Australian broadcaster SBS recently reported on the use of ayahuasca in ‘the lucky country’ (video embedded above), which for a change gave some serious screen time to people who used the shamanic brew for self-improvement. One of those they talked to was ayahuasca ‘facilitator’ Julian Palmer – author of the book Articulations: On The Utilisation and Meanings of Psychedelics – who has over the years championed personal exploration of the mind using shamanic plants.
The feature also mentioned an upcoming meeting of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) at which they will be reviewing submissions “to legalise a small amount of DMT for religious ceremonies“. While those who think shamanic plants should be legal to use might feel that this is an exciting step forward, it may not be quite as big a deal as it sounds. Respected Australian ethnobotany figure Torsten Wiedemann has posted a detailed critique of this submission. Some of his points include:
1) I am not sure what the application is trying to achieve. The TGA schedules are not a law. They are merely recommendations to the states which have ultimate control over the schedules under the state health acts. At best the proposal could provide for a federal guide, but I very much doubt the states will simply go along with it. Having some state based ministerial support would have been crucial for this.
2) There were suggestions that the TGA is taking this seriously simply because they tabled it. They did not decide on this process. All applications to the TGA have to be considered and decided upon by the delegate. By making the application they have no choice but to process it. There have been frivolous/ridiculous/unwinnable applications in the past, so the mere acceptance means nothing and we should not read anything into that.
8) Much has been made of the religious aspect. ‘religious purposes’ was a big issue in the USA and some other countries, but has little meaning in Oz. Our federal constitution only guarantees that the federal government can’t make laws that discriminate on the basis of religion, but it does not have any control over state law [which is what the TGA schedules are empowered by]. A constitutional scholar friend of mine tells me that a TGA ruling against the proposal is not an infringement of the constitution. There may be recourse under state charters, but so far nothing like that has been successful. I have been saying for years that state support is needed to make progress on this because ultimately these are all state law matters. I think the federal approach is a waste of time unless there is a plan on launching a constitutional challenge in the Northern Territory or ACT. The hopeful view of translating religious freedom exemptions to australia is not likely to be of any merit.
9) My friends in law enforcement policy tell me that DMT is very much on the agenda – and not in a good way. The TGA will toe the line of the federal drugs council [whatever the name is escapes me right now] which is focussing to come down harder on DMT rather than to weaken their stance. The TGA has no interest or incentive to buck the trend. I am not going to waste any time on making a submission as I do not see any chance of voluntary rescheduling (ie without a court case). And even if I was wrong then rescheduling by the TGA achieves nothing in practical terms. I see the only viable options for progress on this issue via the victorian charter or a federal constitutional case. I also do not see any level of government doing this voluntarily – like so many progressive policies this needs to be imposed by a court.
In short: some natural plants, and exploration of your own consciousness, remain illegal things in the year 2016, and may soon be cracked down on even harder.