California could legalize the use of hallucinatory drugs like Peyote. Do you agree? | Opinion
Peyote is a small, spineless, button-shaped cactus capable of producing hallucinatory effects upon ingestion. While there have been movements in recent years to protect indigenous peoples’ religious right to peyote, equitable access to the plant requires more action. Senator Scott Wiener’s proposal, Senate Bill 58 — which decriminalizes the possession and cultivation of peyote, among other psychedelics — could shift California closer to this goal than ever before.
After the federal government uprooted tribes from their ancestral lands and relocated them to the arid American Southwest in the mid-1800s, peyote became a staple in the religious practices of tribes including the Apaches, Comanches, Kiowas and Navajos. Despite peyote’s cultural significance, the Supreme Court upheld state laws banning the cactus without religious exemption in 1990. Peyote currently remains a Schedule I drug under the Drug Enforcement Agency’s classifications, alongside ecstasy and heroin.
Opinion
Consider the benefits of legalization: Decriminalizing the Schedule I drug could boost California’s economy. The last time California decriminalized a Schedule I drug — marijuana — the Golden State raked in $5 billion in economic growth, and the cash crop yielded 83,000 jobs to date. In the first quarter of 2023 alone, marijuana sales in California generated more than $216 million in tax revenue. There’s little reason to believe that the legalization of peyote growing wouldn’t reap similar economic rewards.
Furthermore, the decriminalization process has never been safer. Decriminalizing the growing of peyote carries significantly less risk than decriminalizing the production of other drugs. One mitigating factor is its natural growth cycle. Peyote takes between six to 12 years to mature under greenhouse conditions while marijuana plants mature in eight to 12 weeks and opium poppies mature in 120 days. The dedication peyote growing requires is more likely to garner the engagement of individuals more akin to wine growers than clandestine apothecaries.
Keep in mind that the “dangerous” part of peyote has already been commercially available to the American public for decades without widespread negative ramifications. The hallucinogenic chemical in peyote is called mescaline. Mescaline is also found in San Pedro cacti, “Peruvian Torch” cacti and many other common cacti that are legally bought and sold every day in nurseries like those found at Lowe’s or Home Depot. Mescaline levels found in the San Pedro cacti can be as much as 4.7%, similar to levels found in peyote.
Decriminalizing peyote can’t increase dangerous contact with mescaline, since public access to the drug would not fundamentally change.
In fact, many Californian cities have already pushed for completely decriminalizing possession of the plant. By removing negative stigmas associated with indigenous religious use, California can help ensure that all indigenous peoples have access to peyote, not just those who belong to federally recognized tribes. With that said, some indigenous groups oppose bills like SB 58 because they worry that legalization will increase poaching and habitat destruction.
If California were to join the market, the Golden State could compete alongside the Lone Star State to relieve the strain on suppliers and the natural habitat.
Passing SB 58 could help heal the fraught relationship between California and its indigenous tribes. Plus, it’s not every day that a state gets the opportunity to bolster its economy while upholding justice. California has nothing to lose but an outdated perspective on a small, spineless, button-shaped cactus.
Stephen Dai is an undergraduate researcher focused on constitutional law at UC Berkeley. This piece was also informed by conversations with Anthony Carrasco and Kenneth Bryan Hsu.
