Article: A Sacred Brew, a Legal Battle, and the Question of Rights in the Psychedelic Century – Author Rayven-Nikkita (RN) Collins 

A Sacred Brew, a Legal Battle, and the Question of Rights in the Psychedelic Century 

The law’s recognition of the sacred often stops at the temple door. But what  happens when the sacrament itself is illegal?” 

On a humid afternoon in Santa Fe, a small congregation gathers inside a modest adobe building.  The scent of sage mingles with the bitter aroma of a steaming brew—ayahuasca, a traditional  Amazonian entheogen prepared from Banisteriopsis caapi vine and Psychotria viridis leaves.  The group is multi-racial and multi-class, united by a shared belief: this plant medicine is not a  narcotic, but a sacred tool for healing and connection with the divine. 

Outside, federal law sees a Schedule I controlled substance. Inside, congregants see a centuries old rite—one that U.S. courts and prosecutors have alternately criminalized, tolerated, or  narrowly protected under religious freedom statutes. The stakes are enormous: for this church,  losing in court could mean prison terms for clergy and the erasure of a spiritual lineage; winning  could affirm that the right to worship includes the right to sacred plants even under strict drug  laws. 

This is not just one congregation’s struggle. From Indigenous peyote ceremonies in Texas to  psilocybin sacrament gatherings in Oakland, communities across racial and economic lines are  probing the boundaries of “psychedelic rights.” For many Indigenous peoples, it is a fight for  cultural survival—a continuation of ceremonies preserved through colonization and prohibition.  For newer urban entheogenic churches, it is a test of how far First Amendment protections will  extend amid decriminalization movements and an emerging psychedelic industry. 

The tension between law, religion, and controlled substances is not simply about statutes. It is  about whose spirituality is recognized as legitimate, whose heritage is respected, and whose  healing is deemed worthy of protection. 

Sidebar – Case in Point: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) 

In this landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal government  could not prevent a New Mexico-based church from importing and using ayahuasca in its  ceremonies. The Court held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the  government had not shown a compelling interest sufficient to bar the sacrament. This decision  set an enduring precedent for narrowly tailored religious exemptions to federal drug laws.  【Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)】

Framing the Series 

The discussion of “psychedelic rights” sits squarely at the crossroads of law, history, public  health, commerce, and the deep inequities of race and class. This opening installment serves as  the series’ foundation, orienting readers to the legal, cultural, and historical forces shaping how  psychedelics are understood in both religious and secular contexts. It also foregrounds the lived  realities that make legal protections uneven—what is written in statutes is not always what is  enforced in practice. 

The four parts of the series can be read sequentially for a panoramic view or individually for a  focused angle: 

• Part 1 – Introduction & Context (this article): Establishes the stakes, defines key  terms, and traces the legal, cultural, and historical scaffolding of psychedelic rights. It  uses a race and class lens to show who has historically been excluded from these  conversations—and why. 
• Part 2 – Rights of Entheogenic Churches Under U.S. Law: Examines constitutional,  statutory, and case law underpinnings—from the First Amendment to RFRA— highlighting landmark decisions like Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do  Vegetal and Peyote Way Church of God v. Thornburgh. It will spotlight how enforcement  and recognition often diverge based on the racial, cultural, and economic profiles of  religious groups. 
• Part 3 – International Human Rights Dimensions: Places psychedelics within global  human rights frameworks such as the ICCPR and Indigenous rights treaties. It also  surveys comparative law approaches in Latin America, Africa, and Oceania, exploring  where national constitutions and regional courts expand or constrain ceremonial use. 
• Part 4 – Access, Equity, and the Future: Looks ahead to access—medical, religious,  and personal—in an era of commercialization, FDA pathways, and state-level  legalization. This final piece will confront the tension between profit-driven models and  equity-centered reforms, offering policy proposals to prevent further racialized exclusion  from legal psychedelic use. 

Positioning this article as the series gateway makes explicit that psychedelic law is never a  neutral terrain. Formal equality on paper can mask inequity in practice. The religious protections  afforded to UDV in O Centro are not always extended with the same speed or generosity to  Indigenous- or Black-led entheogenic groups. Throughout the series, we will return to a central  question: Who gets to claim these rights in practice, and at what cost? 

By the end of this installment, readers will have a conceptual map not only of the legal doctrines  but also of the social realities that govern how those doctrines are applied. Each subsequent  article will build on this groundwork, moving from foundational context into case-specific and  jurisdiction-specific realities. 

Historical Context: Key Global and U.S. Developments in Psychedelics,  Religion, and Law 

The story of psychedelic rights is inseparable from the histories of religion, colonization, racial  hierarchy, and state power. Across centuries and continents, psychoactive plants and fungi have  been central to spiritual and communal life—yet the law’s recognition of such practices has been  inconsistent, often shaped by the race, class, and political influence of the people involved. 

Ancient and Indigenous Traditions 

Long before the word psychedelic entered scientific vocabulary, Indigenous peoples worldwide  used psychoactive substances in ceremonial, medicinal, and religious contexts. The Mazatec in  Mexico have conducted veladas with Psilocybe mushrooms for healing and divination for  centuries (Carod-Artal, 2015). The Native American Church has incorporated peyote  (Lophophora williamsii) into prayer services for generations, blending Indigenous traditions with  Christian elements (Calabrese, 2013). In the Amazon basin, ayahuasca—a brew of Banisteriopsis  caapi vine and Psychotria viridis leaves—remains a sacrament for Shipibo, Quechua, and other  groups (Labate & Cavnar, 2014). 

Colonial regimes criminalized and suppressed these ceremonies, labeling them “superstition” or  “witchcraft” and punishing practitioners, even as they extracted botanical knowledge for profit  (Feinsilver, 1993). This early legal marginalization built a racialized hierarchy: European  Christian sacraments were tolerated or even protected, while Indigenous spiritual practices were  criminalized. 

Colonial and Post-Colonial Erasure of Ceremonial Rights 

European conquest in the Americas brought both resource extraction and cultural suppression.  The Spanish Inquisition actively targeted Indigenous entheogenic ceremonies, burning sacred  plants and prosecuting shamans (Guzmán, 2019). Economic exploitation accompanied  suppression: plants like coca were taxed and commodified for European markets, while  Indigenous coca use was restricted or stigmatized. 

In the United States, Native ceremonial use of peyote was marginalized by early 20th-century  prohibitionist laws, even as sacramental wine remained legal for Christian churches during  Prohibition. This selective enforcement illustrates how race and religion intersected to determine  which spiritual practices the law considered legitimate. 

20th Century Prohibition and the War on Drugs 

In the mid-20th century, psychedelics entered Western popular consciousness through both  scientific research and countercultural experimentation. LSD trials at Harvard, psilocybin studies  in psychiatry, and the popularization of ayahuasca and peyote beyond their traditional contexts  helped spark a global psychedelic movement (Dyck, 2005).

Political backlash soon followed. The 1971 U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances  classified many psychedelics as Schedule I, and the U.S. mirrored these controls in the  Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Article 32 of the Convention allowed traditional uses to  continue in some countries, but the carve-out was narrow and inconsistently applied. 

Domestically, the War on Drugs disproportionately targeted communities of color, producing  stark racial disparities in arrests and incarceration for drug-related offenses—including  psychedelics—despite similar usage rates across racial groups (Alexander, 2010). Indigenous  and Afro-diasporic ceremonial uses remained largely criminalized unless covered by narrow,  federally recognized exemptions. 

Late 20th to Early 21st Century Legal Carve-Outs 

The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision weakened First Amendment religious freedom  protections, prompting Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993.  RFRA became the basis for landmark victories like Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente  União do Vegetal (2006), where the Supreme Court upheld UDV’s right to use ayahuasca in its  ceremonies. 

Access to such carve-outs, however, remains uneven. Wealthier, white-led churches with legal  teams—such as Santo Daime and UDV—have achieved recognition, while smaller Indigenous or Black-led groups remain vulnerable to raids and prosecution (Labate & Cavnar, 2014). 

Contemporary Shifts 

Over the last two decades, psychedelic interest has surged again. U.S. cities such as Oakland,  Denver, and Seattle have passed decriminalization measures, and Oregon and Colorado have  implemented state-level reforms. Yet these initiatives often prioritize medical or commercial  

pathways, sidelining traditional ceremonial contexts and raising questions about cultural  appropriation and profit extraction from Indigenous knowledge (George et al., 2020).

Defining “Psychedelic Rights” 

The phrase psychedelic rights encompasses a complex web of legal, cultural, and ethical claims  tied to the use, possession, cultivation, and ceremonial practice of psychoactive substances for  spiritual, medical, and communal purposes. Public conversations often narrow the frame to  individual liberty or therapeutic access, but a truly accurate definition must be broader and  intersectional—one that accounts for race, class, Indigeneity, and systemic power dynamics. 

Core Legal Dimensions 

At its core, psychedelic rights involve legal recognition of several intertwined entitlements: 

• Religious Freedom – The right to use psychedelics in sincerely held spiritual practices,  protected under U.S. instruments like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)  and by international human rights law. 
• Cultural Sovereignty – The right of Indigenous and culturally distinct communities to  maintain entheogenic traditions without state interference, recognized in the U.N.  Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Article 24. 
• Medical Autonomy – The right to access psychedelics for therapeutic or palliative care,  grounded in bodily autonomy and informed consent. 
• Freedom from Discrimination – The right to exercise these liberties without racial,  economic, or geographic barriers. 

These dimensions frequently overlap. For instance, an Indigenous-led ayahuasca church may  invoke religious freedom, cultural sovereignty, and health-based claims simultaneously when  defending against state prosecution. 

Intersection with Race and Class 

While psychedelic rights appear universal on paper, their enforcement is shaped by systemic  inequities. White-led religious or nonprofit groups have been disproportionately successful in  securing federal exemptions or winning court battles—such as União do Vegetal in Gonzales v. O  Centro Espírita—largely because they have legal counsel, financial backing, and political  networks (Labate & Cavnar, 2014). By contrast, Black, Indigenous, and low-income  practitioners often face heightened legal risk, limited institutional support, and greater exposure  to law enforcement surveillance (George et al., 2020). 

This disparity underscores a critical truth: “rights” in statutes or treaties do not guarantee  equitable protection in reality. The same ceremonial act—ingesting peyote, brewing ayahuasca,  or consuming psilocybin—can lead to legal immunity for one group and incarceration for  another, depending on race, class, and cultural context. 

Expanding the Concept Beyond Law

Psychedelic rights are not merely legal entitlements; they also encompass cultural and ethical  commitments: 

• Knowledge Protection – Safeguarding traditional plant medicine knowledge from  appropriation or commercialization without consent and benefit-sharing (Hudson et al.,  2016). 
• Ecological Stewardship – Recognizing the environmental strain caused by increased  psychedelic demand, particularly on vulnerable species like peyote or certain ayahuasca  vine varieties. 
• Historical Redress – Confronting the harms of prohibition, including expunging past  convictions and developing reparative measures for communities disproportionately  targeted during criminalization. 

Framed this way, psychedelic rights function as a restorative justice project—one that  acknowledges colonial and racialized legacies while safeguarding the cultural, spiritual, and  ecological integrity of entheogenic practices. 

Key Legal Frameworks and Precedent Cases 

The legal landscape for psychedelic rights—both in the United States and globally—is defined  by a patchwork of constitutional protections, statutory exemptions, judicial interpretations, and  international human rights instruments. Understanding these frameworks is essential because  recognition—and denial—of psychedelic rights has consistently tracked lines of race, class, and  cultural capital. 

U.S. Constitutional and Statutory Frameworks 

First Amendment – Free Exercise Clause 

The Free Exercise Clause protects religious practice, but its scope narrowed with Employment  Division v. Smith (1990), when the Supreme Court held that generally applicable laws could be  enforced even if they incidentally burdened religious observance. Indigenous communities using  peyote were disproportionately affected—suddenly losing federal protection unless Congress  intervened. 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (1993)  RFRA, enacted in response to Smith, restored the requirement that government burdens on  religion must meet “compelling interest” and “least restrictive means” tests. RFRA has  empowered psychedelic religious claims—most prominently in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita  Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006)—but victories have generally been secured by well resourced, predominantly white-led organizations with the capacity for costly litigation. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) Amendments (1994) The 1994 amendments explicitly safeguarded peyote use for members of federally recognized  tribes. But the amendments excluded many Native practitioners—particularly those from  unrecognized tribes or urban areas—revealing how access to religious freedom can depend on  political recognition and geography. 

International Human Rights Instruments 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 18 Article 18 protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, which can include ceremonial  entheogen use as a manifestation of religion—subject to permissible public health or public order  limitations. Enforcement is weak where domestic drug laws take precedence. 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) Articles 11, 12, and 24 affirm Indigenous peoples’ rights to maintain and protect spiritual  practices and medicinal plant use. Yet UNDRIP is non-binding, and many states invoke the 1971  U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances to justify restrictions—creating a persistent tension  between Indigenous rights commitments and drug control regimes. 

Landmark Precedent Cases in the U.S.

• Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) –  The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a RFRA-based injunction allowing UDV to  import and use ayahuasca. The decision underscored RFRA’s strength but highlighted  inequities: UDV’s success was enabled by significant legal resources and the optics of a  Brazilian-origin church with largely white U.S. leadership. 
• Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or.  2009) – Extended RFRA protections to another ayahuasca church, reinforcing O Centro. 
• Native American Church v. Navajo County (various state-level cases) – Illustrate the  limits of peyote protections when practitioners belong to unrecognized tribes,  underscoring that AIRFA-based rights are contingent on political classifications shaped  by colonial dispossession. 

Race, Class, and Legal Accessibility 

The ability to invoke these frameworks hinges on financial means, social capital, and legal  expertise. Black and Indigenous practitioners have been underrepresented in successful  psychedelic rights litigation while disproportionately policed for the same acts. Wealthy urban  practitioners are more likely to secure exemptions, lobby for decriminalization, or operate under  legal gray zones with relative impunity (George et al., 2020). 

As a result, these frameworks function less as universal shields and more as selective filters— granting meaningful protection to those with resources and political legitimacy while leaving  marginalized communities exposed. 

Core Tensions: Religious Use vs. Public Health vs. Regulation vs.  Commercialization 

The modern psychedelic landscape is shaped by four competing—and frequently overlapping— forces: defending religious freedom, promoting public health, meeting regulatory compliance,  and responding to commercialization pressures. Each operates within a different legal and  cultural register, yet their intersections reveal persistent racial and class inequities. 

1. Religious Freedom vs. Public Health 

Indigenous nations and syncretic churches frame psychedelic use as a sacred right under  domestic and international law. Public health agencies, however, often evaluate these practices  through a harm-reduction lens, citing unregulated settings, substance purity, and potential mental  health crises. Historically, public health rationales have been weaponized to restrict marginalized  groups while similar risks are tolerated for affluent, majority-white communities (George et al.,  2020). For example, peyote access for the Native American Church has been limited under the  banner of ecological sustainability, even as non-Indigenous peyote tourism persists with minimal  oversight (Labate & Feeney, 2016). 

2. Regulatory Compliance vs. Religious Exemptions 

DEA scheduling, state licensing systems, and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards  prioritize uniformity and oversight, but they rarely accommodate communal, non-commercial  governance traditions. RFRA and AIRFA provide potential relief, yet securing exemptions  requires significant legal infrastructure—resources that groups like União do Vegetal and Santo  Daime can muster, while many Indigenous and diasporic churches cannot. Regulation, therefore,  often depends less on sacramental legitimacy and more on financial and political capacity. 

3. Commercialization and Market Capture 

As psychedelic-assisted therapy nears FDA approval, corporations are amassing patents,  trademarks, and exclusive licenses for plant-derived compounds and delivery systems  (McMahon, 2021). Commercialization may broaden access, but it risks enclosing Indigenous  knowledge into proprietary formats—stripping cultural context while monetizing active  compounds. Those with venture capital secure early market share, while Black, Brown, and  Indigenous practitioners risk arrest if they continue traditional practices outside sanctioned  channels. The same plants once criminalized in marginalized communities now reappear as  premium wellness products for elite markets. 

4. Policy Narratives and Cultural Power 

Policy debates pivot on dominant narratives: 

• Religious freedom → Sacraments as constitutionally and culturally protected.
• Public health → Psychedelics as potential risks needing oversight. 
• Innovation/economic growth → Commercialization and biomedicalization. 

In the U.S., the first and third narratives are most often advanced by well-resourced, majority white organizations, while the public health narrative is disproportionately imposed on  communities of color. This imbalance skews the supposedly “neutral” balancing of interests. 

Race, Class, and Intersectional Harms 

When these forces collide, those with the least political capital bear the heaviest burdens.  Examples include: 

• Indigenous peyote harvesters facing both ecological scarcity from overharvesting and  legal scrutiny despite millennia of sustainable practice. 
• Urban Black entheogenic churches lacking the zoning, legal counsel, or alliances  necessary for RFRA protections, leaving them vulnerable to raids. 
• Low-income patients finding psychedelic-assisted therapy unaffordable even as the  same substances circulate freely in unregulated luxury retreat markets. 

These structural asymmetries show that psychedelic rights are more than a legal puzzle: they are  a litmus test for whether a society can reconcile spiritual autonomy, public health, and capitalist  expansion without replicating racial and economic hierarchies. 

Preview of What’s Ahead 

This opening article has situated psychedelics within a complex web of history, law, religion,  race, and class—but the story is only beginning. The next three installments in this series will  dive deeper into the statutes, cases, and global dynamics that define “psychedelic rights.” 

Part 2 – Rights of Entheogenic Churches Under U.S. Law 

We will examine the constitutional and statutory protections that have allowed some religious  communities—especially those centered on ayahuasca, peyote, and psilocybin—to operate  within U.S. borders. Expect a close analysis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),  pivotal federal and state-level decisions, and the administrative mechanisms through which some  groups have secured exemptions. We will also interrogate who gets recognized as a “legitimate”  religious group, why Indigenous-led traditions are more strictly policed than predominantly  white-led movements, and how access to legal counsel and financial resources shapes outcomes  (Bronfman, 2021; Echo-Hawk, 2013; Konnoth, 2018). 

Part 3 – International Human Rights Law and Global Access Models 

Moving beyond U.S. borders, Part 3 will explore how entheogens are addressed in international  law, including the 1971 U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances and evolving  interpretations of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  We will examine comparative law approaches emerging in Latin America, Europe, and Oceania,  with a focus on race and class in cross-border enforcement. From Amazonian Indigenous  communities to European urban religious centers, we will highlight how geopolitics, economic  leverage, and colonial legacies influence access to sacred and therapeutic use (Barrett & Gomez,  2022; Seddon, 2020). 

Part 4 – Policy Futures: Balancing Rights, Safety, and Commercialization 

The final installment will look forward, proposing policy frameworks that balance religious  freedom, public health, and equitable access. We will assess state-level reforms such as those in  Oregon and Colorado, explore proposals for federal exemptions, and consider potential treaty  reforms. This section will critically examine commercialization’s risks—like pricing out  working-class or Indigenous users—unless explicit equity protections, redistribution  mechanisms, and culturally informed licensing standards are implemented (Williams, 2023;  George & Hawkins, 2021). 

By the end of the series, readers will have a panoramic understanding of the legal, historical, and  sociocultural forces shaping psychedelic rights—and a roadmap for how law and policy might  evolve to protect those rights while promoting equity, safety, and respect for the traditions that  birthed these practices. 

 

Reference List (APA 7) 

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The  New Press. 

Barrett, F., & Gomez, E. (2022). Sacred plants and international law: Indigenous knowledge,  sustainability, and rights. Journal of International Human Rights, 18(2), 45–78. 

Beadle, S. (2021). Religious freedom and psychedelics: The legal landscape in the U.S. Journal  of Law and Religion, 36(3), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.25 

Bronfman, L. (2021). Entheogens and religious freedom in the United States. Religious Studies  Review, 47(3), 299–311. 

Calabrese, J. (2013). The therapeutic use of peyote in the Native American Church. Medical  Anthropology Quarterly, 27(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12045 

Carod-Artal, F. J. (2015). Hallucinogenic drugs in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures.  Neurología (English Edition), 30(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2011.07.002 

Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009). 

Dyck, E. (2005). Flashback: Psychiatric experimentation with LSD in historical context.  Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(7), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370505000703 

Echo-Hawk, W. R. (2013). In the courts of the conqueror: The 10 worst Indian law cases ever  decided. Fulcrum Publishing. 

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). 

Feinsilver, J. M. (1993). Healing the masses: Cuban health politics at home and abroad. University of California Press. 

George, J. R., Michaels, T. I., Sevelius, J., & Williams, M. T. (2020). The psychedelic  renaissance and the limitations of colorblind psychedelic research. Journal of Psychedelic  Studies, 4(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.015 

George, S., & Hawkins, J. (2021). Equitable psychedelic policy: Avoiding the cannabis mistakes.  Drug Policy Futures, 4(1), 12–29. 

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). 

Guzmán, G. (2019). Entheogenic fungi: An ethnomycological overview. In Sacred mushrooms  and man: A study of mushrooms in religion. UNAM Press. 

Hudson, M., Farrar, D., McLean, R., et al. (2016). Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous  perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data. Nature Reviews Genetics, 17(6), 362–368.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.45

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. 

Konnoth, C. (2018). Free exercise and the regulation of religious conduct. Yale Law & Policy  Review, 36(1), 1–59. 

Labate, B. C., & Cavnar, C. (Eds.). (2014). Ayahuasca shamanism in the Amazon and beyond. Oxford University Press. 

Labate, B. C., Cavnar, C., & Gearin, A. (Eds.). (2017). The world ayahuasca diaspora:  Reinventions and controversies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315521284 

Labate, B. C., & Feeney, K. (2016). Peyote and the Native American Church: An ethnobotanical  review. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 48(3), 193–202. https://doi.org/ 

10.1080/02791072.2016.1207828 

McMahon, J. (2021). Psychedelic medicine patents: An early look at the landscape. Nature  Biotechnology, 39, 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-00745-3 

Native American Church v. Navajo County (state-level cases). 

Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 922 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1991). Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. 

Seddon, T. (2020). Governing psychedelics: Global policy approaches. International Journal of  Drug Policy, 84, 102934. 

United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21, 1971, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175. 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, G.A. Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc. A/ RES/61/295 (2007). 

Williams, M. (2023). Psychedelic commercialization and social justice. Harvard Law & Policy  Review, 17(2), 211–256.