Legalization versus Decriminalization in the Protection of Peyote
Recently CCI weighed in on SB 519, which seeks to decriminalize some hallucinogenic substances, including peyote. We encouraged the bill to include cultivation of peyote for reasons that have been published in a prior blog and will not be repeated here. In responses to CCI and in sharing some of our posts, some have confused decriminalization with legalization. CCI wishes to emphasize that we take no political stance on the topic of decriminalization or legalization, but we do wish to explain the differences here and how they might impact conservation of peyote. In the USA, the legal differences between the two matters. For example, some describe the NAC having peyote decriminalized in 1996 yet the reality is that peyote was clearly affirmed by Congress as being completely legal for federally recognized indigenous groups to possess, consume and transport. It is also potentially legal for them to cultivate it by satisfying the requirements of its regulation as is described in the Controlled Substances Act.
Decriminalization simply means that an activity will no longer be policed and adjudicated through actions such as arrests and jail sentences, although possibly fines may still be administered and in some instances rehabilitation may be required. Legalization fully allows the activity as well as allows for additional regulation, which, for instance, may pertain to patents, distribution practices, acceptable usage, and other matters. It takes the substance out of the hands of illegal distributors and makes it a for-profit substance. For a detailed discussion of how decriminalization versus legalization impacts the cannabis industry, you can read this article from the early days of cannabis legalization.
Our main interest in SB 519 was to ensure that peyote cultivation was included as an option for groups for whom it is already legal, namely, members of indigenous groups recognized by federal law, should they wish to cultivate. It should be noted that cultivation by such sincere worshippers is already permitted in many states, although not in the State of Texas, where it is naturally occurring. It is not our intention to tell NAC what to do or not do but we strongly support the ability of indigenous people to have the freedom to make their own decisions about cultivation. This one action alone could have significant benefit on the wild peyote population through reduction of harvesting pressures and would give indigenous peoples an autonomous conservation path while protecting their religious freedom. In addition, the law already clearly anticipates cultivation by those who are recognized to have the rights to possess, transport and consume it. This clarification to SB 519 would be consistent with what is already understood to be permissible, if not explicitly stated in federal law.
