Psychedelics, spirituality and drug policy: Harm reduction without compulsory medicalisation
Abstract
Psychedelic experiences can be meaningful and beneficial, including outside clinical treatment. They can also leave people distressed or vulnerable. Spiritual interpretations of these experiences therefore raise a practical question for drug policy: how can people be protected while preserving legitimate uses beyond psychiatry? Drawing on selected human studies and ethical and policy scholarship, this Commentary examines naturalistic benefits, mystical experiences, and concerns about spiritual bypassing and spiritual emergency, whose definitions and empirical support remain uneven. We argue that uncertainty about these risks calls for prevention and proportionate safeguards, but does not, by itself, justify restricting access to psychiatric treatment. We propose four priorities across clinical, community, and religious settings: meaningful consent, protection against exploitation, accessible support after use, and follow-up that records difficulties as well as benefits. Particular attention should be paid to interpretive autonomy: people's freedom to understand and reconsider their experiences without pressure to adopt a provider's beliefs. We claim that the notions of cognitive liberty and freedom of religion or belief strengthen the importance of scrutinising unnecessary restrictions, while retaining duties to prevent coercion and harm. We propose that policy assessment should also include harms associated with prohibition. The aim is to protect people during potentially valuable but vulnerable experiences, including those who seek meaning or well-being without a psychiatric diagnosis.
Related
- Feasibility and potential benefits of daily online adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer without margin reduction using an RTT-only workflow
- Legislative differences in compulsory mental health care for children and adolescents across European countries
- Myopia prevalence among students in nine-year and independent compulsory education schools: a retrospective cross-sectional study.
- Pharmaceutical access in medical security systems and health policy mobilization: cross-national evidence on TRIPS compulsory licensing from 2001 to 2024
- Caution before canonisation: a clinical and implementation science perspective on psychedelics.
BibTeX
@misc{fauvel2026psychedelics,
title = {{Psychedelics, spirituality and drug policy: Harm reduction without compulsory medicalisation}},
author = {Baptiste Fauvel},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/jxky8_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jxky8_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Psychedelics, spirituality and drug policy: Harm reduction without compulsory medicalisation
AU - Baptiste Fauvel
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/22
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/jxky8_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jxky8_v1/
AB - Psychedelic experiences can be meaningful and beneficial, including outside clinical treatment. They can also leave people distressed or vulnerable. Spiritual interpretations of these experiences therefore raise a practical question for drug policy: how can people be protected while preserving legitimate uses beyond psychiatry? Drawing on selected human studies and ethical and policy scholarship, this Commentary examines naturalistic benefits, mystical experiences, and concerns about spiritual bypassing and spiritual emergency, whose definitions and empirical support remain uneven. We argue that uncertainty about these risks calls for prevention and proportionate safeguards, but does not, by itself, justify restricting access to psychiatric treatment. We propose four priorities across clinical, community, and religious settings: meaningful consent, protection against exploitation, accessible support after use, and follow-up that records difficulties as well as benefits. Particular attention should be paid to interpretive autonomy: people's freedom to understand and reconsider their experiences without pressure to adopt a provider's beliefs. We claim that the notions of cognitive liberty and freedom of religion or belief strengthen the importance of scrutinising unnecessary restrictions, while retaining duties to prevent coercion and harm. We propose that policy assessment should also include harms associated with prohibition. The aim is to protect people during potentially valuable but vulnerable experiences, including those who seek meaning or well-being without a psychiatric diagnosis.
ER -