Reframing the Narrative: Cultural Tensions of Psychedelic Drugs
By: Sophie Peralta
Tags: Psychology, Culture, Government, Drugs, Psychedelics

Reframing the Narrative: Cultural Tensions of Psychedelic Drugs

Photo by Christopher Ott on Unsplash

Despite thousands of years of traditional Indigenous use and sufficient Western clinical research, there continues to be the criminalization of psilocybin mushrooms, also known as magic mushrooms in most clinical settings. Arguably, this is due to the influence of America’s countercultural messaging of the 1960s which have shaped the way we classify, use and perceive entheogenic medicines.

In this article, I examine the tensions surrounding the war on drugs and the controversy of magic mushrooms in a communications perspective. First, I illustrate the crisis that occurs when a countercultural thought leader challenges the status quo. Second, I examine the influence of government messaging on criminalizing drugs and drug users. To conclude, I debate reframing the narrative of magic mushrooms in clinical settings.

The ‘Hippier’ Times

In the 1960s, drug culture in Western countries blossomed among younger generations (Manning 2013, 110). Magic mushrooms entered Western public discourse in the late 1950s, triggered by R. Gordon Wasson’s article in Life and more generally embraced by ‘hippy’ counterculture (Riley, 2010). At this time, psychedelics elicited interest rather than horror (The Economist, 2019). From this wide acceptance, the therapeutic potential of magic mushrooms was discussed by scientists and enthusiasts.

Over 1,000 research papers involving 40,000 volunteers are reckoned to have been published in this period, looking into magic mushrooms’ potential for treating a wide range of mental illnesses (The Economist, 2019). Yet not everyone celebrated the use of psychedelics. Since the late 1950s, social issues related to drugs have grown and the numbers of drug-related suicides, crimes and accidents have risen — “with the development of communication technologies disseminating information on drug culture and the drugs themselves” (Manning 2013, 110).

Thought Leaders

In 1959, a significant figure of the psychedelic community, Timothy Leary alongside colleague Richard Alpert started the Harvard Psilocybin Project. They sought to “document its effects on human consciousness by administering it to volunteer subjects and recording their real-time descriptions of the experience” (Harvard University). At this time, LSD and psilocybin were illegal substances in the United States. By 1962, various faculty members and administrators were concerned about the safety of the study’s methodologies and shortly after, Leary and Alpert were both discredited and banished from academia (Harvard University). Despite this setback, they continued to dominate the psychedelic movement.

Writers and artists have often served as the voice of dissent “supporting the rights of free expression, whether considered subversive, obscene or traitorous” (Ulrich 2018, 162). As a thought leader of the countercultural hippy movement, Timothy Leary continued to influence public behaviour through persuasion and seduction, impacting individual and collectivist attitudes on drug use (Prieto 2018). In 1966 at the Human Be-In gathering of 30,000 hippies at Golden Gate Park, Leary urged America’s young to “turn on, tune in, drop out” (Riley 2010, 446). This famous phrase challenged mainstream society’s perspective of psychedelics by instilling a sense of moral panic within parents and politicians. As described in the International Drug Policy journal (2010):

‘Turning on’ referred to using psychedelics and practices, such as meditation, to create new levels of awareness of oneself through altered states of consciousness. ‘Tuning in’ was the subsequent shift towards aestheticism, morality and spiritual fulfilment. ‘Dropping out’ was a politicised move to an alternative spiritual life free from capitalist values.

As I describe in the next section, public response to Leary’s efforts to assimilate psychedelics in the mainstream backfired. His activism would later be characterized by President Richard Nixon as a threat to the safety of American citizens, contributing to the ongoing crisis that is known as the war on drugs.

The Crisis

Many believe that Leary made a huge mistake with this expression; it sums up why psychedelics scared mainstream society even in the context of legitimate medical research (Kovac, 2015). Moral panic becomes a means whereby the state “persuades people to accept the need to deal with threats to the social order through authoritarian means, and thereby preserve the rule of law.” (Buckingham 2012, 416). In other words, general anxieties are the result of a rapid pace in social change. Exploring hallucinogens is about exploring one’s inner mind, not bringing people together. One could argue that Timothy Leary’s public statement was a form of propaganda, threatening governmental control over drug policies. Mark Haden, chair of the Canadian branch of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies says, “anytime an unwanted group is challenging society and seen as the ‘other’, their drug use will be criminalized” (Kovac, 2015).

With the influence of Leary’s activism, magic mushrooms were banned in America in 1970 and labelled as a ‘Schedule 1’ drug- meaning that the potential for abuse outweighs their medicinal potential (The Economist, 2019). On June 17, 1971 American President Richard Nixon labeled drug abuse a “national emergency” ranked “public enemy number one” (Niesen 2007, 2). His administration was largely responsible for shaping initial drug policies and attitude in the West, which would later be known as the war on drugs. Nixon played a major role in popularizing the ‘gateway concept’, that the use of soft drugs inevitably led to the use of hard drugs and this “ultimately opened the door to critiques on the nature of advertising” (Nielson 2007, 2). Advocates and advertisements at this time often promoted a culture of drug abuse through self-indulgence.

The war on drugs demonstrates the power and influence that thought leaders had/have in defining illegal drugs. Ulmer’s main critique in Increasing the Impact of Thought Leadership in Crisis Communication is relevant in this situation. He argues that current thought leadership in crisis communication is predominantly based on a classic definition of crisis that is, “characterized by threat, surprise, and short response time” (Ulmer, 2012). However, a narrow and decidedly negative definition of a crisis does not address the opportunities inherent to crises. On the other hand, crises provide opportunities for change to take place, new competitive advantages, and mindsets in organizations (Ulmer, 2012). Consequently, this crisis has prevailed for so long that it continues to create controversy surrounding the contemporary use of magic mushrooms in clinical settings (Kovac, 2015).

Government Messaging

Above all public communications, the one that has the most responsibilities in terms of the social significance of its messages is the governmental one (Prieto, 2018). Advertising carried out at any level of government “has the aim to inform about procedures and deadlines related to the services provided by the administration; to positively educate or achieve a code of conduct aimed at improving the social relationships of citizens” (Prieto 2018, 110).

In a study on the Mexican Government’s advertising from 2006–2012 and the war on drugs, it was found that of the 127 analyzed TV advertisements, only one portrayed a narrative that promoted peace culture (Prieto 2018, 122). The rest transmitted a narrative of Mexican children falling into drug addiction and trafficking which could be prevented using armed forces. This was justified in the advertisements by communicating that police, soldiers and marines are effective, honest and heroic against alleged criminals who are the “enemies of Mexico”, “traitors of the homeland” and ones who “kidnap, kill and extort” (Prieto 2018, 122).

It is common for governments to place citizens in subordinate positions when communicating the narrative of drug prevention. Citizens do not appear empowered, but always protected by the government through advertising messages, and operatives and programs to clear drugs and delinquents. In the final section, I acknowledge what the contemporary decriminalization of magic mushrooms means in retrospect to its historical discourse.

Reframing Drug Narratives

Decriminalize Nature Canada states that for those experiencing addiction, the current mental health treatments are inadequate. With proven research, plant medicines when taken in the right set and setting can help people break their cycle of addiction and severe withdrawal symptoms (Decriminalize Nature Canada Website). If we want to destigmatize psychedelics while working towards legal reform, we must empower thought leaders who communicate messages with transparency and with credibility. If psychedelics are about healing, then it is absolutely necessary that in the process of liberating them, we are not causing more trauma and pain by marginalizing other people and other drugs (Margolin, 2020).