions o publicly sha ing Indigenous
20
knowledge wi hou consen o adequa e con ex ualiza ion, o Wasson’s bene i and Sabina’s de imen ,
e lec ex ac i is , colonial dynamics and emain a c i ical opic o discussion.
In Eu ope, wi h he disco e y o LSD, Czechoslo akia wi nessed one o i s mos ex ensi e and s uc u ed
uses in clinical psychia y, du ing he Cold Wa (Dyck & Elcock, 2023). Led by psychia is Milan
Hausne in he 1960s and 70s, psycholy ic he apy (Hausne , 1963) was p ac iced a s a e-suppo ed
clinics like Sadská, combining LSD wi h g oup he apy, occupa ional asks, and psychoanalysis – o e
3,000 sessions we e epo ed. Also in Ge many, psychedelic his o y da es back o he 1910s and 20s.
MDMA was syn hesized in 1912 by An on Köllisch, and he i s he apeu ic expe imen s using
mescaline happened du ing his ime as well (Pe ez Rosal, 2024). La e on, Be y Eisne (Ge man
educa ed) in oduced he he apeu ic use o low-dose LSD combined wi h psycho he apy (a con ibu ion
ha emains unde ecognized), and Ma go Cu ne emphasized he ole o he acili a o in PAT.
So, he 50s and 60s, in gene al, ma ked a ime when he in e es o he Wes in he uses o psychedelics
g ew. Bu , acco ding o Ma lene Dobkin de Rios (2009), many Indigenous g oups had used psychedelic
subs ances long be o e. Jus o name a ew p esen in he esea ch – he Aus alian Abo igines, he New
Guinea Mush oom Use s, he Fang o No hwes e n Equa o ial A ica, he Az ecs o Mexico, he Incas,
and some B azilian chu ches and eligious g oups. Dobkin de Rios was one o he i s an h opologis s
s a ing ha psychedelics played an in eg al ole in some cul u es, one o di ini y, seen as god gi s, cen al
o li e i uals such as healing, ma iages, une als, ha es , ba le ic o ies, bu also sac ed p ac ices like
ances o wo ship, e ili y i uals, and healing ce emonies. Almos always, he e is an indi idual – he
shaman, o en he psychedelic handle , who plays an impo an socie al ole in con olling na u e, spi i s,
animals, bu mos impo an ly, gi ing hope o indi iduals. Almos always, he e is a con ex c ea ed o
he inges ion o hese subs ances – a i ual – gi ing a sac ed meaning o his momen o inges ion. Dobkin
de Rios makes he a gumen ha he use o d ugs, wi hin a i ualis ic con ex , lea es e y li le space o
abuse; hus, in adi ional socie ies, bo h d ug abuse and es ic ions a e a ely seen. PAT’s idea o se and
se ing10 is, pe haps, a medical mani es a ion o his impo an i ualis ic con ex ualiza ion o he
inges ion o psychedelics. In he psychedelic ield, his has become pa o he a gumen o legi imizing
con empo a y psychedelic p ac ices by linking hem o a p esumed uni e sal adi ion, long be o e he
20 h-cen u y p ohibi ion.
Howe e , Singh (2025), in his ecen book, a gues agains his. He no es ha many o hese s o ies a e
cons uc ed o embellished o appeal o Wes e n ou is s and en husias s, a he han being g ounded in
ac ual his o ical e idence. Dobkin de Rios (1993) he sel desc ibes how, since he 1980s, d ug ou ism
has led o a ce shamans – o en middle-class indi iduals wi h u ban backg ound – o e ing ou is s
non- adi ional mixes o hallucinogens o mys ical expe iences. Addi ionally, he epea edly emphasizes
how colonialism has dis o ed an h opological eco ds, a poin ha leads in o he nex sec ion – he his o y
o p ohibi ion.
10Se and se ing is a e m some a ibu e o Timo hy Lea y (Ha ogsohn, 2016) and some o Al Hubba d, a e
spending ime wi h an Indigenous g oup in Mexico (Pollan, 2018), bu he e a e also some o he accoun s
a ibu ing i o o he p o essionals in he a ea. I is no consensual who came up wi h he e m, bu in any case, se
means a pe son’s mindse – like mood and expec a ions. Se ing is he en i onmen , including place and people.
Psychedelics a e said o ampli y bo h, highly impac ing he expe ience one has, hus being a c ucial concep .
21
Bo h Singh and Dobkin de Rios (2009) w i e ha wha is o en p esen ed oday as adi ional psychedelic
shamanism is, in many cases, a sync e ic p ac ice shaped by cen u ies o Ch is ian missiona y in luence,
colonial p ejudice agains Indigenous g oups, and sys emic ep ession o local knowledge. Du ing
coloniza ion, psychoac i e sac ed subs ances, like coca lea es in Pe u, o ins ance, we e seen as an
ins umen o Sa an (Ha so, 2019). Al hough condemned as supe s i ion, associa ed wi h e il, au ho J.
Ha so (2019) accoun s o he ailu e o supp ess his p ac ice. The Spanish occupie s hen shi ed
s a egies, commodi ying coca and using i , o ins ance, o pay Indigenous labo e s in sil e mines,
u ning wha was a sac ed plan in o a ool o exploi a ion.
Thus, colonial supp ession ma ks he ea lies accoun s o p ohibi ion and cas s, I a gue, a long shadow
o e how we see “d ugs” oday. The iew o d ug use as immo al, de ian , and degene a e es ablished a
na a i e ha has been epea edly ein o ced o e ime and was weaponized o u he inc ease social
inequali ies. So much so ha he i s na ional U.S. d ug p ohibi ion linked speci ic d ugs o pa icula
acial g oups, like opium wi h Chinese labo e s. In he 1875 San F ancisco o dinance agains opium dens,
i eads (see Figu e 2).
[The Commi ee on Heal h and Police], in ela ion o he opium-smoking dens kep by Chinese,
epo ed ha he e a e [...] eigh opium-smoking es ablishmen s kep by Chinese o he exclusi e
use o whi e men and women. Tha hese places a e pa onized no by he icious and dep a ed,
bu a e nigh ly eso ed o by young men and women o espec able business a oca ions in he
ci y; [...] he e is g ea dange ha i will become one o he p e alen ices o he ci y; ha in he
opinion o he Commi ee hese places a e unmi iga ed e il and call o immedia e and igid
legisla ion.
Roo ed in acial p ejudice, i amed Chinese opium dens as mo ally co up ing spaces, no because o he
d ug o who was consuming i , bu because o who kep hese spaces. This p ohibi ion did no a ise om
an objec i e assessmen o ha m, bu a he h ough a h ea o bou geois alues and a acialized mo al
ea o co up ion o ci izens wi h “ espec able” backg ounds. I po ays d ugs as ools h ough which
immig an communi ies endange social pu i y, he eby legi imizing s a e in e en ion o dis up hei
economic ac i i ies.
Figu e 2
Newspape a icle
22
F om “THE OPIUM SMOKING DENS. Wha he Commi ee on Heal h and Police Found – New O de
P epos[e]d”, San F ancisco Examine , 1875, p. 3. In he public domain.
Focusing back on 60s Ame ica, LSD’s popula i y g ew along wi h he wo y ega ding he black ma ke
su ounding i – a he ime, only Sandoz had a legal au ho iza ion o p oduc ion (Dyck, 2008). Ce ainly
mo e wo ying han he black ma ke , Dyck (2008) no es, was he social and cul u al impac he
psychedelic had on he baby boome s (i s main use s). A he ime, his gene a ion g ew in o a la ge and
in luen ial demog aphic whose ising poli ical powe began o challenge he exis ing o de . Thei push o
change was e iden in widesp ead ac i ism: he ci il igh s mo emen , eminism, Ame ican Indian
mo emen s, he p o es s agains he Vie nam Wa , and he ise o coun e cul u e mo emen s, such as
hippie g oups.
LSD was, a i s , a pha maceu ical d ug. I was syn hesized by a pha maceu ical company and was
ex ensi ely esea ched wi hin psychia ic medicine. Bu was i eally? Since he beginning, LSD has been
a d ug ha led labs and clinics. S a ing om Albe Ho mann himsel . The i s e e eco ded ip was
mo e like a ec ea ional one – Ho mann olun a ily ied i o he i s ime, on he 19 h o Ap il 1943, a
day now celeb a ed e e y yea , among psychonau s as “Bicycle Day”.
23
Acco ding o Si (2015), one o he ea lies g oups o ec ea ional use s was in Cali o nia, a “ne wo k o
psychia is s and cul u al lumina ies ha spun ou wa d om Huxley” (p.81) (Huxley ha ing access o
LSD h ough Osmond). So, om 1955 onwa d, as many, including some highly in luen ial indi iduals,
began accessing psychedelics, media co e age p oli e a ed en husias ically in he U.S. As Robe F.
Kennedy, a he ime Sena o , said in he Hea ings o he Subcommi ee on he Execu i e Reo ganiza ion,
1966: “(...) he con o e sy o e he use and abuse o he d ug LSD [has] been he subjec o co e s o ies
in na ional magazines and news documen a ies on ne wo k ele ision, o widesp ead public deba e”.
People desc ibed LSD as ha ing p o oundly changed hei li es. They epo ed unp eceden ed elie
h ough (e.g., Ca y G an , as ci ed in Si , 2015), a sense o “cosmic signi icance” (Si , 2015, p. 99), a
“new ound happiness” (Si , 2015, p. 101), and e en desc ibed eeling “bo n again” (Joe Hyams, as ci ed
in Si , 2015, p. 100). Bu his en husiasm was me wi h an equal deg ee o eluc ance. Nega i e media
accoun s anged om desc ibing LSD use s going blind a e s a ing a he sun o linking i wi h c ime
and suicide (see p.87), inducing mo al panic and public ea . Going “pe manen ly insane a e a single
ip” (p.87) and desc ibing use s as men ally ill – “psycho ic, schizoph enic, suicidal – became ou ine in
news accoun s” (p.95). E en wi hin psychia y, ea ly iews on psychedelics we e shaped by wha ’s called
he psychomime ic model (Dyck, 2015). While his model isn’ used oday, i amed psychedelics as
subs ances ha mimic psychosis – helping o ein o ce he idea ha psychedelics and madness a e closely
linked.
So, in 1970, Nixon’s adminis a ion launched he so-called “Wa on D ugs”, decla ing d ugs Ame ica's
enemy numbe one (Richa d Nixon Founda ion, 2015). Psychedelics we e classi ied as schedule I
subs ances – he ha shes ca ego y, excluding hei medical po en ial. This ma ked he beginning o a
na ional and in e na ional s a egy, using he “UN as he in e na ional agency o c ea e, sp ead, and
supe ise wo ldwide p ohibi ion” (Le ine, 2003). So in 1971, he UN Con en ion on Psycho opic
Subs ances classi ied psychedelics – LSD, psilocybin, DMT, and mescaline – as “highly addic i e and
highly liable o abuse” (Uni ed Na ions O ice on D ugs and C ime, 2019, p.6). Mos coun ies a i ied
hese con en ions, making hem he ounda ion o many na ional d ug laws. To his day, he UN has done
mo e o de end and ex end d ug p ohibi ion han any o he ins i u ion, main aining he ideal o achie ing a
“d ug- ee wo ld” (Le ine, 2003, p.148).
In o de o u he expose and unde s and his p oblema ic, which can be a gued as an in e play be ween
powe , knowledge, and social con ol, Foucaul ’s wo k on madness and medicine (1965, 1973) will be
used wi h h ee dis inc a gumen s. His wo k sugges s ha (a) men al illness is no a neu al medical ac
bu a cons uc ed label ha se es o isola e and exclude – om es ablished o de since he 18 h cen u y
medical p ac ice (1965); addi ionally ha (b) knowledge is powe and medical knowledge is indeed
insepa able om powe – i p oduces u hs ha shape pe cep ion, jus i y discipline, and sus ain au ho i y;
and (c) law and medicine, a he han ope a ing in sepa a e sphe es, ein o ce one ano he in he
egula ion o de iance.
(a) I can be a gued ha he media-made connec ion wi h men al illness, as a label o un eason and he
media accoun s se ed a seg ega ion pu pose, o hose seen as a h ea o a ional o de . In his iew, he
psychia ic sys em did no me ely ea illness, bu i unc ioned o discipline and con ain de iance o he
un i , ein o cing bounda ies be ween “ eason and un eason” (Foucaul , 1965, p. 262) and e lec ing
socie y’s desi e o con ol de iance. This same mechanism ope a ed in he Wes e n eac ion o
24
psychedelics. The media-induced cul u al panic su ounding hese subs ances was no simply abou hei
pha macological e ec s bu abou wha hey symbolized: al e ed s a es, pe cei ed i a ionali y, and a
challenge o dominan no ms. By associa ing psychedelics wi h madness, socie y in oked he ea o
un eason, legi imizing he exclusion and demoniza ion o use s. Thus, he ea o madness became a basis
o social con ol, d i ing p ohibi ion and public panic.
(b) Secondly, Foucaul si ua es medical knowledge wi hin he b oade amewo k o powe : i doesn’
simply desc ibe eali y, i helps o shape i . Such concep s like “highly addic i e”, “highly liable o abuse”
(Uni ed Na ions O ice on D ugs and C ime, 2019, p.6), “men al illness”, “d ug use ” o “d ug use”
(Rachel La , 1998, p.49) a e no neu al; hey a e cons uc ed ca ego ies ha se e poli ical and
disciplina y pu poses. Eme ging om a medicalized discou se ha amed hese subs ances in
pa hological e ms, e en when e idence o ha m was weak o inconsis en . These classi ica ions
unc ioned as echniques o con ol. Howe e , i ’s c ucial o deno e a nuance: he medical communi y
i sel la gely did no ad oca e o he c iminaliza ion o psychedelics (Si , 2015; Dyck, 2008), bu he
au ho i y o scien i ic knowledge len c edibili y o b oade poli ical na a i es. The aming o
psychedelics as dange ous o madness-inducing ga e legal and poli ical ac o s a a ionale o egula ion
and exclusion, whe he o no i e lec ed medical consensus.
(c) An e en deepe le el, ega ds his powe –biopowe (Foucaul , 2003) – ex ends in o he social domain,
shaping class, pe cep ion, and ul ima ely, laws. The legisla i e sys em, as an ins umen o social con ol,
d aws om he medical discipline, mu ually ein o cing one ano he . The p ohibi ion o psychedelics
illus a es his dynamic well. Legal es ic ions ci e medical e ms (high abuse po en ial, no accep ed
medical use, sa e y conce ns) o jus i y se e e legal consequences o use s. Ye , as Dyck (2008) no es,
he e was a g owing body o medical esea ch poin ing o he he apeu ic po en ial o psychedelics.
Osmond, inclusi ely, who con inued o be a leading figu e in psychedelic esea ch, con essed o being
mo e and mo e us a ed wi h he poli ical s ance ega ding hese subs ances. In co espondence wi h one
o his pee s, in 1967, i eads – “We can ake a ha d line wi h he au ho i ies. They ha e no consul ed us.
They ha e ac ed ashly, and hings look as i hey a e going badly and likely o ge wo se. Young people
don’ belie e hei lies and a e consequen ly liable o dis ega d he u h a he same ime o hei
de imen .” (as ci ed in Dyck, 2008, p.127).
This poin s clash be ween he medical o he in e sec ion o mul iple social o ces ha collec i ely shaped
public discou se and ins i u ional esponse – p ohibi ion canno be ully unde s ood h ough scien i ic o
legal easoning alone. Sally Falk Moo e’s (1973) concep o Semi-Au onomous Social Field (SAFs)
o e s a aluable amewo k o analyzing his complexi y. SAFs a e social a enas – (a) such as he
medical communi y, he media, o he legal sys em – ha gene a e hei own ules and no ms, bu do no
ope a e in isola ion. (b) They a e cons an ly in e ac ing and o e lapping, (c) all while emaining
suscep ible o s a e-emana ed law.
(a) The scien i ic communi y can be unde s ood as a SAFs ha gene a ed i s own in e nal s anda ds,
esea ch p o ocols, and e hical guidelines ega ding psychedelic subs ances. Wi hin his ield, he e was
g owing ecogni ion o he he apeu ic po en ial o psychedelics. Ano he ield would be he media,
po aying psychedelics bo h as healing o psychosis inducing, and a hi d one, he law, labeling
psychedelics as unsa e, po en ially addic i e, and wi h no medical in e es . Thus, se e al SAFs we e a
25
h ough pa en sys ems and comme cializa ion. Addi ionally, ou cu en policies a ound d ugs emain
mo ally biased and no a all e idence-based.
So when i comes o he 60s baby boome s, challenging dominan no ms h ough ci il igh s, an i-wa ,
eminis , and o he mo emen s, many o which had bla an connec ions o psychedelic use, making hese
subs ances symbols o b oade cul u al and poli ical dissidence. In esponse, a op-down ep ession
mo emen ames psychedelics as dange ous, madness-inducing subs ances, e en agains he a he ime
clinical unde s anding. Bu madness, as Foucaul a gues, is no an objec i e clinical condi ion bu a
socially and poli ically cons uc ed label used o ma ginalize hose who de ia e om no ma i e beha io .
Thus, he s uc u es in powe bo owed he medical a gumen s o con ol he masses. Despi e he ac ual
medical unde s anding o he ime, which leads us o he no ma i e con lic o S. F. Moo e SAFs, be ween
law, science, and media.
This culmina ed in he sweeping p ohibi ion o psychedelics sp eading globally h ough he UN d ug
con ol con en ions o he 1970s. Howe e , ecen ly he e has been a g owing esu gence o in e es in
psychedelics, e lec ed in bo h scien i ic esea ch, media, public, and go e nmen s' a en ion. A numbe o
coun ies ha e s a ed o in eg a e psychedelics in o medical p ac ice, and he EU is aking cau ious s eps.
The PsychedeliCa e ini ia i e is an ECI g ass oo s campaign calling on he EC o egula e PAT. I
demands (a) clea s anda ds o applica ion, (b) inc eased esea ch in es men , and (c) a common EU
posi ion a he UN o suppo escheduling.
In aiming o answe why ci izens a e coming oge he o demand psychedelic e o m, ins ead o looking a
he indi idual mo i a ions o joining PsychedeliCa e (which would be a alid quali a i e esea ch ha I
e y much welcome), I’m analyzing he b oade socio-legal and his o ical dynamics ha a e spiking he
social mo emen , o e ing a s uc u al, a he han psychological o beha io al, analysis. Thus, I a gue
i s ly, ha LSD (and e en mo e so na u al psychedelics like psilocybin), o ins ance, was ne e a d ug
cons ained o he labs, and since he beginning, i led he clinics o cu ious ci izens' ci cles and became
e en a ool o social ans o ma ion. Psychedelics a e, pe haps, inhe en ly poli ical and cul u al, no
me ely clinical. Secondly, he con lic be ween scien i ic e idence o sa e y and he he apeu ic po en ial
o psychedelics, and hei b oad c iminaliza ion and s igma iza ion, hinde s pa ien access and pe pe ua es
policies shaped by mo al ea and social p ejudice. Thus, PsychedeliCa e eme ges as a g ass oo s, ci il
esponse o hese many ensions, an e o o demand e idence-based policies ha i s add ess who needs
hese subs ances he mos – he pa ien s.
32
Re e ences
1. Aday, J. S., e al. (2023). Psychedelic comme cializa ion: A wide-spanning o e iew o he
eme ging psychedelic indus y. Psychedelic Medicine, 1(3), 150-165.
2. Ballo pedia. (n.d.). O egon Measu e 109, Psilocybin Mush oom Se ices P og am Ini ia i e
(2020). Re ie ed July 2, 2025, om
h ps://ballo pedia.o g/O egon_Measu e_109%2C_Psilocybin_Mush oom_Se ices_P og am_Ini
ia i e_%282020%29
3. Bouza Ga cía, L., & Del Río Villa , S. (2012). The ECI as a democ a ic inno a ion: Analysing i s
abili y o p omo e inclusion, empowe men and esponsi eness in Eu opean ci il socie y.
Pe spec i es on Eu opean Poli ics and Socie y, 13(3), 312–324.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/15705854.2012.702573
4. Bouza Ga cia, L., & G eenwood, J. (2014). The Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i e: A new sphe e o
EU poli ics?. In e es G oups & Ad ocacy, 3(3), 246-267.
5. Ca ha -Ha is, e al., (2021). T ial o psilocybin e sus esci alop am o dep ession. New
England Jou nal o Medicine, 384(15), 1402-1411.
6. Celidwen Y., e al., (2022). E hical p inciples o adi ional Indigenous medicine o guide
Wes e n psychedelic esea ch and p ac ice. The Lance Regional Heal h – Ame icas, 18,
A icle 100410. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100410 ( helance .com)
7. Chac una Ins i u e. (2021). P ess elease: Chac una launches Indigenous Voices in he
Psychedelic Renaissance. Chac una Ins i u e o Psychedelic Plan Medicines.
8. Champalimaud Founda ion. (2024). EU unds psychedelic he apy esea ch o
ea men - esis an men al diso de s & pallia i e ca e. Re ie ed on June 1, 2025, om
h ps://www. champalimaud.o g/news/eu- unds-psychedelic- he apy- esea ch- ea men - esis an -
men al-diso de s-pallia i e-ca e
9. Chomsky, N. (2017). The Responsibili y o In ellec uals. New P ess.
10. Compassion in Wo ld Fa ming. (n.d.). End he Cage Age. h ps://www.end hecageage.eu/en/
11. Cou o Jus ice o he Eu opean Union. (2024). Opinion o Ad oca e Gene al Medina in Case
C-422/21 – Eu opean Commission Hunga y.
h ps://cu ia.eu opa.eu/ju is/documen /documen .js ?docid=295864&doclang=en
12. De Rios, M. D. (1993). Twen y‐Fi e Yea s o Hallucinogenic S udies in C oss‐Cul u al
Pe spec i e. An h opology o consciousness, 4(1), 1-8
13. De Rios, M. D. (2009). The psychedelic jou ney o Ma lene Dobkin de Rios: 45 yea s wi h
shamans, ayahuasque os, and e hnobo anis s. Simon and Schus e .
14. D ug Science. (2025). Uk aine ad ances psychedelic esea ch despi e wa .
h ps://www.d ugscience.o g.uk/uk aine-psychedelic- esea ch
15. Dyck, E. (2008). Psychedelic psychia y: LSD om clinic o campus. JHU P ess.
16. Dyck, E. (2015). LSD: A new ea men eme ging om he pas . CMAJ: Canadian Medical
Associa ion Jou nal, 187(14), 1079–1080. h ps://doi.o g/10.1503/cmaj.141358 (PubMed)
17. Dyck, E., & Elcock, C. (Eds.). (2023). Expanding Mindscapes: A Global His o y o Psychedelics.
MIT P ess.
18. EUDA. (2024). F equen ly asked ques ions (FAQ): The apeu ic use o psychedelic subs ances.
Eu opean Union D ug Agency (EUDA).
h ps://www.euda.eu opa.eu/publica ions/ equen ly-asked-ques ions- aq/ aq- he apeu ic-use-psyc
hedelic-subs ances_en
33
19. Ellis, C. (2004). The e hnog aphic I: A me hodological no el abou au oe hnog aphy. Walnu
C eek, CA: Al aMi a P ess
20. Eu Ac i . 2011. Expe s s i e o make ci izens’ ini ia i e wo k.
h p://www.eu ac i .com/ u u e-eu/expe s-s i e-ci izens-ini ia i e-wo k-news-503261. Accessed
May 5, 2025.
21. Eu opean Commission. (2001). Eu opean go e nance: A whi e pape (COM(2001) 428 inal).
h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/commission/p essco ne /api/ iles/documen /p in /en/doc_01_10/DOC_01_10
_EN.pd
22. Eu opean Commission. (2012). Commission launches Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i e: A new ool o
enhance ci izen pa icipa ion. h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/commission/p essco ne /de ail/en/ip_12_450
23. Eu opean Commission. (2014). Communica ion on he Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e "Wa e and
sani a ion a e a human igh ! Wa e is a public good, no a commodi y!" (COM(2014) 177 inal).
h ps://eu -lex.eu opa.eu/legal-con en /EN/TXT/?u i=CELEX%3A52014DC0177
24. Eu opean Commission. (2015). Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e: "S op Vi isec ion". Re ie ed om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/ini ia i es/de ails/2012/000007_en
25. Eu opean Commission. (2017). Communica ion on he Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e "Ban
Glyphosa e and P o ec People and he En i onmen om Toxic Pes icides". Re ie ed om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/ini ia i es/de ails/2017/000002_en
26. Eu opean Commission. (2020). S udy on he economic impac o he o phan egula ion: Final
epo .
h ps://heal h.ec.eu opa.eu/sys em/ iles/2020-08/o phan- egula ion_s udy_ inal- epo _en_0.pd
27. Eu opean Commission. (2021, June 30). Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e: "End he Cage Age".
Re ie ed om h ps:// ood.ec.eu opa.eu/animals/animal-wel a e/eci/eci-end-cage-age_en
28. Eu opean Commission. (2023). Consul a ions wi h Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i e o ganise s:
Summa y epo . Re ie ed Ap 25, 2025 om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/si es/de aul / iles/2023-12/Repo %20-%20Consul a ions%20
wi h%20ECI%20o ganise s.pd
29. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). Sa e C uel y F ee Cosme ics – Commi o a Eu ope Wi hou
Animal Tes ing. Re ie ed May 29, 2025, om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/sa e-c uel y- ee-cosme ics-commi -eu ope-wi hou -animal- e
s ing_en
30.
31. Eu opean Commission. (2023). Re iew o he applica ion o he Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e
Regula ion: Key ac s & igu es 2020–2023. Publica ions O ice o he Eu opean Union.
h ps://www. ean sa.o g/download/eu opean_ci izens__ini ia i e_ egula ion-pd 13134708648240
2754.pd
32. Eu opean Commission. (2024). PsychedeliCa e: Ensu ing access o psychedelic-assis ed
he apies o ea men - esis an men al heal h condi ions. Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e.
Re ie ed on June 1, 2025, om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/ini ia i es/de ails/2024/000011_en
33. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e. Re ie ed Ap 22, 2025, om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/_en
34. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). Fu F ee Eu ope – Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e. Re ie ed May
29, 2025, om h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/ini ia i es/de ails/2019/000016_en
34
35. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). Ha e you say: Sha e you iews on new EU policies and laws.
h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/in o/law/be e - egula ion/ha e-you -say_en
36. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). How i wo ks – Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e. Re ie ed May 21,
2025, om h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/how-i -wo ks_en
37. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). One o Us – Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e. Re ie ed May 29, 2025,
om h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/ini ia i es/de ails/2012/000005_
38. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). Planning and p oposing law. Re ie ed Ap 30, 2025, om
h ps://commission.eu opa.eu/law/law-making-p ocess/planning-and-p oposing-law_en
39. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). Sa e bees and a me s! Towa ds a bee- iendly ag icul u e o a
heal hy en i onmen . Re ie ed May 29, 2025, om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/ini ia i es/de ails/2019/000016_en
40. Eu opean Commission. (n.d.). S op Finning – S op he T ade. Re ie ed May 29, 2025, om
h ps://ci izens-ini ia i e.eu opa.eu/ini ia i es/de ails/2020/000001_en
41. Eu opean Economic and Social Commi ee. (2010). Opinion o he Eu opean Economic and
Social Commi ee on he implemen a ion o he Lisbon T ea y: Pa icipa o y democ acy and he
ci izens’ ini ia i e – A icle 11 (2010/C 354/06).
h ps://www.eesc.eu opa.eu/nl/ou -wo k/opinions-in o ma ion- epo s/opinions/eesc-opinion-impl
emen a ion-lisbon- ea y-pa icipa o y-democ acy-and-ci izens-ini ia i e-a icle-11
42. Eu opean Medicines Agency. (2024). EMA mul i-s akeholde wo kshop on psychedelics: Towa ds
an EU egula o y amewo k. Re ie ed on May 30, 2025, om
h ps://www.ema.eu opa.eu/en/e en s/ema-mul i-s akeholde -wo kshop-psychedelics- owa ds-eu-
egula o y- amewo k
43. Eu opean Pa liamen . (n.d.). Pe i ions. Re ie ed May 1, 2025, om
h ps://www.eu opa l.eu opa.eu/pe i ions/en/home
44. Eu opean Union D ugs Agency. (2024). The apeu ic use o psychedelic subs ances: FAQs
published oday. Re ie ed on May 30, 2025, om
h ps://www.euda.eu opa.eu/news/2024/ he apeu ic-use-psychedelic-subs ances- aqs-published- o
day_en
45. Fai clough, N. (2013). C i ical discou se analysis: The c i ical s udy o language. Rou ledge.
46. Fede al Union o Eu opean Na ionali ies. (n.d.). Mino i y Sa ePack – One million signa u es o
di e si y in Eu ope. h ps://mino i y-sa epack.eu/
47. Feilding, A. (2019). The man who mapped LSD. OUPblog.
h ps://blog.oup.com/2019/02/man-mapped-lsd/
48. Foucaul , M. (1965). Madness and ci iliza ion: A his o y o insani y in he age o eason (R.
Howa d, T ans.). Random House. (O iginal wo k published 1961)
49. Foucaul , M. (1973). The bi h o he clinic: An a chaeology o medical pe cep ion (A. M.
She idan Smi h, T ans.). Vin age Books. (O iginal wo k published 1963)
50. Foucaul , M. (2003). " Socie y Mus Be De ended": Lec u es a he Collège de F ance, 1975-1976
(Vol. 1). Macmillan.
51. Ge be , K., e al., (2021). E hical Conce ns abou Psilocybin In ellec ual P ope y. ACS
pha macology & ansla ional science, 4(2), 573–577.
52. G eenwood, J. (2018). The Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i e: b inging he EU close o i s ci izens?
Comp Eu Poli 17:940–956
53. Ha so, J. P. (2019). Indigenous Iden i y and he Coca Lea : A i udes Towa ds he Coca Lea in
he mid-six een h cen u y o he la e se en een h cen u y in Colonial Pe u. Cons ella ions, 10(2).
35
54. Ha ogsohn, I. (2016). Se and se ing, psychedelics and he placebo esponse: an
ex a-pha macological pe spec i e on psychopha macology. Jou nal o psychopha macology,
30(12), 1259-1267.
55. Ha a d Di ini y School. (2025). Psychedelics, Iden i y, and Cul u al An h opology (PICA), Vol.
1. Cen e o he S udy o Wo ld Religions.
h ps://csw .hds.ha a d.edu/si es/g/ iles/omnuum4346/ iles/2025-02/2.3.25%20PICA%20 ol%2
01.pd
56. Hausne , M., & Doležal, V. (1963). P ak ické zkušenos i s halucinogeny
psycho e apii. Českoslo enská psychia ie, 59(5), 328–335.
57. Johnson, M. W., e al. (2008). Human hallucinogen esea ch: guidelines o sa e y. Jou nal o
psychopha macology, 22(6), 603-620.
58. Jo alemon, V. (2024). Wha coun s as a psychedelic? Bill o Heal h. Pe ie‑Flom Cen e o
Heal h Law Policy, Bio echnology, and Bioe hics a Ha a d Law School.
59. Kas, M. J e al., (2025). Towa ds a consensus oadmap o a new diagnos ic amewo k o men al
diso de s. Eu opean Neu opsychopha macology, 90, 16-27.
60. Lehoucq, E., & Taylo , W. K. (2020). Concep ualizing legal mobiliza ion: How should we
unde s and he deploymen o legal s a egies? Law & Social Inqui y, 45(1), 166–193.
61. Le ine, H. G. (2003). Global d ug p ohibi ion: i s uses and c ises. In e na ional Jou nal o D ug
Policy, 14(2), 145-153.
62. McCann, M. (1994). Righ s a wo k: Pay equi y e o m and he poli ics o legal mobiliza ion.
Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
63. McCann, M. (2006). Law and social mo emen s: Con empo a y pe spec i es. Annual Re iew o
Law and Social Science, 2(1), 17–38. h ps://doi.o g/10.1146/annu e .lawsocsci.2.081805.105917
64. Minis y o Heal h. (2025). New Zealand psychia is g an ed app o al o p esc ibe psilocybin.
Minis y o Heal h. Re ie ed July 2, 2025, om
h ps://www.heal h.go .nz/news/new-zealand-psychia is -g an ed-app o al- o-p esc ibe-psilocy
bin
65. Moo e, S. F. (1973). Law and Social Change: The Semi-Au onomous Social Field as an
App op ia e Subjec o S udy. Law & Socie y Re iew, 7(4), 719–746.
66. Nu , D., & Ca ha -Ha is, R. (2021). The cu en s a us o psychedelics in psychia y. JAMA
Psychia y, 78(2), 121–122.
67. Pe ez Rosal, S. R., e al. (2024). Expe ecommenda ions o Ge many’s in eg a ion o
psychedelic-assis ed he apy. BMC Medical Educa ion, 24(1), 1202.
68. Pollan, M. (2018). How o change you mind: Wha he new science o psychedelics eaches us
abou consciousness, dying, addic ion, dep ession, and anscendence. Penguin.
69. PsychedeliCa e. (2024). PsychedeliCa e Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i e. Re ie ed 1 June 2025,
om h ps://www.psychedelica e.eu
70. Rabello, E.G. and da Sil a, F.H. (2025), Psychedelic The apies as Resis ance o Neolibe alism: A
B azilian Schizoanaly ical Pe spec i e. Fu u e Humani ies, 3: e70010.
71. Rachel La . (1998). Medical Powe /Knowledge: The T ea men and Con ol o D ugs and D ug
Use s. In The Con ol o D ugs and D ug Use s: Reason o Reac ion? (1s ed.). CRC P ess.
72. Rams ed , M. (2020). No ma i e Plu alism and Jus ice a e Mul icul u alism.
73. Regula ion (EU) 2019/788 o he Eu opean Pa liamen and o he Council o 17 Ap il 2019 on he
Eu opean ci izens' ini ia i e. EUR-Lex.
h ps://eu -lex.eu opa.eu/legal-con en /EN/TXT/?u i=CELEX:02019R0788-20240502
36
74. Richa d Nixon Founda ion. (2015). P esiden Nixon decla es d ug abuse "public enemy numbe
one" [Video]. YouTube. h ps://www.you ube.com/wa ch? =y8TGLLQlD9M
75. Righ 2wa e . (n.d.). Wa e and sani a ion a e a human igh ! - Righ o Wa e . Re ie ed May 2,
2025, om h ps:// igh 2wa e .eu/
76. Salm, C. (2018). The added alue o he Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e (ECI), and i s e ision
(S udy No. PE 615.666). Eu opean Pa liamen a y Resea ch Se ice.
h ps://www.eu opa l.eu opa.eu/RegDa a/e udes/STUD/2018/615666/EPRS_STU(2018)615666_
EN.pd
77. Sa igny, F. C. on. (1831). O he oca ion o ou age o legisla ion and ju isp udence (A.
Haywa d, T ans.). Li lewood. h ps://ca alog.ha hi us .o g/Reco d/010448970
78. Sessa, B. (2020). The psychedelic enaissance: Reassessing he ole o psychedelic d ugs in 21s
cen u y psychia y and socie y. Aeon Books.
79. Si , S. (2015). Acid hype: Ame ican news media and he psychedelic expe ience. Uni e si y o
Illinois P ess.
80. Singh, M. (2025). Shamanism: The imeless eligion. Penguin Random House.
81. Smi h, D. H. (1997). G ass oo s associa ions a e impo an : Some heo y and a e iew o he
impac li e a u e. Nonp o i and olun a y sec o qua e ly, 26(3), 269-306.
82. Smi h, K., e al. (2022). MDMA‐assis ed psycho he apy o ea men o pos auma ic s ess
diso de : A sys ema ic e iew wi h me a‐analysis. The Jou nal o Clinical Pha macology, 62(4),
463-471.
83. S a o d, P. (1992). Psychedelics encyclopedia (3 d ed.). Ronin Publishing.
84. Tosun, J., & Schaub, S. (2021). Cons uc ing policy na a i es o ansna ional mobiliza ion:
Insigh s om Eu opean Ci izens’ Ini ia i es. Eu opean Policy Analysis, 7(S2), 344–364.
85. Uni ed Na ions O ice on D ugs and C ime. (2019). The in e na ional d ug con ol con en ions
(Special edi ion p epa ed o ECOSOC and he Commission on Na co ic D ugs). Uni ed Na ions.
h ps://www.unodc.o g/documen s/commissions/CND/Scheduling_Resou ce_Ma e ial/1
86. Weisski che , M. (2019). The Eu opean Ci izens' Ini ia i e: Mobiliza ion s a egies and
consequences. Eu opean Poli ics and Socie y, 20(4), 469–486.
87. Williams, K., e al. (2022). Indigenous Philosophies and he "Psychedelic Renaissance".
An h opology o Consciousness, 33(2), 506-527.
88. Zeege s, N. (2016). The Eu open Ci izens' Ini ia i e's Role in Ha ing he G ass Roo s
Associa ions Connec o he Eu opean Public Sphe e. In On Lawmaking and Public T us (pp.
201-222). Ele en In e na ional Publishing.
89. an Ams e dam, J., Nu , D., Phillips, L., & an den B ink, W. (2015). Eu opean a ing o d ug
ha ms. Jou nal o psychopha macology, 29(6), 655-660.
90. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Na a i e me hods o he human sciences. Sage.
37
