Politics of Peyote

The Independent article “Santa Barbara’s Psychedelic Social Club Pushes to Decriminalize Natural Hallucinogens in City” discusses a new initiative to decriminalize psychedelics plants and fungi. The article mentions that peyote is included, but it does not mention how contentious this inclusion is. Indigenous groups have begged for peyote to not be included in decriminalization measures.

The Native American Church already has the right to legally use peyote, and indigenous Americans have been using the plant for centuries. Because peyote is a very endangered plant that takes very long to grow, there simply will not be enough peyote for the indigenous who deserve the right to use it if it gets decriminalized.

Luckily, there is an alternative that works for everyone. Peyote is a cactus that contains the psychedelic drug mescaline, but it is not the only cactus to do so. San Pedro is another mescaline-containing cactus, and it is already legal and abundant around Southern California. With an alternative, legal, and abundant mescaline-containing cactus, there is no reason to force peyote — a sacred medicine for indigenous groups — into extinction. Of course, this is in addition to more popular psychedelics like psilocybin mushrooms, which should also be decriminalized (I recommend checking out the Decriminalize California initiative to legalize psilocybin in the state).

This is a moment to decide what the psychedelic renaissance will be. Will it be for “hip” rich white people and psychedelic corporations? Or will it be for all of us, including our indigenous brothers and sisters?

If District 216 would simply remove peyote from the petition, they would gather much broader support and wouldn’t have to deal with this backlash. Given abundant and legal mescaline-containing cacti of other species, there is no good reason to include it. Removing peyote is both the politically strategic thing to do and the morally right thing to do.