OPINION ON THE “AYAHUASCA” CASE
In the “ayahuasca” case, sentences were imposed for conducting group sessions during which a drink made from the South American vine ayahuasca, which has psychotropic effects, was served. Two organizers of the sessions received unconditional sentences of 8.5 and 5.5 years, the third defendant was released on probation.
October 13, 2022, Prague
In the “ayahuasca” case, sentences were imposed for conducting group sessions during which a drink made from the South American vine ayahuasca, which has psychotropic effects, was served. Two organizers of the sessions received unconditional sentences of 8.5 and 5.5 years, the third defendant was released on probation.
We are aware that ayahuasca contains the active substance dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is included in the list of addictive substances, and therefore its handling is illegal. DMT is a substance classified as a so-called classic psychedelic, unlike alcohol or opiates, it does not cause physical dependence. Classic psychedelics are being researched and increasingly used in combination with psychotherapy in the treatment of anxiety and depression, psychosomatic and sexual disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychotic illnesses or personality disorders. In therapy, they are considered an effective tool that allows insight into and change of disturbed patterns of emotions, behavior, experiences, access to unconscious material, positive change of personality and value system. In Latin America, ayahuasca is traditionally used in traditional rituals, with great success it is used, for example, to treat addiction to opiates, especially heroin.
Psychedelics are not the drug of dealers and gangs, they are not associated with criminogenic risks or risks of addiction like alcohol or heroin, they are not associated with enormous morbidity and mortality like tobacco.
We do not question the independence and impartiality of the Czech judiciary and we believe that justice will be found in the appeal proceedings. We turn to you with our opinion as legislators who can actively participate in the process of changing laws. We are convinced that Act No. 40/2009 Coll., the Criminal Code, deserves a revision that would better assess the actual social harm of individual acts. Although the general part of Section 12, paragraph 2 states that: “Criminal liability of the perpetrator and the criminal consequences associated with it may be applied only in socially harmful cases in which the application of liability under another legal regulation is not sufficient.” And Section 39, paragraph 2 explains that: “The nature and seriousness of a criminal act are determined in particular by the significance of the protected interest affected by the act, the manner in which the act was committed and its consequences, the circumstances under which the act was committed, the person of the perpetrator, the degree of his guilt and his motive, intention or goal.”, these criteria are not always applied in the decision-making practice of the courts. It is therefore possible that a heroin dealer, who causes severe physical addiction and often death, will receive a lesser sentence than a shaman who performs rituals that do not harm anyone's health and have no other negative social impacts.
A special section certainly deserves revision. We are convinced that the level of some sentences violates the principle of proportionality. For example, for rape under Section 185, the perpetrator can be punished with imprisonment for six months (the lower limit of the sentence). A person who, under Section 168, gives up a child to be used as a slave can be punished with imprisonment for two years. Although these are the lower limits of sentences, there is a clear disparity between the possible punishment for these highly socially dangerous crimes and the actual sentences for psychedelic sessions, in which no one was harmed (the participants' testimonies, on the contrary, prove the healing benefits of the sessions) and their social danger, if they are carried out in accordance with the latest evidence-based expert recommendations, is almost zero.
In this context, it is also worth paying attention to the possible amendment of Act No. 167/1998 Coll., on addictive substances, which would decriminalize the safe conduct of a psychedelic experience under defined conditions. Such a proposal is currently being assessed by an expert interdepartmental team in the broader context of the decriminalization of criminal policy in the area of handling addictive substances for personal use or for treatment or self-medication.
We believe that the Constitutional and Legal Committee of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic will use its influence and initiate a debate on the much-needed change in the criminal law regulation of addictive substances.
