Coming Out of the Psychedelic Closet

Millions of people across the US have admitted to using a psychedelic at some point in their lives, but are they coming out of the psychedelic closet? Despite increasing scientific research around their benefits, as Schedule 1 drugs, many people still do not want to disclose their use of psychedelics.

Recent survey data shows that around 8 million people in the US used psilocybin in 2023, citing self-exploration and therapeutic use as a reason for taking them. 

Likewise, further data shows huge public support for the legalisation of psychedelics for therapeutic use across countries such as the US, the UK, and Europe. 

Despite this indicating that society’s perception of psychedelics is shifting from dangerous drugs to helpful medicines, stigma around these substances is still widespread.

Rescheduling could be key to unlocking people’s psychedelic stories, which will help us gain a deeper understanding of how widespread their use is, how people are using them, and what impact they are having on people’s lives.  

Most psychedelics are in the highest category of illegality in the majority of countries across the world, with a few progressive exceptions. 

This can make it very difficult for people to openly share their experiences of how these compounds have, positively or negatively, impacted their lives or health. 

In particular, researchers, therapists, and public officials who have experimented with them may have rather negative consequences if they do so.

For example, a survey from 2023 revealed that drug researchers who work with these compounds, who admitted to also using psychedelics, were seen as having less scientific integrity by their colleagues. 

When reputation, funding, positions, and lifelong careers could be at stake, some professionals will give careful consideration before disclosing this activity. 

For any kind of individual, likewise, disclosing use of a Schedule I/Class A drug could have significantly negative ramifications in their work or personal lives, not just now, but also potentially in the future.

There are, of course, reams of anonymous (and not so anonymous) trip reports floating around on the internet, but unless you are seeking them out, it is unlikely you will stumble on them.

These kinds of reports, like reports from Erowid and Reddit, are often used as data for research studies, and while this is a fantastic way of informing research, it doesn’t have a wider emotional impact.

Emotional connection is often the key to unlocking a deeper understanding of how the use of psychedelics can impact our lives and to unlocking potential cultural shifts around how we use them.

The now long-running US cannabis industry and the relatively-newly birthed medical cannabis industries in Europe and the UK have been built on the back of brave individuals who had the courage to speak about their therapeutic use of the medicine and demand their right to legally access it.

A similar situation is now unfolding with psychedelics, and while there are stories of psychedelic transformations in the media, the difference in legality between psychedelics and cannabis leaves a chasm of understanding.

Cannabis is in a lower category of scheduling, making it easier to talk about. Psychedelics being in the highest schedule means many people are keeping their tongues tied about their experiences – and, while some of them may appear as a statistic on a data sheet, the impact of their experiences is less understood by wider society.

There are many scientists, philanthropists, and businesses contributing to furthering our scientific understanding of psychedelics; however, there likely remain many more who still see these compounds as something to avoid.

The stringent scheduling of psychedelics, like LSD and psilocybin, makes them very expensive and still rather controversial to research.

Campaign groups – such as the Psilocybin Access Rights campaign and the European Citizens’ Initiative for Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies – are calling for the rescheduling of psilocybin, for example, to make research into these compounds more accessible for scientists as we face a pressing, global mental health crisis.

Rescheduling psychedelics to a lower category would not only make it easier for scientists to research them, but also make it easier for people and patients to come forward and share their stories without being criminalised.

The problem of disclosure expands beyond their therapeutic use – those who use the compounds for spiritual purposes, or as cited in the surveys, for self-exploration, may have even more stigma around admitting their use.

Humans have used mind-altering substances for thousands of years. Sharing stories about using psychedelics recreationally raises big questions over our access to these substances – our right to put in our bodies what we want, and experiment with our consciousness as we want, if it is not a danger to others.

In his essay On Liberty, published in 1859, the philosopher John Stuart Mill discusses the idea that a state or society should only intervene with individual liberties in order to prevent harm to others. Any act that only impacts the individual and not others should fall outside the responsibility of the law.

Mill writes, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Psychedelics, indeed, are the perfect example of this. Using psychedelics – whether for therapeutic purposes, spiritual purposes, general recreation, or exploring one’s own consciousness – is an act which carries risk mainly for the individual. 

Equally, he explores the idea of freedom of expression:

The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it.

Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.

No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

If You Want to Come Out of the Psychedelic Closet