Mexico Reopens the Debate on Psilocybin Mushrooms

Jesús Alonso Olamendi | September 11, 2025

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) in Mexico is analyzing an injunction that challenges the absolute ban on practices involving psilocybin mushrooms. The case, debated in the First Chamber in 2024, seeks to determine whether this restriction violates fundamental rights such as the free development of personality and the right to health. The decision, which will be made by a new composition of the court, could set a historic precedent in drug policy and the protection of traditional Indigenous knowledge.

In its last session before its imminent dissolution, [1] the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation missed a historic opportunity to declare unconstitutional the prohibitionist system that criminalizes the consumption of species such as Psilocybe cubensis (also known as Stropharia cubensis), Conocybe albipes, Conocybe crispa, Conocybe cyanopus, Conocybe lactea, Conocybe mairei, Conocybe mazatecorum, Conocybe mexicana, and Conocybe tenera, as provided for in Articles 245, Section I, 247, 248, and 249 of the General Health Law. [2]

In the draft resolution of Amparo in Review 374/2020, Minister González Alcántara Carrancá argued before his colleagues that the absolute ban does not pass the so-called strict proportionality test, used to settle conflicts between rights. According to his argument, a total ban is not an appropriate or the least harmful measure for protecting public health and, consequently, violates other fundamental rights, such as the free development of personality.

Amicus brief from ICEERS before the Supreme Court

Given the possibility of a favorable ruling, and as part of our advocacy work, ICEERS submitted an Amicus Curiae brief to Mexico’s highest court with the aim of providing additional technical information for its eventual decision.

The arguments presented by our legal defense program focused on three areas: the legal and pharmacological distinction between mushrooms and the metabolites they produce, such as psilocybin, and the regulatory status of their uses in the international arena; the violation of various rights—in addition to the free development of personality—implied by the system of absolute prohibition; and, centrally, the constitutional contradiction with the obligation to develop, practice, strengthen, and promote traditional medicine established in Article 2, Section A, Subsection VII of the Mexican Constitution, a provision that seeks to guarantee the preservation and ethical use of traditional knowledge.

Despite the strength of the proposal, the vote resulted in three votes in favor and two against. Consequently, the case had to be referred to a new majority minister to draft an alternative resolution. However, with the dissolution of the First Chamber, the matter was left in the hands of the new members of the Supreme Court, many of whom are new to the judicial sphere. As we await developments in this new phase, we trust that the project that is resumed will maintain the spirit of the original and conduct an in-depth analysis of the provisions that currently uphold the absolute ban.

A prohibitionist system with colonial roots

Today, Mexico has one of the most severe and oldest legal systems of substance prohibition in the world. Its origins date back to the ordinance of the Tribunal of the Holy Inquisition, issued during the colonial era in New Spain, which sought to eradicate practices involving mushrooms and peyote considered heretical.

Although the country has gradually moved towards a process of vindicating the rights of Indigenous peoples and communities, its legislation maintains this prohibition and even goes beyond the provisions of international treaties — which are already restrictive — by classifying endemic species that inherently contain psychotropic compounds as prohibited substances. In this equation, plants and mushrooms are subject to the same regime as isolated substances, rendering their spiritual and medicinal uses invisible in the Mexican pharmacopoeia.

Specifically, this regulatory equivalence between organic compounds and active substances can be seen with mescaline and the species Lophophora williamsii, Anhalonium williamsii, and Anhalonium lewinii; and with psilocybin and so-called hallucinogenic mushrooms of any variety or botanical species, especially Psilocybe mexicana, Stropharia cubensis, and Conocybe. [3]

A crucial moment for constitutional law

The debate comes at a decisive moment for the evolution of Mexican constitutional law, amid structural changes and legislative stagnation in drug policy. As Natalia Rebollo highlights, “a clear example is the delay in regulating cannabis, which has been pending for more than ten years.” At ICEERS, we analyze this opportunity under three main premises:

1. It represents a new departure from the international prohibitionist drug control system, promoted for decades as a single model, without solid scientific backing and currently questioned from various fronts. [4]

2. It is significant that the courts recognize the distinction between restricted active ingredients and the natural organisms that contain them, in line with national and international precedents, including rulings on the legal differentiation between ayahuasca and DMT.

3. It constitutes a constitutional and human rights vindication for the Indigenous peoples of Mexico in the face of prevailing legal colonialism, which contradicts principles of domestic and international law and hinders the protection of traditional knowledge against biopiracy and misappropriation of knowledge.

Human rights versus absolute prohibition

First, a ruling in the sense proposed by the bill would place human rights above the absolute prohibition policies emanating from international drug treaties. This debate in Mexico reached a turning point in 2015, when the First Chamber of the SCJN ruled in Amparo en Revisión 237/2014 that the absolute prohibition of personal and recreational marijuana use was unconstitutional, as it violated the right to free development of personality. [5] Since then, precedents have continued, but Congress’s response has been limited to restricted regulation of medical cannabis, subject to very strict controls. [6]

In the last decade, adult use of cannabis has been systematically excluded from the legislative agenda, despite the general declaration of unconstitutionality that mandated regulation before October 30, 2019 — a deadline that was extended to December 15, 2020, and is now well past due. [7] Meanwhile, the legal status of cannabis remains in limbo: a prohibition considered unconstitutional, but still in force in practice and enforceable by the authorities. This keeps possession, carrying, use, and consumption among the main behaviors linked to health-related crimes that are prosecuted at the local level. [8]

International treaties and the place of mushrooms

It is important to remember that the international drug control system is made up of three major treaties. Although two of them share a similar structure for listing prohibited substances, their approaches are different.

The 1961 Single Convention established a strict model for the production of opium derivatives and the absolute prohibition—and even possible eradication—of the uses, including traditional ones, of the plant materials listed in the treaty: opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), coca bush (Erythroxylum coca), and cannabis.

In contrast, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances did not seek to prohibit or eradicate plants or natural compounds, but rather to restrict the uses of certain substances to exclusively scientific and therapeutic purposes. To this end, it imposed traceability obligations on States, but its lists only include synthetic compounds, not plant or fungal organisms.

Although the 1971 Treaty [9] has been widely criticized for the lack of scientific basis in its categorization, the reasons for excluding plants and other plant compounds from its lists remain unclear. [10] However, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)—the UN body responsible for monitoring the implementation of these treaties—has pointed out in several of its reports that, although the active compound of a plant or fungus (or a derivative preparation) may be subject to control, this does not imply that the living organism that naturally contains it is automatically subject to the same rules. That regulatory power remains in the hands of each country.

In other words, the prohibition of cannabis is an international obligation under the 1961 Convention, while the prohibition of mushrooms is a sovereign decision of Mexico.

Human rights versus the drug system

The focus of the current international debate lies in recent challenges to the model derived from the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988). This instrument requires criminalization as a response to certain behaviors linked to illicit drug trafficking and, over time, has been expanded and used by states as a system of control and oppression validated by international bodies.

However, the contrast between the views of the United Nations agencies themselves on how to address the “world drug problem” is becoming increasingly wide. This has given rise to reinterpretations that place international human rights law above the international drug control system, recalling that the initial objective of these treaties was to protect the health and well-being of humanity, and not to generate negative repercussions on the rights of individuals.

The similarity between the two rulings—cannabis and mushrooms—lies in the regulatory model adopted by the Mexican government, which currently classifies psilocybin mushrooms and mescaline cacti as prohibited substances due to the psilocybin and mescaline they naturally contain. This regulation prohibits all activities related to their planting, cultivation, harvesting, processing, preparation, packaging, acquisition, possession, trade, transportation in any form, medical prescription, supply, employment, use, or consumption. In addition, it establishes criminal penalties ranging from 10 to 25 years in prison or more, in the event of any of the aggravating circumstances provided for in the Federal Criminal Code.

UN: contradictions between drugs and human rights

Since the mid-2010s, [11] United Nations agencies have begun to take clearer positions on the obvious contradictions between the international drug control system and the human rights framework. This process has resulted in key documents to guide States in fulfilling their international obligations, including the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy, developed jointly by UNAIDS, UNDP, and WHO. [12] This document highlights the need to analyze the disproportionate impacts that drug policies have had on different population groups.

This call was echoed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who in her 2023 report, Human rights challenges in addressing and countering all aspects of the world drug problem, highlighted the negative effects of state responses at the local level. These include: the precarious nature of care for people with problematic drug use and harm reduction services — both of which are essential for saving lives — the punitive and militarized approach of many policies, the excessive use of incarceration for drug-related offenses, and the persistence of the death penalty in several countries for drug-related crimes.

All these practices disproportionately impact the most vulnerable groups — Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, women, girls, boys, and young people — and reinforce social crises that are exacerbated by legal frameworks that act as structural barriers to addressing substance use effectively and with respect for human dignity.

The critical review of the coca leaf

An event of great relevance to the international debate will soon take place: the critical review of the coca leaf. [13] A committee of international experts will evaluate this plant from the perspectives of chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, natural medicine, and traditional uses. This analysis could lead to significant recommendations, such as moving the coca leaf to a less restrictive control list or even removing it entirely from the lists of the 1961 Single Convention.

This would correct one of the greatest injustices of international law against the Andean-Amazonian indigenous peoples, who for millennia have considered coca to be a central part of their spiritual, cultural, and medicinal life, and who have been historically harmed and stigmatized by an unjustified classification. [14]

Added to this is the growing scientific evidence and validation by national pharmacovigilance agencies, which have approved medical and therapeutic uses for many of the substances included in Schedule I of the 1971 Convention — the most restrictive category — directly questioning the scientific basis of the current classification model.

Mexico’s uncertain stance

In line with these international discussions, Mexico had adopted a nuanced position of distancing itself at the local level, prioritizing human rights over a drug policy with questionable results. This stance even implied a certain deviation from the obligations assumed in international conventions, as was the case with cannabis.

Today, however, the Mexican state’s position is uncertain. Several regulatory proposals are still pending in Congress, both on cannabis [15] and mushrooms. [16] Added to this is the weight of geopolitics: the debate on drugs in Mexico is strongly conditioned by its relationship with the United States, where the frontal fight against these substances continues to be a political banner, especially in the context of the opioid crisis that the northern country is going through.

In this scenario, a regulatory proposal from the executive branch seems unlikely. The only concrete indication of the official position could come in November, when Mexico is due to vote on the WHO’s critical review of the coca leaf.

A favorable ruling would not imply full legalization or immediate comprehensive regulation. On the contrary, as is already the case with cannabis, interested parties would have to apply for permits from the health authority (COFEPRIS) and, in many cases, resort to amparo proceedings to assert their rights, given that current legislation does not provide for exceptions. The value of the ruling would lie more in a reinterpretation of the legal and social paradigm of drug policy in Mexico.

Possible scenarios

From a jurisdictional point of view, a new Court composition could approach the issue in two opposite ways:

1. It could distance itself from the criteria of its predecessors and set new precedents, with profound impacts on the entire national legal system.

2. Or it could continue to push for structural change in the current prohibitionist model, placing people’s rights and scientific evidence at the center.

A favorable precedent — especially in the terms proposed by Minister González — would reinforce the urgency of establishing a clear distinction, both ontological and normative, between active compounds and the plants that naturally contain them. Current Mexican law does not make this distinction: mushrooms containing psilocybin are as prohibited as the isolated molecule.

This distinction has already been recognized in courts in countries such as Spain [17] and the Netherlands. [18] Not only is it scientifically accurate, but it also aligns with the criteria established by the United Nations agencies responsible for monitoring international treaties. Validating the equivalence between fungi and molecules, without an express and reasoned legal provision, would be tantamount to validating violations of various human rights, in particular those recognized for Indigenous peoples due to their deep relationship with these plants and fungi. It would also contravene the principle of legality in force in most democratic countries.

Implications of distinguishing between molecule and organism

The pharmacological differences between an active ingredient and the organism that contains it have enormous practical consequences. From a health and scientific perspective, plants and fungi with psychoactive components tend to present them in low concentrations and combined with other alkaloids, which can modulate their effect and risk profile. [19]

These differences, backed by hundreds of scientific studies, show that the mode of consumption, duration of effects, toxicity, and even potential therapeutic uses vary significantly. [20] Therefore, it is not correct to equate these organisms with isolated synthetic compounds, nor to subject them to the same risk analysis applied to the pure substance. A clear example is psilocybin: within a mushroom, it is “buffered” by the fungal matrix, making it impossible to reach a lethal overdose by consuming whole specimens. [21]

Examples in Mexican legislation

This distinction is already tacitly recognized in the Mexican legal framework. One of the most obvious cases is that of coffee and caffeine. Although caffeine is an alkaloid whose uses are regulated under the General Health Law and is listed in Article 245, Section IV, as a substance that “causes a minor public health problem” — which in principle would require a prescription for sale under Article 252 — plants that naturally contain it, such as coffee (Coffea arabica, Coffea canephora), tea (Camellia sinensis), yerba mate, and cocoa, are not subject to these restrictions. The regulations, on the other hand, distinguish between degrees of purity for pharmaceutical uses, supplements, and even energy drinks.

Another example is holy basil (Piper auritum), widely used in traditional Mexican cuisine. This plant naturally contains safrole, a precursor to MDMA and listed in Schedule I of Article 245. However, the safrole present in holy basil is authorized as a natural flavoring under the agreement of the Ministry of Health that regulates additives and adjuvants in foods, beverages, and supplements. [22]

These examples demonstrate that Mexican regulations already recognize clear differences based on the origin and purity of a substance, meaning that regulatory analysis cannot be categorical or equate isolated molecules with the organisms that contain them without nuance.

Cultural and spiritual dimension

In addition to the pharmacological and legal distinctions between the active molecule and the plant or fungus that contains it, there is a special connotation: the cultures that consume them maintain a deep connection with their ancestral practices and community rituals, supported by knowledge passed down from generation to generation that has allowed them to incorporate them into their individual and collective lives.

This requires that in multicultural countries such as Mexico, this knowledge be given additional protections to safeguard it, rather than legal restrictions that inhibit its preservation and promotion. Many of these traditions have even transcended their places of origin and spread globally, either through the diaspora of Indigenous healers and sages who travel the world sharing songs and medicines, or through the establishment of frameworks for group consumption through the syncretism of various traditions. All of this has allowed millions of people to attend these gatherings for different purposes: to improve their personal environment or to integrate these practices as part of their individual or community routine. [23]

Consequently, the intention to consume is not equivalent to a mere recreational activity or a risk that must be protected by the law, much less to that provided for by criminal legislation. On the contrary, in these contexts, consumption seeks to improve people’s biopsychospiritual state, which contradicts the idea that it represents a supposed health risk.

Recent court cases in Mexico

In Mexico, these arguments have already been raised before criminal courts, particularly in the 2022 cases in which several people transporting ayahuasca were arrested and deprived of their liberty under the concept of informal preventive detention for the entire duration of the proceedings. Accused of the crime of introducing narcotics — provided for in Article 194, Section II of the Federal Criminal Code — the Public Prosecutor’s Office equated N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) with ayahuasca in its indictments. Despite the arguments of the defense, the courts of first instance validated this interpretation, leaving the defendants accused and victims of a profound injustice by failing to recognize the difference between traditional consumption and recreational use, or between isolated substances and plants. This practice contravenes the principle of legality in its dimensions of specificity and strict application of the law in criminal matters.

The possible resolution of this case should start from the recognition that not all psychoactive substances used ancestrally constitute a threat. On the contrary, there is constitutional value in preserving ancestral knowledge, including that surrounding psychoactive plants. This would also imply reevaluating previously dismissed therapies and enriching the pool of potential solutions to contemporary problems.

Right to health and historical debt

In terms of its therapeutic potential, the evolution of the concept of the right to health has moved beyond the narrow view of simply the absence of disease to encompass a comprehensive approach that includes social determinants, equitable access to medical services, and recognition of culturally differentiated health systems. [24]

If a view prevails that recognizes that these plants and fungi — even some synthetic substances — do not cause serious harm to health and that, on the contrary, they are part of traditional Mexican medicine, then the right to health takes on greater significance in the eventual ruling. The issue should be addressed from two perspectives: as a direct violation of the right to practice traditional medicine and of non-Indigenous people’s access to it, and as a violation related to both the right to health and the right to participate in scientific progress and its benefits.

In the case of psilocybin mushrooms, their recognition within the Mexican legal system also constitutes a historical debt to Indigenous peoples, who have first resisted the onslaught of colonialism and now the so-called “war on drugs.” Their recognition implies valuing not only the “community value” of these mushrooms, but also their scientific and cultural dimension, as they form part of the living traditions of Indigenous communities such as the Nahuas, Chatinos, Mazatecos, Mixes, among others, who have incorporated them ancestrally as part of their worldview.

Regulatory advances and international commitments

The process of regulatory reform in Mexico began with the 1917 Constitution and advanced decisively with the multicultural reforms of the late 20th century, aimed at recognizing cultural diversity. In 2001, Article 2 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States was amended to recognize the nation’s multicultural composition and the rights of Indigenous peoples to preserve and develop their languages, knowledge, and all elements of their culture and identity. In 2024, this provision was expanded to guarantee greater protection of the rights of peoples and communities. [25]

At the same time, Mexico ratified crucial international instruments such as ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Both recognize the right of Indigenous peoples to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of vital medicinal plants. However, these advances have not succeeded in getting the Mexican legal system to abandon the colonial-era prohibition on practices involving mushrooms and peyote.

A pending conceptual opening

Perhaps the most significant aspect, in terms of history and cultural justice, is that a favorable ruling would allow for a conceptual opening: recognizing that not all “drugs” are the same and that a sacred mushroom should not be classified as a simple illicit narcotic. This perspective would invite the legislative branch and authorities to update the regulatory framework accordingly.

Today, despite the existence of vague exceptions for ritual uses of peyote or mushrooms, members of Indigenous peoples have been criminally prosecuted. It is therefore essential that the Court rule on the obvious contradiction between the constitutional text and health legislation, and that it recognize the intimate connection between certain natural psychotropic substances and Indigenous cultural practices. Such recognition would validate the existence of a constitutional interest in protecting these traditional uses.

Although in the present case the plaintiff did not identify as Indigenous or claim membership in a religious tradition, a positive ruling on the unconstitutionality of the absolute prohibition of psilocybin mushrooms would represent a form of vindication of the rights of Indigenous peoples and communities, correcting a long tradition of legal colonialism in Mexico with regard to sacred plants. This change would be based on critical tools that the Mexican legal system itself has been progressively incorporating.

Right to participate in scientific progress

With regard to the right to participate in scientific progress and its benefits, the draft ruling includes relevant considerations on the therapeutic potential of psilocybin mushrooms, although it avoids declaring an autonomous violation of this right, recognized in Article 3 of the Constitution. In this case, this right appears to be closely linked to the right to health.

Following the resolution of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the scope of this right, it can be interpreted as the ability of science to contribute to the well-being of individuals and humanity. [26] The term “benefits” has a double connotation: on the one hand, the material results of scientific research; on the other, the knowledge and information derived from it. In this case, by gathering a series of possible therapeutic benefits that can be generated by the consumption of psilocybin mushrooms — and even isolated psilocybin — along with the scientific evidence that supports them, the highest court would have the opportunity to set a precedent on the scope of this right and how to make it justiciable, something unprecedented in Mexican courts.

Impacts beyond the injunction

A positive ruling on this matter would not only directly benefit those who filed the injunction, but would also have an impact at different levels on the rights of the entire population of the country, particularly Indigenous peoples. This would open the door to coordinated protection against biopiracy and the commercial exploitation of traditional knowledge, ancestral territories, and the benefits that correspond to them.

This debate takes on even greater relevance in light of growing commercial and pharmaceutical interest in psilocybin and other currently prohibited compounds. The industry is already generating speculation of close to ten billion dollars annually [36] in what many are calling a new “psychedelic renaissance.” There are even publicly traded companies researching psilocybin therapies, as well as registered patents on synthetic forms and methods of administering these compounds.

In 2024, Senator Lagunes [37] presented an initiative along these same lines, emphasizing the urgency of providing legal tools for the “protection of ancestral knowledge.” All of this reinforces the idea that the absolute prohibition and criminalization of activities related to psilocybin mushrooms in Mexico is one of the greatest expressions of legal colonialism and policies without scientific backing. A favorable ruling, on the other hand, could cement a profound change in the country’s regulatory framework.

References and notes

[1] Mexico is undergoing a judicial transition that will result in a new Judiciary elected through elections. The first election took place on June 1, 2025, and all members of the Judiciary were elected, including the Supreme Court of Justice, the Federal Judiciary Council, all collegiate courts, and district judges in all matters. The new members of the Mexican Judiciary will begin work on September 1, 2025.

[2] Cámara de Diputados. (1984). General Health Law. H. Congreso de la Unión. Retrieved from https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LGS.pdf

[3] The section I of article 245 of the General Health Law, which contains the list of psychotropic substances under the strictest controls, includes as synonyms mescaline and psilocybin the plant and fungal species that inherently contain them.

[4] Since the 2010s, various United Nations agencies have distanced themselves from a strictly punitive vision to adopt a rights-based approach. This has been accompanied by the possible international reclassification of cannabis and coca leaf. Locally, efforts are multiple and varied, but the common response is that there are less harmful alternatives for people and communities under regulatory models that move away from the penal system.

[5] Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. (2015, November 4). Amparo en Revisión 237/2014 (First Chamber, opinion by Justice Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, judgment). Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.scjn.gob.mx/derechos-humanos/sites/default/files/sentencias-emblematicas/sentencia/2020-01/AR%20237-2014%20v.%20p%C3%BAblica%20PDF.pdf

[6] Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2017, June 19). Decree amending and adding various provisions of the General Health Law and the Federal Criminal Code. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Retrieved from https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5487335&fecha=19/06/2017#gsc.tab=0

[7] Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. (2021, June 28). Extract of the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality 1/2018 (General Directorate of Human Rights). Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.scjn.gob.mx/derechos-humanos/sites/default/files/sentencias-emblematicas/resumen/2022-07/Resumen%20DGI%201-2018%20DGDH.pdf

[8] Elementa DDHH. (2022). Prison for possession: The role of the crime of simple possession in the war on drugs in Mexico. Retrieved from https://elementaddhh.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/prision-por-posesion.pdf

[9] Danenberg, E., Sorge, L. A., Wieniawski, W., Elliott, S., Amato, L., & Scholten, W. K. (2013). Modernizing methodology for the WHO assessment of substances for the international drug control conventions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.032

[10] United Nations. (1971). Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 (Spanish version, p. 390). Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/organized_crime/Drug%20Convention/Comentarios_al_convenio_1971.pdf

[11] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2016). Outcome document: Our joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem (Special Session of the General Assembly on the World Drug Problem). United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/postungass2016/outcome/V1603304-S.pdf

[12] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), World Health Organization (WHO), & International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy. (2019). International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy. UNDP. https://www.undp.org/publications/international-guidelines-human-rights-and-drug-policy

[13] Transnational Institute (TNI). (2025, June 18). WHO Critical Review of Coca Leaf: A Comprehensive Overview. TNI. Retrieved from https://www.tni.org/en/dossier/who-critical-review-of-coca-leaf

[14] Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). (1950, May). Report of the Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf (Official Records, Twelfth Period of Sessions, Special Supplement No. 1). United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/coca-inquiry-1950e.pdf

[15] Kánter Coronel, I. (2020, February). Legislative initiatives on cannabis presented in the Senate of the Republic (Mirada Legislativa No. 179). Mexico City: Instituto Belisario Domínguez del Senado de la República. Retrieved from http://bibliodigitalibd.senado.gob.mx/bitstream/handle/123456789/4781/ML_179.pdf

[16] Cámara de Diputados. (2021, March 3). Bill amending and adding various provisions of the General Health Law, on the reclassification of natural entheogens. Retrieved from https://sil.gobernacion.gob.mx/Archivos/Documentos/2021/03/asun_4147229_20210303_1614798305.pdf

Cámara de Senadores. (2024, June 10). Bill amending and adding various provisions on traditional medicine and its bioconservation, therapeutic use of entheogens, and promotion of research and medical uses of psychotropics. Retrieved from https://infosen.senado.gob.mx/sgsp/gaceta/65/3/2024-06-12-1/assets/documentos/Inic_PVEM_Sen_Alejandra_Lagunes_Medicina_Tradicional_LGS.pdf

[17] Provincial Court of Alicante, Section 3. (2013, February 28). Judgment No. 129/2013. Retrieved from the Spanish Judicial Archive.

[18] Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad). (2002, November 5). Judgment ECLI:NL:HR:2002:AE2094, NJ 2003,488.

[19] Tsujikawa, K., Kanamori, T., Iwata, Y., Ohmae, Y., Sugita, R., Inoue, H., & Kishi, T. (2003, December). Morphological and chemical analysis of magic mushrooms in Japan. Forensic Science International, 138(1–3), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2003.08.009

Gotvaldová, K., Borovička, J., Hájková, K., Cihlářová, P., Rockefeller, A., & Kuchař, M. (2022). Extensive collection of psychotropic mushrooms with determination of their tryptamine alkaloids. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(22), 14068. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232214068

[20] National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). PubMed search: psilocybin [Database]. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=psilocybin

[21] Henríquez-Hernández, L. A., Rojas-Hernández, J., Quintana-Hernández, D. J., & Borkel, L. F. (2023). Hofmann vs. Paracelsus: Do psychedelics defy the basics of toxicology?—A systematic review of the main ergolamines, simple tryptamines, and phenylethylamines. Toxics, 11(2), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11020148

[22] Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2012, July 16). Agreement determining additives and adjuvants in food, beverages, and dietary supplements, their use and health provisions. Secretaría de Salud. Retrieved from https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5259470&fecha=16/07/2012#gsc.tab=0

[23] Bouso, J. C., Andión, Ó., Sarris, J. J., Scheidegger, M., Tófoli, L. F., Opaleye, E. S., & Perkins, D. (2022). Adverse effects of ayahuasca: Results from the Global Ayahuasca Survey. PLOS Global Public Health, 2(11), e0000438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000438

[24] Gobierno de México. (2020, August 17). Sectoral Program of the Ministry of Health Derived from the National Development Plan 2019–2024. Retrieved from https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5598474&fecha=17/08/2020#gsc.tab=0

[25] Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2024, September 30). Reform 260: Decree amending, adding, and repealing various provisions of Article 2 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, on Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities. Government of Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/dof/CPEUM_ref_260_30sep24.pdf

[26] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2020, April 30). General Comment No. 25: Science and economic, social and cultural rights (article 15, paragraphs 1(b), 2, 3, and 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). United Nations. Retrieved from https://docs.un.org/en/E/C.12/GC/25

Categories: Noticias , NEWS , ADF , HUMAN RIGHTS
Tags: Suprema Corte , Indigenous peoples , legal colonialism , Supreme Court , biopiracy , colonialismo jurídico , biopiratería , pueblos originarios , hongos psilocibios , ayahuasca , ICEERS , México , public health , psilocybin mushrooms , traditional medicine , psilocybin , drug policy , Human Rights