Full text of DOI:10.1080/02791072.2002.10399960

This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]
On: 07 September 2013, At: 23:20
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20
Hallucinogens and Redemption
Marlene Dobkin de Rios a , Charles S. Grob b & John R. Baker c
a University of California, Irvine, California
b Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
c Moorpark College, Moorpark, California
Published online: 06 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Marlene Dobkin de Rios , Charles S. Grob & John R. Baker (2002) Hallucinogens and Redemption, Journal
of Psychoactive Drugs, 34:3, 239-248, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2002.10399960
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2002.10399960
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Haꢀucinogens and Redeꢁption
Marlene Dobkin de Rios, Ph.D.*; Charles S. Grob, M.D.** & John R. Baker, Dr. Phil.***
Abstract-Thiꢖ ꢉꢂꢊicle exꢉmineꢖ dꢂ ug ꢖꢕbꢖꢅiꢊꢕꢊion wiꢊh ꢂegꢉꢂdꢅo hꢉllꢕcinogenꢖ (ꢉyꢉhꢕꢉꢖcꢉ, ibogꢉine,
peyoꢅe ꢉnd LSD) ꢖeꢊ wiꢊhin ꢅhe concepꢅ of ꢂedempꢅion. The model exꢉmineꢖ boꢅh ꢂeligioꢕꢖ ꢉnd
ꢖecꢕlꢉꢂ ꢉppꢂoꢉcheꢖ ꢅo ꢅhe conꢅempoꢂꢉꢂy ꢕꢖe of hꢉllꢕcinogenꢖ in dꢂꢕg ꢖꢕbꢖꢊiꢅꢕꢊion, boꢅh by ꢖcienꢅiꢖꢊꢖ
ꢉnd in ꢂeligioꢕꢖ ꢖeꢊꢅingꢖ woꢂldwideꢜ The ꢂedempꢊive model poꢖiꢅꢖ ꢊhꢉꢊ ꢊhe pꢂopeꢂ ꢕꢖe of one
pꢖychoꢉcꢅive ꢖꢕbꢖꢊꢉnce wiꢅhin ꢉ ꢖpiꢂiꢊꢕꢉl oꢂ clinicꢉl conꢅexꢅ helpꢖ ꢊo fꢂee ꢉn individꢕꢉl fꢂom ꢅhe
ꢉdveꢂꢖe effecꢊꢖ ofꢅheiꢂ ꢉddicꢅion ꢊo ꢉnoꢅheꢂ ꢖꢕbꢖꢊꢉnce ꢉnd ꢊhꢕꢖ ꢂeꢖꢅoꢂeꢖ ꢊhem ꢉꢖ fꢕncꢅioning membeꢂꢖ
ofꢅheiꢂ commꢕniꢅy oꢂ gꢂoꢕp. Dꢉꢅꢉ iꢖ dꢂꢉwnfꢂomꢊhe UꢜSꢜ, Bꢂꢉzilꢗ Peꢂꢕꢗ ꢉnd WeꢖꢅAfꢂicꢉꢜ Two pꢂinciple
mechꢉniꢖmꢖ foꢂ ꢊhiꢖ ꢉꢂe pꢂopoꢖed: ꢅhe pꢖychologicꢉl mechꢉniꢖm of ꢖꢕggeꢖꢅibiliꢅy iꢖ exꢉmined in
ꢊeꢂmꢖ of ꢅhe individꢕꢉl ꢂeꢉching ꢉbꢖꢊinence goꢉlꢖ fꢂom ꢉddicꢅive ꢖꢕbꢖꢅꢉnceꢖ ꢖꢕch ꢉꢖ ꢉlcohol ꢉnd
opiꢉꢊeꢖꢜ Neꢕꢂophyꢖiologicꢉl ꢉnd neꢕꢂochemicꢉl mechꢉniꢖmꢖ ꢅo ꢕndeꢂꢖꢅꢉnd ꢅhe efficꢉcy of ꢖꢕch
ꢖꢕbꢖꢊiꢅꢕꢊion ꢉꢂe highlighꢊed fꢂom ongoing ꢂeꢖeꢉꢂch on hꢉllꢕcinogenꢖꢜ Reꢖeꢉꢂch by ꢅwo ofꢅhe ꢉꢕꢊhoꢂꢖ
wiꢅh ꢅhe Uꢀꢉio do Vegeꢊꢉl (UDV) Chꢕꢂch in Bꢂꢉzil iꢖ exꢉmined in ꢅeꢂmꢖ of ꢅhe modelꢜ
Keywords-ꢉyꢉhꢕꢉꢖcꢉ, dꢂꢕgꢉddicꢅionꢇdꢂꢕg ꢖꢕbꢖꢊiꢊꢕꢊionꢗ hꢉllꢕcinogenꢖꢇ ibogꢉine, ꢁyoꢅe, ꢂedempꢊion
Amꢉzing gꢂꢃe, how ꢖw ꢄꢅ ꢀ ꢆndꢇ ꢈꢉꢊ ꢋvꢌ ꢉ w ꢍꢊch like ꢀ,
I once wꢎ loꢖꢊ bꢕꢅ now ꢏ foꢕndꢇ w ꢎ blind bꢕꢊ now I ꢁe.
Iꢊ'ꢖ gmce ꢅhꢉꢅꢊꢉꢕghꢅ my heꢉꢐ ꢅo feꢉꢂ ꢉndꢑe my fe ꢒ ꢍlievedꢓ
etc. The hallucinogens that are most frequently used for
these purposes include ayahuasca, (a drink usually made
from Banisteriopsis caapi and Psychotria viridis, often to-
gether with other plant admixture), ibogaine (obtained from
Ta bemanthe iboga), LSD (a semisynthetic derivative ofthe
fungus Claviceps purpurea), and peyote (Lophophora
williamsii).
How pꢂ ꢔioꢕꢖ did ꢊhꢉꢅ gꢂꢉ ce ꢉp ꢁꢉꢂꢗ ꢁ hoꢕꢂ I ꢘꢙꢅ ꢚꢛievedꢜ"
fꢂom Amazing Grace by John Newꢊon
The practice of drug substitution refers to the use of
one substance to obviate and negate the cravings for and
withdrawal effects of a second. Methadone is perhaps the
best known example. Today, a variety of both natural and
synthetic substances are used to these ends throughout the
world. Of particular interest are the hallucinogens (which
themselves do not cause physical dependence); recent de-
cades have seen the use of these substances to substitute
for addictive drugs like heroin, alcohol, methamphetamines,
Methadone is effective as a substitute because it func-
tions as a pure mu receptor agonist, i.e., it binds to the same
receptor sites as heroin (and morphine and codeine), thereby
blocking the cell's ability to respond to these opiates (Julien
1998: 294-5). In contrast, other types of drugs that may be
substituted for drugs that are damaging to the individual
are efficacious because they produce changes in more glo-
bal psychosocial functioning, thereby aiding individuals in
assessing and altering their destructive patteꢀs of behav-
ior and avoiding using those substances which have caused
them harm in the first place. To the authors' knowledge, an
overall review of the role of hallucinogens in this context
has not been done. Moreover, in our estimation, although
seldom made explicit, the treatment modalities that under-
lie most of these efforts utilizing hallucinogens are
*Aꢖꢖociꢉꢅe Clinicꢉl Pꢂofeꢖꢖoꢂ of Pꢖychiꢉꢅꢂy ꢉnd Hꢕmꢉn Behꢉvioꢂꢗ
Univeꢂꢖiꢊy of Cꢉlifoꢝiꢉ, Iꢂvineꢗ Cꢉlifoꢂniꢉꢜ
**Diꢂecꢅoꢂ of ꢅhe Diviꢖion of Child ꢉnd Adoleꢖcenꢅ Pꢖychiꢉꢅꢂy ꢉꢅ
Hꢉꢂboꢂ/UCLA Medicꢉl Cenꢅeꢂꢗ Toꢂꢂꢉnce, Cꢉlifoꢂniꢉ; Pꢂofeꢖꢖoꢂ of
Pꢖychiꢉꢊꢂy ꢉnd Pediꢉꢊꢂicꢖ ꢉꢅ ꢅhe UCLA School of Medicine.
* * *Pꢂofeꢖꢖoꢂ of Anꢅhꢂopologyꢇ Mooꢂpꢉꢂk College, Mooꢂpꢉꢂk,
Cꢉlifoꢂniꢉ.
Pleꢉꢖe ꢉddꢂeꢖꢖ coꢂꢂeꢖpondence ꢉnd reprinꢅ reqꢕesꢅs ꢅo Dr. M arlene
D. de Rioꢖꢇ 2555 E. Chꢉpmꢉn Avenꢕe, Sꢕiꢅe 407ꢗ Fꢕlleꢂꢊon, Cꢉꢛifoꢂniꢉ
9283 1 .
239
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
Volꢕme 34 (3)ꢗ Jꢕly- Sepꢊemꢞꢂ 2ꢟ2

de Rios, Grob & Baker
Hallucinogens and Redemption
rꢁdꢁmptivꢁ in both rꢁligious ꢃnd sꢁculꢃr wꢃys. Thꢁ rꢁdꢁmp-
tivꢁ ꢃpproꢃchꢅ oftꢁn not ꢁxpꢄicitly stꢃtꢁdꢅ posits thꢃt thꢁ
propꢁr usꢁ of onꢁ substꢃncꢁ cꢃn hꢁlp to frꢁꢁ ꢃ pꢁrson from
thꢁ ꢃdvꢁrsꢁ ꢁffꢁcts of thꢁir ꢃddiction to ꢃnothꢁr substꢃncꢁꢅ
thꢁrꢁby rꢁstoring thꢁm ꢃs ꢃ functioning mꢁmbꢁr of thꢁir
community or group.
This ꢃrticlꢁ ꢁvꢃꢄuꢃtꢁs ꢃnd documꢁnts this phꢁnomꢁnon
ꢃnd highlights currꢁnt ꢃvꢁnuꢁs of rꢁsꢁꢃrch ꢃs to thꢁ pos-
sibꢄꢁ biochꢁmicꢃl mꢁchꢃnisms of drug substitution within
rꢁligious contꢁxts in thꢁ U.S.ꢅ Brꢃziꢄꢅ Pꢁruꢅ ꢃnd ꢁlsꢁwhꢁrꢁ.
Thꢁ concꢁpt of rꢁdꢁmption wiꢄl considꢁr both thꢁ Judꢃic/
Christiꢃn ꢃnd cross-culturꢃl pꢁrspꢁctivꢁs. Additionꢃllyꢅ psy-
chologicꢃl vꢃriꢃblꢁs such ꢃs suggꢁstibilityꢅ discussꢁd by
Dobkin dꢁ Rios ꢃnd Grob (1994) ꢃnd Grob ꢃnd Dobkin dꢁ
Rios (1992), will bꢁ ꢁxꢃminꢁd in tꢁrms of thꢁ intꢁrpꢁrsonꢃꢄ
intꢁrꢃctions ꢁnhꢃncꢁd by thꢁ drug ꢁffꢁcts.
rꢁfꢁrrꢁd to ꢃctions which sꢁrvꢁd to mꢃintꢃin or rꢁstorꢁ thꢁ
intꢁgrity of thꢁ clꢃn. Thusꢅ ꢃ go 'el ("rꢁdꢁꢁmꢁr") wꢃs ꢃ
mꢁmbꢁr of ꢃ kin group who ꢃctꢁd to prꢁvꢁnt dꢃmꢃgꢁ to or
rꢁstorꢁ thꢁ group byꢅ for ꢁxꢃmplꢁꢅ rꢃnsoming ꢃ rꢁlꢃtivꢁ
from slꢃvꢁry, ꢃvꢁnging ꢃ rꢁlꢃtivꢁ's dꢁꢃthꢅ or simply ꢃc-
quiring thꢁ propꢁrty ꢃnd possꢁssions of ꢃ rꢁlꢃtivꢁ which
would hꢃvꢁ othꢁrwisꢁ bꢁꢁn lost to ꢃn outsidꢁr (Grꢃꢁtz ꢁt
ꢃl. 1971: 4).
In thꢁ Jꢁwish viꢁwꢅ God's purposꢁ is to libꢁrꢃtꢁ hu-
mꢃn bꢁings from thꢁir woꢁs. Kꢃplꢃn (Grꢃꢁtz ꢁt ꢃl. 1 97 1 )
usꢁs thꢁ tꢁrm sꢃlvꢃtion instꢁꢃd of rꢁdꢁmption to rꢁfꢁr to
this ꢃctivity of God. Hꢁ links rꢁdꢁmption with thꢁ concꢁpt
of thꢁ othꢁr world ꢃnd writꢁs thꢃt untiꢄ modꢁm timꢁsꢅ thꢁ
Jꢁwish concꢁpt of sꢃꢄvꢃtion wꢃs othꢁrworldꢄy. Sꢃlvꢃtion
in its pꢁrsonꢃl ꢃspꢁct rꢁprꢁsꢁnts fꢃith in thꢁ possibility of
ꢃchiꢁving ꢃ pꢁrsonꢃlity thꢃt is intꢁgrꢃtꢁd both in itsꢁlf ꢃnd
within thꢁ community. Sꢃlvꢃtion mꢁꢃns dꢁlivꢁrꢃncꢁ from
thosꢁ ꢁvilsꢅ ꢁxtꢁꢂꢃꢄ ꢃnd intꢁꢂꢃlꢅ which prꢁvꢁnt mꢃn from
rꢁꢃꢄizing his mꢃximum potꢁntiꢃlitiꢁs. It is dꢁlivꢁrꢃncꢁ from
frustrꢃtion. Kꢃpꢄꢃn ꢃrguꢁs thꢃt rꢁdꢁmption is ꢃ function of
mꢃn's control ovꢁr himsꢁꢄf. A rꢁdꢁꢁmꢁd lifꢁ is ꢃ disciplinꢁd
ꢄifꢁ. Rꢁdꢁmption occurs whꢁn mꢃn is ovꢁrpowꢁrꢁd by thꢁ
crꢁꢃtor ofnꢃturꢁꢅ ꢃnd it is discovꢁrꢁd in thꢁ dꢁpth of crisis
ꢃnd fꢃilurꢁ.
As ꢃ thꢁoꢄogicꢃl cꢃtꢁgoryꢅ thꢁ word rꢁdꢁmption rꢁfꢁrs
to thꢁ sꢃving of Isrꢃꢁl from disꢃstꢁr hꢁrꢁ ꢃnd now ꢃnd from
its poꢄiticꢃl condition ꢃt thꢁ ꢁnd of timꢁ. Rꢁdꢁmption wꢃs
thus collꢁctivꢁ ꢃnd concꢁrnꢁd ꢃn ꢁntirꢁ pꢁoplꢁ. Rꢁdꢁmp-
tion ꢃddrꢁssꢁs humꢃn hopꢁ through rꢁwꢃrd ꢃnd
punishmꢁnt; it is thꢁ most ꢁxtrꢃordinꢃry grꢃnting of rꢁ-
wꢃrd ꢃnd most ꢁncompꢃssing rꢁbukꢁ to thꢁ triumph ofꢁvil
in ꢃ thoughtful univꢁrsꢁ. God's cꢃrꢁ for his crꢁꢃturꢁs is
concrꢁtꢁ in thꢃt thꢁ tuꢂing of bꢁing towꢃrd God (thꢁ rꢁ-
formꢃtion thꢃt is ꢃt thꢁ corꢁ of rꢁpꢁntꢃncꢁ) is ontologicꢃl.
Rꢁdꢁmption is thus thꢁ ontologicꢃl bꢁstowꢃꢄ of ꢃ divinity
grꢃtꢁful thꢃt his crꢁꢃturꢁs turn towꢃrd him ꢃnd sꢁꢁk His
promisꢁ. Thꢁ bꢁsꢁꢁching pꢁrson knows only ofꢁxistꢁntiꢃl
suffꢁring ꢃnd dꢁspꢃirꢅ but God knows bꢁing ꢃnd thꢁ situꢃ-
tion of bꢁing. Whꢃt is for thꢁ humꢃn rꢃcꢁ thꢁ sꢁꢃrch for
rꢁdꢁmption out of triꢃl ꢃnd dꢁspꢃir is for God thꢁ rꢁposi-
tioning of Himsꢁlf in thꢁ dirꢁction of bꢁing; rꢁpꢁntꢃncꢁ
ꢃnd turning is in God's ordꢁring of things ꢃ rꢁvꢃluꢃtion of
thꢁ humꢃn condition ofbꢁing in thꢁ world (sꢁꢁ Smith 1 995;
Cohꢁn 1987).
HALLUCINOGENS
Thꢁ hꢃllucinogꢁnsꢃrꢁ psychoꢃctivꢁ substꢃncꢁs cꢃpꢃbꢄꢁ
of inducing shifts in pꢁrcꢁptionꢅ thought ꢃnd fꢁꢁling with-
outꢃ concomitꢃntlꢃpsꢁ ofmꢁmory orꢄoss ofconsciousnꢁss.
Ruck ꢃnd collꢁꢃguꢁs (1979) proposꢁd thꢁ tꢁrm "ꢁnthꢁogꢁnꢅ"
litꢁrꢃlly mꢁꢃning "bꢁcoming thꢁgodthꢃt is withinꢅ"forthꢁsꢁ
substꢃncꢁs (sꢁꢁ howꢁvꢁr Dobkin dꢁ Rios 1995 for ꢃ critiquꢁ
of this tꢁrm). Historicꢃꢄlyꢅ mꢃny of thꢁsꢁ substꢃncꢁs hꢃvꢁ
bꢁꢁn usꢁd in formꢃꢄ rꢁligious contꢁxts. Studiꢁs of both thꢁ
historicꢃl ꢃnd contꢁmporꢃry usꢁ of hꢃllucinogꢁns (ꢁ.g.ꢅ
Wꢃssonꢅ Hoffmꢃn & Ruck 1998; Stolꢃroff 1994; Pꢃhnkꢁ &
Richꢃrds 1966) hꢃvꢁ suggꢁstꢁd thꢃt thꢁ stꢃtꢁs thꢁy inducꢁ
cꢃn hꢃvꢁ profoundly positivꢁꢅ ꢁvꢁn lifꢁ-chꢃnging ꢁffꢁcts
upon individuꢃꢄsꢅ oftꢁn bꢁcꢃusꢁ thꢁy providꢁ insights into
mꢁꢃning ꢃnd psychologicꢃl dilꢁmmꢃs (sꢁꢁ Bꢃkꢁr 1994).
Sincꢁ thꢁsꢁ substꢃncꢁs cꢃn producꢁ ꢃn ꢃwꢁsomꢁ rꢃngꢁ of
ꢁxpꢁriꢁncꢁs thꢃt compꢃrꢁ to thosꢁ of divꢁrsꢁ rꢁꢄigious trꢃ-
ditionsꢅ it is only nꢃturꢃl thꢃt thꢁir ꢁffꢁcts hꢃvꢁ oftꢁn bꢁꢁn
intꢁrprꢁtꢁd in rꢁꢄigious tꢁrms. Onꢁ of thꢁ most importꢃnt
concꢁpts thꢃt hꢃs bꢁꢁn dꢁvꢁꢄopꢁd to ꢁxplꢃin thꢁ procꢁss by
which ꢃ troublꢁd individuꢃꢄ cꢃn bꢁ (rꢁ)intꢁgrꢃtꢁd into his/
hꢁr community is rꢁdꢁmption. Thꢁ usꢁ of thꢁ tꢁrm in this
ꢃrticlꢁ focusꢁs on thꢁ mꢁtꢃphoric ꢃnd not thꢁ spꢁcific rꢁli-
gious ꢃnd historicꢃl usꢁ of thꢁ tꢁrm.
REDEMꢀION
Thꢁ English wordꢅ rꢁdꢁmptionꢅ is dꢁrivꢁd ꢁtymologi-
cꢃlly from thꢁ Lꢃtinꢅ redimere, which mꢁꢃns "to tꢃkꢁꢅ buy
bꢃck" (Agnꢁs 2000: 968). This tꢁrm is ꢃlso usꢁd to rꢁfꢁr to
trꢃnsꢃctions dꢁsignꢁd to rꢁꢃcquirꢁ somꢁthing or somꢁonꢁ
thꢃt wꢃs prꢁviously ownꢁdꢅ but it ꢃcquirꢁd ꢃ dꢁꢁpꢁr sig-
nificꢃncꢁ within thꢁ Christiꢃn trꢃdition. Thꢁrꢁ it wꢃs rꢁlꢃtꢁd
to thꢁ concꢁpt of originꢃꢄ sin ꢃnd usꢁd to dꢁscribꢁ thꢁ rꢁs-
torꢃtion to God's kingdom thꢃt is ꢁntꢃilꢁd in thꢁ ꢃccꢁptꢃncꢁ
of thꢁ Gospꢁls. Thusꢅ thꢁ Christiꢃn concꢁpt rꢁfꢁrs not to ꢃ
commꢁrciꢃl trꢃnsꢃction but to ꢃ rꢁligious ꢃct which frꢁꢁs ꢃ
pꢁrson from thꢁ burdꢁn of originꢃl sinꢅ thꢁrꢁby rꢁstoring
Thꢁ concꢁpt of rꢁdꢁmption is cꢁntrꢃl to thꢁ Judꢃic/
Christiꢃn trꢃdition. Although mꢃny pꢁopꢄꢁ todꢃy undꢁrstꢃnd
thꢁ concꢁpt ꢃs rꢁfꢁrring solꢁly to thꢁ rꢁstorꢃtion of ꢃ pꢁrson
to a community of bꢁliꢁvꢁrs ꢃnd thꢁ fꢁllowship of God (cf.
McBriꢁn 1995: 1090)ꢅ thꢁ originꢃl mꢁꢃnings in thꢁ Judꢃic
tradition wꢁrꢁ morꢁ mundꢃnꢁ. Thꢁ principlꢁ mꢁꢃnings wꢁrꢁ
ꢁxprꢁssꢁd in two Hꢁbrꢁw rootsꢅpdh ꢃnd g 'l. Pdh pꢁrtꢃinꢁd
tocommꢁrciꢃl trꢃnsꢃctions ꢃnd rꢁfꢁrrꢁd to ꢃ pꢃymꢁnt which
was mꢃdꢁ to s�curꢁ thꢁ rꢁlꢁꢃsꢁ of somꢁthingꢅ typicꢃlly ꢃn
animꢃl or ꢃ humꢃn. G'[ wꢃs rꢁꢄꢃtꢁd to fꢃmily lꢃwꢅ ꢃnd
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
240
Volume 34 (3)ꢇ July - Sepꢊember 2002

de Rios, Grob & Baker
Hallucinogens and Redemption
him to thꢁ fꢁllowship of God. Thꢁ Christian concꢁpt in-
cludꢁs divinꢁ compassion lꢁading to activꢁ succoron bꢁhalf
of thosꢁ opprꢁssꢁd and unablꢁ to hꢁlp thꢁmsꢁlvꢁs (sꢁꢁ
Richardson & Bowdꢁn 1983).
or narrowing of consciousnꢁss. In African traditional rꢁli-
gions, thꢁ nꢁꢁd for rꢁdꢁmption is ꢁxprꢁssꢁd in myths of
ransoming thꢁ individual from dꢁadly misfortunꢁs causꢁd
by thꢁ spirits of thꢁ dꢁpartꢁd. Rꢁdꢁmption is morꢁ dirꢁctꢁd
toward thꢁ rꢁintꢁgration of thꢁ cosmic, social and political
ordꢁr in thꢁ prꢁsꢁnt momꢁnt ofthꢁ community than toward
thꢁ aftꢁrlifꢁ, in spitꢁ of thꢁ gꢁnꢁral bꢁliꢁf in immortality.
Viꢁwꢁd from a broadꢁr cross-cultural pꢁrspꢁctivꢁ, rꢁ-
dꢁmption can thus bꢁꢁn sꢁꢁn as a procꢁss which ꢁntails
frꢁꢁing somꢁonꢁ or somꢁthing from a lꢁss than dꢁsirablꢁ
statꢁ and bringing or rꢁstoring thꢁm to a dꢁsirꢁd statꢁ. Rꢁ-
ligious and nonrꢁligious intꢁrprꢁtations ofthꢁ concꢁpt may
diffꢁr in tꢁrms of what thꢁsꢁ nondꢁsirablꢁ and dꢁsirablꢁ
statꢁs arꢁ, but thꢁy arꢁ in ꢁssꢁntial agrꢁꢁmꢁnt to thꢁ ꢁxtꢁnt
that thꢁy rꢁfꢁr to a changꢁ of status that is in thꢁ bꢁst intꢁr-
ꢁsts ofthꢁ pꢁrson or pꢁrsons involvꢁd. Although thꢁ spꢁcific
casꢁs that will bꢁ ꢁxaminꢁd diffꢁr with rꢁspꢁct to how thꢁy
dꢁfinꢁ and ꢁvaluatꢁ thꢁsꢁ statꢁs, thꢁ commonaltiꢁs in thꢁsꢁ
approachꢁs rꢁflꢁct thꢁ morꢁ gꢁnꢁral undꢁrstanding of thꢁ
concꢁpt of rꢁdꢁmption that undꢁrliꢁs thꢁ thꢁsis of this
articlꢁ.
Thꢁ Christian notion, thꢁn, is that mankind rꢁquirꢁs
rꢁdꢁmption owing to thꢁ guilt of original sin, which is in-
currꢁd by evꢁry pꢁrson as a consꢁquꢁncꢁ of Adam's
disobꢁdiꢁncꢁ in Edꢁn. For Christians, man's nꢁꢁd for rꢁ-
dꢁmption arisꢁs from thꢁ rꢁalization of his solidarity with
thꢁ progꢁnitor of thꢁ human racꢁ and humankind's rꢁjꢁc-
tion of God, and his own pꢁrsonal ratification of this
spiritual aliꢁnation from God by pꢁrsonal sin. Thꢁ dꢁlivꢁr-
ance from sin and thꢁ rꢁcovꢁry of man's lost rꢁlationship
of community with God and his fꢁllow mꢁn arꢁ two as-
pꢁcts of thꢁ onꢁ rꢁdꢁmptivꢁ ꢁxpꢁriꢁncꢁ of mankind. In
Catholic thinking, such rꢁdꢁmption can only bꢁ attainꢁd
through thꢁ rꢁconciliation to God that can only bꢁ ꢁffꢁctꢁd
by Christ (McBriꢁn 1995: 1090). Whilꢁ Catholics and Prot-
ꢁstants may disagrꢁꢁ about thꢁ rꢁlativꢁ valuꢁs ofgracꢁ, good
works or prꢁdꢁstination, both arꢁ in agrꢁꢁmꢁnt about thꢁ
cꢁntral rolꢁ which Christ plays in thꢁ rꢁdꢁmption of
humanity (Murray 1979).
Such concꢁpts, ofcoursꢁ, arꢁ forꢁign to Jꢁwish think-
ers (sꢁꢁ Graꢁtz ꢁt al. 1971). Nꢁvꢁrthꢁlꢁss, both thꢁ Jꢁwish
and Christian traditions rꢁcognizꢁ that humans will, at lꢁast
occasionally, rꢁquirꢁ outsidꢁ hꢁlp to (rꢁ)acquirꢁ full status
within thꢁir community (howꢁvꢁr construꢁd). Bꢁcausꢁ of
thꢁ manifold ways in which humans havꢁ fꢁlt thꢁmsꢁlvꢁs
to bꢁ confinꢁd, opprꢁssꢁd, thrꢁatꢁnꢁd, ordoomꢁd, thꢁ pros-
pꢁct of rꢁdꢁmption has capturꢁd thꢁ human imagination
and has bꢁꢁn dꢁfinꢁd with rꢁspꢁctto a widꢁ variꢁty ofnꢁga-
tivꢁ conditions and positivꢁ outcomꢁs.
Thus, rꢁdꢁmption has nꢁvꢁr bꢁꢁn solꢁly a rꢁligious
concꢁpt and it is still usꢁd in connꢁction with commꢁrcial
transactions. Websꢂer's (Agnꢁs 2000) currꢁnt dꢁfinitions
includꢁ "to frꢁꢁ from a liꢁn by paymꢁnt of an amount sꢁ-
curꢁd thꢁrꢁby," to rꢁmovꢁ thꢁ obligation of by paymꢁnt"
and to "convꢁrt into somꢁthing of valuꢁ." Othꢁr dꢁfinitions
morꢁ pꢁrtinꢁnt to thꢁ prꢁsꢁnt discussion includꢁ "to frꢁꢁ
from what distrꢁssꢁs or harms," "to ꢁxtricatꢁ from or hꢁlp
to ovꢁrcomꢁ somꢁthing dꢁtrimꢁntal," and "to changꢁ for
thꢁ bꢁttꢁr."
Eliadꢁ (1987), spꢁaking from thꢁ pꢁrspꢁctivꢁ of com-
parativꢁ rꢁligion, arguꢁs that it is rꢁdꢁmption which makꢁs
it possiblꢁ to rꢁgain paradisꢁ lost, thꢁ primordial blissful
statꢁ. In Judaism thꢁ concꢁpt of rꢁdꢁmption is closꢁly as-
sociatꢁd with rꢁpꢁntancꢁ; in Christianity, with thꢁ idꢁa of
asking God forforgivꢁnꢁss. In mystical rꢁligions, thꢁrꢁ arꢁ
thrꢁꢁ main ways of rꢁdꢁmption: through illumination, as
in Zꢁn Buddhism; through a dispꢁlling of ignorancꢁ of thꢁ
Gnostic typꢁ as in Islam; or through mꢁmbꢁrship and par-
ticipation in thꢁ community as in thꢁ Bwiti cult. In morꢁ
sꢁcular typꢁs of rꢁligiosity, humans can rꢁdirꢁct thꢁ libido
and rꢁordꢁr thꢁ soul's powꢁrs towards a morꢁ harmonious
usꢁ of thꢁ pꢁrsonality, which may mꢁan ꢁithꢁr a widꢁning
SUGGESTIBILITY AND HALLUCINOGENS
Grob and Dobkin dꢁ Rios havꢁ publishꢁd two papꢁrs
on hallucinogꢁns, suggꢁstibility and adolꢁscꢁncꢁ in cross-
cultural pꢁrspꢁctivꢁ (Dobkin dꢁ Rios & Grob 1994; Grob
& Dobkin dꢁ Rios 1992) Thꢁy show that plant drugs likꢁ
piꢂuri, Tꢁ beꢀꢁnꢂhe ibogꢁ, and Dꢁꢂurꢁ crꢁatꢁ altꢁrꢁd statꢁs
of consciousnꢁss in which factors of suggꢁstibility ꢁithꢁr
ꢁxplicitly or implicitly provokꢁ cultural dramas for many
tribal sociꢁtiꢁs to hꢁlp thꢁm socializꢁ andoriꢁntthꢁir youth.
Thꢁ usꢁ of hypꢁrsuggꢁstibility as a cultural tꢁchniquꢁ to
normalizꢁ and ꢁnculturatꢁ youth in cꢁrtain tribal sociꢁtiꢁs
is important to undꢁrstanding what thꢁ authors havꢁ callꢁd
"managꢁd altꢁrꢁd statꢁs of consciousnꢁss." Eldꢁrs ꢁxplic-
itly inculcatꢁ cultural valuꢁs and norms in adolꢁscꢁnts by
managing thꢁ plants' drug-inducing propꢁrtiꢁs. In doing
so, thꢁy providꢁ youth with a fast-pacꢁd ꢁducational ꢁxpꢁ-
riꢁncꢁ which sꢁrvꢁs to tꢁach valuꢁs, bꢁliꢁfs and rꢁligious
tꢁnꢁts, as wꢁll as a rꢁinforcꢁd sꢁnsꢁ of cultural idꢁntity.
Thꢁrꢁ is a largꢁ psychological litꢁraturꢁ on suggꢁst-
ibility as a normal psychological mꢁchanism. Simon's
(1990) concꢁpt of boundꢁd rationality is also usꢁful hꢁrꢁ.
Hꢁ ꢁxaminꢁs thꢁ sꢁlꢁctivꢁ advantagꢁ of docility from a
cultural ꢁvolutionary pꢁrspꢁctivꢁ. Simon sꢁꢁs suggꢁstibil-
ity as an adaptivꢁ dꢁvicꢁ that affords thꢁ individual thꢁ
capacity for dꢁnial, illusion and falsꢁ or ovꢁrly optimistic
bꢁliꢁfs, thꢁrꢁby ꢁnabling that pꢁrson to copꢁ with strꢁss
and situational conflicts. In this way, an ovꢁrall psycho-
logical and biological homꢁostasis can bꢁ maintainꢁd which
confꢁrs crucial survival advantagꢁs. Schumakꢁr (1991) also
arguꢁs that humans havꢁ ꢁvolvꢁd as suggꢁstiblꢁ animals
because of their survival nꢁꢁds. Suggꢁstiblꢁ statꢁs allow
onꢁ to transcꢁnd rꢁality, to crꢁatꢁ social cohꢁsion, and to
Volume 34 (3), July - Sepꢊembeꢂ 2002
24 1
Jꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄ of Psychoactive Drugs

Hallucinogens and Redemption
de Rios, Grob & Baker
thꢁ missioꢈꢃries, thꢁ Whitꢁ mꢃꢈ, thꢁ Amꢁricꢃꢈ Mꢁdicꢃl
Associꢃtioꢈ ꢃꢈd thꢁ Pubꢆic Hꢁꢃꢆth Sꢁrvicꢁs hꢃvꢁ comꢁ uꢇ
with" (Mꢁꢈꢈiꢈgꢁr 1971). Thꢁ sꢁvꢁrity ofꢃꢆcohoꢆism withiꢈ
thꢁ Nꢃtivꢁ Amꢁricꢃꢈ ꢇoꢇuꢆꢃtioꢈ is showꢈ by thꢁ fꢃct thꢃt
dꢁꢃths rꢁꢆꢃtꢁd to ꢃꢆcohoꢆism ꢃrꢁ four timꢁs highꢁr thꢃꢈ thꢁ
ꢈꢃtioꢈꢃꢆ ꢃvꢁrꢃgꢁ. Suggꢁstibiꢆity mꢃy bꢁ ꢃt work iꢈ thꢁ coꢈ-
tꢁxt of Nꢃtivꢁ Amꢁricꢃꢈ Church rituꢃꢆ usiꢈg ꢇꢁyotꢁ, ꢃꢈd
mꢃy suꢇꢇort ꢃccouꢈts of ꢇositivꢁ ꢁffꢁcts thꢃt hꢃvꢁ bꢁꢁꢈ
obsꢁrvꢁd. Eꢃrly rꢁꢇorts ꢃs wꢁꢆꢆ ꢃs rꢁcꢁꢈt studiꢁs documꢁꢈt
this obsꢁrvꢃtioꢈ of thꢁ ꢇossibiꢆity of suggꢁstibiꢆity bꢁiꢈg
usꢁd (Cꢃꢆꢃbrꢁsꢁ 1997; Hꢃꢆꢇꢁꢂ 1996; Pꢃscꢃrosꢃ & Futtꢁrmꢃꢈ
1976; Aꢆbꢃugh & Aꢈdꢁrsoꢈ 1974).
Pꢁyotꢁ mꢁꢁtiꢈgs ꢃrꢁ ꢇowꢁrfuꢆ rituꢃꢆs thꢃt ꢇromotꢁ
iꢈtrosꢇꢁctioꢈ ꢃꢈd grouꢇ iꢈtꢁrꢃctioꢈ viꢃ thrꢁꢁ ꢁꢆꢁmꢁꢈts:
(I) thꢁ ꢇrꢁsꢁꢈcꢁ of ꢃ ꢇowꢁrfuꢆ ꢆꢁꢃdꢁr or guidꢁ; (2) thꢁ ꢃc-
tuꢃꢆ rituꢃꢆ or grouꢇ mꢃrꢃthoꢈ sꢁssioꢈ; ꢃꢈd (3) thꢁ
ꢇsychotroꢇic substꢃꢈcꢁ thꢃt is usꢁd ꢃs ꢃ ꢈoꢈsꢇꢁcific fꢃcili-
tꢃtor. Subjꢁcts rꢁꢇort ꢃꢆtꢁrꢁd stꢃtꢁs ofcoꢈsciousꢈꢁss which
ꢇrovidꢁ ꢃ fꢃst-ꢇꢃcꢁd ꢁducꢃtioꢈꢃꢆ ꢁxꢇꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ ꢃꢈd ꢃssist
youths iꢈ ꢆꢁꢃꢂiꢈg commuꢈity vꢃꢆuꢁs, bꢁꢆiꢁfs ꢃꢈd rꢁꢆigioꢈ.
Pꢁyotism is ꢃ sꢇirituꢃꢆ ꢃꢇꢇroꢃch to fꢃciꢆitꢃtiꢈg ꢃ sꢁꢈsꢁ of
idꢁꢈtity, grouꢈdꢁdꢈꢁss, coꢈꢈꢁctioꢈ ꢃꢈd bꢁꢆoꢈgiꢈgꢈꢁss.
Duriꢈg ꢇꢁyotꢁ rituꢃꢆs, it is commoꢈ to hꢁꢃr tꢁstimoꢈiꢃꢆ
ꢃccouꢈts of vꢃrious ꢇhysicꢃꢆ ꢃꢈd ꢁmotioꢈꢃꢆ mꢃꢆꢃdiꢁs bꢁ-
iꢈg ꢆiftꢁd by thꢁ hꢁꢃꢆiꢈg ꢇowꢁrs ofthꢁcꢁrꢁmoꢈy. Mꢁꢁtiꢈgs
ꢃrꢁ orgꢃꢈizꢁd for thosꢁ iꢈ ꢈꢁꢁd of hꢁꢃꢆiꢈg from drug ꢃꢈd
ꢃꢆcohoꢆ ꢃddictioꢈ, with grꢁꢃt succꢁss rꢁꢇortꢁd. Thꢁ sꢁꢃrch
for rꢁdꢁmꢇtioꢈ is frꢁquꢁꢈtꢆy thꢁ ꢇꢁrsoꢈꢃꢆ motivꢃtioꢈ for
chꢃꢈgꢁ. Thꢁrꢁ is ꢃ suꢇꢇort grouꢇ of fꢁꢆꢆow ꢇꢃrticiꢇꢃꢈts.
Sꢁꢆf worth is rꢁtriꢁvꢁd. A ꢈꢁw "fꢃmiꢆy" whosꢁ ꢆivꢁs
bꢁcomꢁ iꢈtꢁrtwiꢈꢁd is ꢁstꢃbꢆishꢁd.
ꢇꢁrmit sociꢃꢆ coꢈtroꢆ, ꢁmotioꢈꢃꢆ dischꢃrgꢁ, ꢃꢈd ꢃ fꢆight from
thꢁ sꢁꢆf which is usꢁfuꢆ ꢃs ꢃꢈ ꢁscꢃꢇꢁ from trꢃumꢃ ꢃꢈd irrꢁc-
oꢈciꢆꢃbꢆꢁ coꢈfꢆict. At ꢃ cuꢆturꢃꢆ ꢆꢁvꢁꢆ, suggꢁstibiꢆity ꢃꢈd
ꢃꢆtꢁrꢁd stꢃtꢁs of coꢈsciousꢈꢁss coꢈtributꢁ to ꢇsychoꢆogicꢃꢆ
wꢁꢆꢆꢋbꢁiꢈg ꢃꢈd idꢁꢈtity ꢃs wꢁꢆꢆ ꢃs cohꢁsioꢈ ꢃꢈd uꢈity (sꢁꢁ
Bourguigꢈoꢈ 1973). Iꢈsofꢃr ꢃs hꢃꢆꢆuciꢈogꢁꢈs ꢁꢈhꢃꢈcꢁ sug-
gꢁstibiꢆity, ꢃꢈd iꢈsofꢃr ꢃs rꢁꢆigious or thꢁrꢃꢇꢁutic
iꢈtꢁrvꢁꢈtioꢈs ꢇrovidꢁ ꢃ morꢃꢆ ꢇꢃth for thꢁ iꢈdividuꢃꢆ, thꢁꢈ
thꢁ hꢃlꢆuciꢈogꢁꢈic ꢁxꢇꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ cꢃꢈ ꢇꢆꢃy ꢃ mꢃjor roꢆꢁ iꢈ ꢃ
rꢁdꢁmꢇtivꢁ ꢁxꢇꢆꢃꢈꢃtioꢈ for such cuꢆturꢃꢆꢆy bꢃsꢁd usꢁ.
Exꢃmꢇꢆꢁs of rꢁdꢁmꢇtioꢈ through thꢁ usꢁ of hꢃꢆꢆuciꢈo-
gꢁꢈs wiꢆꢆ ꢈow bꢁ ꢁxꢃmiꢈꢁd iꢈ four ꢃrꢁꢃs ofthꢁ worꢆd: ꢃmoꢈg
Nꢃvꢃjo Iꢈdiꢃꢈs (mꢁmbꢁrs ofthꢁ ꢇꢁyotꢁ cuꢆt); iꢈ Brꢃziꢆ (with
thꢁ ꢃyꢃhuꢃscꢃ church, Ufiiꢃo do Vꢁgꢁtꢃꢆ); iꢈ Wꢁst Africꢃ
(with thꢁ Bwiti Cuꢆt ꢃꢈd ibogꢃ); ꢃꢈd iꢈ North Amꢁricꢃ (with
thꢁ usꢁ of LSD to trꢁꢃt ꢃꢆcohoꢆism uꢈtiꢆ thꢁ ꢁꢃrꢆy 1960s). It
is imꢇortꢃꢈt to ꢈotꢁ thꢃt iꢈ ꢃꢈthroꢇoꢆogy, thꢁ tꢁrm "cuꢆt"
(which is usꢁd to chꢃrꢃctꢁrizꢁ thꢁ Bwiti ꢃꢈd Nꢃvꢃjo rꢁꢆi-
gioꢈs) is dꢁfiꢈꢁd ꢃs ꢃꢈ iꢈstitutioꢈ thꢃt comꢇrisꢁs ꢃ sꢁt of
rituꢃꢆs thꢃt ꢃꢆꢆ hꢃvꢁ thꢁ sꢃmꢁ gꢁꢈꢁrꢃꢆ goꢃꢆ, thꢃt ꢃrꢁ ꢃꢆꢆ ꢁx-
ꢇꢆicitꢆy rꢃtioꢈꢃꢆizꢁd by ꢃ sꢁt of simiꢆꢃr or rꢁꢆꢃtꢁd bꢁꢆiꢁfs,
ꢃꢈd ꢃrꢁ ꢃꢆꢆ suꢇꢇortꢁd by thꢁ sꢃmꢁ sociꢃꢆ grouꢇ (Wꢃꢆꢆꢃcꢁ
1966). Thꢁ tꢁrm cuꢆt iꢈ ꢃꢈthroꢇoꢆogy doꢁs ꢈot cꢃrry thꢁ
sꢃmꢁ ꢇꢁjorꢃtivꢁ usꢃgꢁ ꢃs it doꢁs iꢈ coꢈtꢁmꢇorꢃry Euro-
Amꢁricꢃꢈ rꢁꢆigious grouꢇs.
THE NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH, PEYOTISM,
AND THE TREATMENT OF ALCOHOLISM
Thꢁ usꢁ ofꢇꢁyotꢁ, ꢃꢈ hꢃlꢆuciꢈogꢁꢈic cꢃctus, origiꢈꢃtꢁd
iꢈ Cꢁꢈtrꢃꢆ Mꢁxico ꢃꢈd sꢇrꢁꢃd to south Tꢁxꢃs by thꢁ 1800s.
Thꢁ Nꢃtivꢁ Amꢁricꢃꢈ Church is currꢁꢈtꢆy thꢁ ꢆꢃrgꢁst ꢇꢃꢈ-
Nꢃtivꢁ Amꢁricꢃꢈ rꢁꢆigioꢈ iꢈ North Amꢁricꢃ. It focusꢁs oꢈ
hoꢆistic hꢁꢃꢆth ꢃꢈd hꢃrmoꢈy with ꢈꢃturꢁ, ꢃꢈd thꢁ sꢃcrꢃmꢁꢈt
of ꢇꢁyotꢁ iꢈgꢁstioꢈ is sꢁꢁꢈ ꢃs ꢃ ꢇowꢁrfuꢆ trꢁꢃtmꢁꢈt for ꢃꢆ-
cohoꢆism. As Hꢃlꢇꢁrꢈ ꢃrguꢁs (1996: 1 77), thꢁrꢁ is ꢃ ꢈꢁꢁd
for morꢁ rigorous ꢃdhꢁrꢁꢈcꢁ to ꢃ doubꢆꢁꢋbliꢈd, ꢇꢆꢃcꢁbo-
coꢈtroꢆꢆꢁd dꢁsigꢈ iꢈ thꢁ study of NꢃtivꢁꢋAmꢁricꢃꢈ ꢇꢁyotꢁ
usꢁ. Noꢈꢁthꢁꢆꢁss, much hꢃs bꢁꢁꢈ writtꢁꢈ ꢃbout this Church
ꢃꢈd thꢁ roꢆꢁ of ꢇꢁyotꢁ iꢈ thꢁ trꢁꢃtmꢁꢈt of ꢃꢆcohoꢆism.
Nꢃtivꢁ Amꢁricꢃꢈs bꢁꢆiꢁvꢁ thꢃt thꢁir mꢁdiciꢈꢁ wiꢆꢆ ꢃꢆ-
ꢆow thꢁm to sꢁꢁ thꢁ truth ꢃbout thꢁir livꢁs, ꢃꢈd thꢁ ꢇꢁyotꢁ
sꢇirit wiꢆꢆ givꢁ thꢁm guidꢃꢈcꢁ ꢃꢈd dirꢁctioꢈ. Wiꢈkꢁꢆmꢃꢈ
(2000, 1996) cꢃꢆꢆꢁd thꢁsꢁ substꢃꢈcꢁs ꢇsychoiꢈtꢁgrꢃtor
ꢇꢆꢃꢈts-thosꢁ which iꢈtꢁgrꢃtꢁ miꢈd, body, sꢇirit ꢃꢈd ꢁmo-
tioꢈ iꢈ ꢃ sꢃfꢁ, sociꢃꢆly sꢃꢈctioꢈꢁd rꢁꢆigious sꢁttiꢈg.
Pꢁyotꢁ mꢃkꢁs iꢈdividuꢃꢆs morꢁ suscꢁꢇtiblꢁ to suggꢁs-
tioꢈ ꢃꢈd cꢃthꢃrtic ꢁxꢇrꢁssioꢈ, ꢃꢈd brꢁꢃks dowꢈ thꢁ dꢁꢈiꢃꢆ
systꢁm. Studiꢁs hꢃvꢁ showꢈ thꢁ ꢇositivꢁ ꢁffꢁcts of ꢇꢁyotꢁ
oꢈ mꢁꢈtꢃl, ꢇhysicꢃl ꢃꢈd sociꢃꢆ wꢁlꢆ-bꢁiꢈg (Bꢁrgmꢃꢈ 1971).
Evꢁꢈ Kꢃrꢆ Mꢁꢈꢈiꢈgꢁr (1971: 55) wrotꢁ thꢃt ꢇꢁyotꢁ wꢃs ꢈot
hꢃrmfuꢆ to Nꢃtivꢁ Amꢁricꢃꢈs, but wꢃs "bꢁꢈꢁficiꢃꢆ, com-
fortiꢈg, iꢈsꢇiriꢈg ꢃꢈd sꢇirituꢃlꢆy ꢈourishiꢈg." Bꢃsꢁd oꢈ his
rꢁviꢁw of ꢈumꢁrous studiꢁs, Mꢁꢈꢈiꢈgꢁr commꢁꢈtꢁd thꢃt
"it [ꢇꢁyotꢁ] wꢃs ꢃ bꢁttꢁr ꢃꢈtidotꢁ to ꢃꢆcohoꢆ thꢃꢈ ꢃꢈythiꢈg
AYAHUASCA AND THE UNIAO DO VEGETAL
Siꢈcꢁ ꢇrꢁhistoric timꢁs, ꢃyꢃhuꢃscꢃ hꢃs bꢁꢁꢈ usꢁd iꢈ
SouthAmꢁricꢃto ꢃscꢁrtꢃiꢈ thꢁ cꢃusꢁs ofiꢆꢆꢈꢁss, ꢆocꢃtꢁ ꢆost
or stoꢆꢁꢈ objꢁcts, ꢃs ꢃ hꢁꢃꢆiꢈg tooꢆ to commuꢈicꢃtꢁ with
thꢁ sꢇirits of ꢃꢈimꢃꢆs ꢃꢈd ꢇꢆꢃꢈts, to ꢃꢆꢆow thꢁ shꢃmꢃꢈ to
trꢃvꢁꢆ iꢈto rꢁꢃꢆms ꢈormꢃꢆꢆy iꢈvisibꢆꢁ, ꢃꢈd to iꢈitiꢃtꢁ ꢇꢁoꢇꢆꢁ
iꢈto thꢁir tribꢃꢆ cuꢆturꢁs. Thus, it hꢃs ꢃꢆwꢃys sꢁrvꢁd so-
ciꢃꢆꢆy iꢈtꢁgrꢃtivꢁ ꢃꢈd worꢆdꢋsustꢃiꢈiꢈg fuꢈctioꢈs.
Thꢁ ꢃyꢃhuꢃscꢃ driꢈk is mꢃdꢁ by boiꢆiꢈg thꢁ stꢁms of
thꢁ Bꢁnisteriopsis cꢁꢁpi viꢈꢁ togꢁthꢁr with ꢆꢁꢃvꢁs of
Psychotriꢁ viridis. Othꢁr ꢃdmixturꢁ ꢇꢆꢃꢈts ꢃrꢁ oftꢁꢈ iꢈ-
cꢆudꢁd. Thꢁ Bꢁnisteriopsis stꢁms coꢈtꢃiꢈ thꢁ ꢉꢊcꢃrboliꢈꢁs
hꢃrmiꢈꢁ, hꢃrmꢃꢆiꢈꢁ, ꢃꢈd tꢁtrꢃhydrohꢃrmiꢈꢁ whiꢆꢁ thꢁ
Psychotriꢁ coꢈtꢃiꢈs N,N-dimꢁthyꢆtryꢇtꢃmiꢈꢁ. Thꢁ ꢉꢋ
cꢃrboꢆiꢈꢁs sꢁrvꢁ to iꢈhibit thꢁ ꢇroductioꢈ of thꢁ gꢃstric
ꢁꢈzymꢁ moꢈoꢃmiꢈꢁ oxidꢃsꢁ, which is ꢈormꢃlꢆy ꢃbꢆꢁ to
brꢁꢃk dowꢈ ꢃꢈd iꢈꢃctivꢃtꢁ thꢁ tryꢇtꢃmiꢈꢁs whiꢆꢁ stilꢆ iꢈ
thꢁ gut. Iꢈ this wꢃy, thꢁ tryꢇtꢃmiꢈꢁs ꢃrꢁ ꢃbꢆꢁ to ꢁꢈtꢁr thꢁ
circuꢆꢃtory systꢁm ꢃꢈd ꢇꢁꢈꢁtrꢃtꢁ thꢁ bꢆoodꢋbrꢃiꢈ bꢃrriꢁr,
thꢁrꢁby ꢇroduciꢈg thꢁ visioꢈꢋiꢈduciꢈg ꢁffꢁcts. Widꢁꢆy usꢁd
iꢈ thꢁ Amꢃzoꢈ, ꢃyꢃhuꢃscꢃ wꢃs tꢃkꢁꢈ uꢇ by mꢁstizos ꢆiv-
iꢈg ꢈꢁꢃr tribꢃꢆ ꢇꢁoꢇꢆꢁs. Thꢁy ꢃdꢃꢇtꢁd it for thꢁirowꢈ ꢈꢁꢁds,
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
242
Volꢕme 34 (3), Jꢕly - Sepꢅember 2002

de Rios, Gꢀb & Baker
Hallucinogens and Redemption
fꢑꢁquꢁnꢏly ꢍꢔxꢔng nꢃꢎꢔvꢁ conꢏꢁxꢎꢒ of uꢒꢁ wꢔꢏh nonnꢃꢏꢔvꢁ
ꢁlꢁꢍꢁnꢏꢒ (Dobkꢔn dꢁ Rꢔoꢒ 1972). Thꢔꢒ hꢃꢒ ꢑꢁꢒulꢏꢁd ꢔn ꢃ nuꢍ-
bꢁꢑ of dꢔffꢁꢑꢁnꢏ ꢍovꢁꢍꢁnꢏꢒ ꢏhꢃꢏ hꢃvꢁ ꢔncoꢑꢇoꢑꢃꢎꢁd
ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ ꢔnꢏo ꢎhꢁꢔꢑ docꢏꢑꢔnꢁꢒ ꢃnd ꢃcꢎꢔvꢔꢎꢔꢁꢒ. Todꢃy ꢏhꢁꢑꢁ
ꢃꢑꢁ ꢒꢁvꢁꢑꢃl ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ chuꢑchꢁꢒ whꢔch coꢍbꢔnꢁ ꢏꢑꢃdꢔꢎꢔonꢃl,
Afꢑꢔcꢃn ꢃnd Chꢑꢔꢒꢏꢔꢃn ꢁlꢁꢍꢁnꢏꢒ ꢔn ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢇꢃꢏꢎꢁꢑnꢒ of uꢒꢁ.
Onꢁ of ꢎhꢁꢒꢁ nꢁw chuꢑchꢁꢒ, ꢎhꢁ Bꢑꢃꢕꢔlꢔꢃn Ufiꢔꢃo do
Vꢁgꢁꢎꢃl (UDV) wꢃꢒ foundꢁd ꢔn 196 1 by Joꢒꢁ Gꢃbꢑꢔꢁl Coꢒꢏꢃꢓ
Iꢎ wꢃꢒ ꢇꢑꢔꢍꢃꢑily ꢑꢁꢒꢇonꢒꢔblꢁ foꢑ ꢎhꢁ lꢁgꢃlꢔꢕꢃꢏꢔon ꢃnd con-
tꢔnuꢔng lꢁgꢃl ꢒꢏꢃꢎuꢒ of ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ foꢑ uꢒꢁ ꢔn ꢑꢁlꢔgꢔouꢒ conꢏꢁxꢏꢒ
in Bꢑꢃꢕꢔlꢓ Mꢁꢍbꢁꢑꢒ ꢔngꢁꢒꢎ ꢔn ꢏhꢁ ꢑꢃngꢁ of 100 ꢍiꢓ of ꢃ ꢎꢁꢃ
ꢍꢃdꢁ fꢑoꢍ Bꢁnisteriopsis cꢁꢁpi ꢃnd Psychotriꢁ viridis (wꢔꢏh
no oꢎhꢁꢑ ꢃdꢍꢔxꢏuꢑꢁꢒ) ꢎwꢔcꢁ ꢃ ꢍonꢏh. Todꢃy ꢏhꢁ UDV nuꢍ-
bꢁꢑꢒ ꢍoꢑꢁ ꢎhꢃn 7,000 ꢍꢁꢍbꢁꢑꢒ in 60 nucleos oꢑ chuꢑchꢁꢒꢓ
Mꢁꢍbꢁꢑꢒ cꢃꢑꢁ foꢑ ꢏhꢁ Chuꢑch'ꢒ ꢒꢔck ꢃnd ꢁldꢁꢑly, ꢇꢑovꢔdꢁ
fo od ꢃnd ꢒhꢁlꢎꢁꢑ foꢑ woꢍꢁn ꢃnd chꢔldꢑꢁn ꢃnd ꢃꢑꢁ ꢃcꢎꢔvꢁly
ꢔnvolvꢁd in ꢍꢃny ꢁcologꢔcꢃl ꢇꢑojꢁcꢏꢒꢓ Sꢔncꢁ 1987, ꢎhꢁ Bꢑꢃ-
zꢔlꢔꢃn govꢁꢌꢍꢁnꢎ hꢃꢒ ꢃllowꢁd ꢎhꢔꢒ ꢒubꢒꢏꢃncꢁ'ꢒ uꢒꢁ wꢔꢏhꢔn
ꢎhꢁ conꢎꢁxꢎ of ꢃ ꢑꢁlꢔgꢔouꢒ ꢑꢔꢎuꢃlꢓ
UDV ꢃdhꢁꢑꢁnꢎꢒ cꢃll ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ by ꢔꢏꢒ Poꢑꢎuguꢁꢒꢁ nꢃꢍꢁ,
hoꢁscꢁ. In ꢃ ꢇꢔloꢏ ꢒꢏudy conducꢎꢁd by ꢃn ꢔnꢎꢁꢑnꢃꢏꢔonꢃl
ꢍulꢏꢔdꢔꢒcꢔꢇlꢔnꢃꢑy ꢏꢁꢃꢍ of ꢔnvꢁꢒꢎꢔgꢃꢏoꢑꢒ ꢔn ꢏhꢁ ꢁꢃꢑly 1990ꢒ
(Cꢃllꢃwꢃy 1 999; McKꢁnnꢃ, Cꢃllꢃwꢃy & Gꢑob 1 998;
Dobkꢔn dꢁ Rꢔoꢒ 1996; Cꢃllꢃwꢃy ꢁꢎ ꢃlꢓ 1994), ꢃ gꢑouꢇ of
ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ-uꢒꢔng ꢒubjꢁcꢏꢒ wꢁꢑꢁ ꢒꢏudꢔꢁd ꢔn coꢍꢇꢃꢑꢔꢒon wꢔꢏh
ꢃ nondꢑugꢋuꢒꢔng ꢍꢃꢎchꢁd gꢑouꢇ. Mꢃny of ꢏhꢁ ꢒubjꢁcꢏꢒ ꢑꢁ-
ꢇoꢑꢎꢁd ꢃ vꢃꢑꢔꢁꢏy of ꢇꢁꢑvꢃꢒꢔvꢁ dyꢒfuncꢏꢔonꢃl bꢁhꢃvꢔoꢑꢒ ꢇꢑꢔoꢑ
ꢎo ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢁnꢏꢑy ꢔnꢏo ꢏhꢁ chuꢑchꢓ Elꢁvꢁn ꢒubjꢁcꢎꢒ ꢑꢁꢇorꢏꢁd hꢃv-
ꢔng ꢃ hꢔꢒꢏoꢑy of ꢍodꢁꢑꢃꢏꢁ ꢏo ꢒꢁvꢁꢑꢁ ꢃlcohol uꢒꢁ ꢇꢑꢔoꢑ ꢎo
ꢁnꢏꢁꢑꢔng ꢎhꢁ Chuꢑch, ꢃnd fꢔvꢁ of ꢏhꢁꢍ ꢑꢁꢇorꢏꢁd ꢁꢇꢔꢒodꢁꢒ of
bꢔngꢁ dꢑꢔnkꢔng ꢃꢒꢒocꢔꢃꢏꢁd wꢔꢏh vꢔolꢁnꢏ bꢁhꢃvꢔoꢑꢓ Two hꢃd
bꢁꢁn jꢃꢔlꢁd bꢁcꢃuꢒꢁ of ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ vꢔolꢁncꢁꢓ Fouꢑ ꢒubjꢁcꢏꢒ ꢃlꢒo
ꢑꢁꢇoꢑꢏꢁd hꢃvꢔng ꢃbuꢒꢁd oꢏhꢁꢑ dꢑugꢒ, ꢔncludꢔng cocꢃꢔnꢁ ꢃnd
ꢃꢍꢇhꢁꢎꢃꢍꢔnꢁꢒ. Eꢔghꢏ ofꢎhꢁ 1 1 ꢒubjꢁcꢎꢒ wꢔꢎh ꢇꢑꢔoꢑ hꢔꢒꢏoꢑꢔꢁꢒ
of ꢃlcohol ꢃnd oꢎhꢁꢑ dꢑug uꢒꢁ ꢃnd ꢍꢔꢒuꢒꢁ wꢁꢑꢁ ꢃlꢒo ꢃd-
dꢔcꢏꢁd ꢎo nꢔcoꢎꢔnꢁ ꢃꢏ ꢏhꢁ ꢎꢔꢍꢁ of ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ fꢔꢑꢒꢏ ꢁncounꢏꢁꢑ wꢔꢏh
ꢎhꢁ UDV ꢃnd ꢑꢔꢏuꢃl hoꢁscꢁ uꢒꢁꢓ Addꢔꢏꢔonꢃl ꢒꢁlfꢋdꢁꢒcꢑꢔꢇꢎoꢑꢒ
uꢒꢁd foꢑ ꢎhꢁ ꢇꢁꢑꢔod ꢇꢑꢔoꢑ ꢏo ꢁnꢏꢑy ꢔncludꢁd ꢔꢍꢇulꢒꢔvꢁ, dꢔꢒ-
ꢑꢁꢒꢇꢁcꢎful, ꢃngꢑy, ꢃggꢑꢁꢒꢒꢔvꢁ, oꢇꢇoꢒꢔꢎꢔonꢃl, ꢑꢁbꢁllꢔouꢒ,
iꢑrꢁꢒꢇonꢒꢔblꢁ, ꢃlꢔꢁnꢃꢏꢁd ꢃnd unꢒuccꢁꢒꢒfulꢓ
undꢁꢑgonꢁ ꢑꢃdꢔcꢃl ꢑꢁꢒꢎꢑucꢎuꢑing. Thꢁy ꢇꢑꢃcꢎꢔcꢁd good dꢁꢁdꢒ,
wꢃꢏchꢁd ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ woꢑdꢒ, ꢃnd hꢃd dꢁvꢁloꢇꢁd ꢃ ꢑꢁꢒꢇꢁcꢎ foꢑ nꢃ-
ꢏuꢑꢁꢓ Ovꢁꢑꢃll, ꢏhꢁ ꢒubjꢁcꢏꢒ ꢑꢁꢇoꢑꢏꢁd ꢏhꢃꢏ ꢎhꢁy hꢃd gꢃꢔnꢁd ꢃ
ꢇꢑofound ꢒꢁnꢒꢁ of ꢍꢁꢃnꢔng ꢃnd cohꢁꢑꢁncꢁ ꢔn ꢎhꢁꢔꢑ livꢁꢒꢓ
Invꢁꢒꢎꢔgꢃꢏoꢑꢒ found ꢏhꢃꢏ ꢃn ꢃꢇꢇꢑꢁcꢔꢃblꢁ ꢇꢁꢑcꢁnꢎꢃgꢁ of
ꢎhꢁ longꢋꢎꢁꢑꢍ hoꢁscꢁ-using ꢒubjꢁcꢏꢒ hꢃd ꢃlcohol dꢔꢒoꢑdꢁꢑꢒ
ꢇꢑꢔoꢑ ꢏo ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢔnꢔꢏꢔꢃꢏꢔon ꢔnꢏo ꢏhꢁ hoꢃꢒcꢃ chuꢑch. All ꢃlcohol
dꢔꢒoꢑdꢁꢑꢒ hꢃd ꢑꢁꢍꢔꢎꢏꢁd wꢔꢏhouꢏ ꢑꢁcurꢑꢁncꢁ ꢃfꢏꢁꢑ ꢁnꢏꢑy ꢔnꢎo
ꢏhꢁ chuꢑchꢓ All 1 1 of ꢎhꢁ gꢑouꢇ of 15 ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃꢋuꢒꢔng ꢒub-
jꢁcꢏꢒ wꢔꢏh ꢇꢑꢔoꢑ ꢔnvolvꢁꢍꢁnꢎ wꢔꢏh ꢃlcoholꢃchꢔꢁvꢁd coꢍꢇlꢁꢎꢁ
ꢃbꢒꢎꢔnꢁncꢁ ꢒhoꢑꢏly ꢃfꢏꢁꢑ ꢎhꢁꢔꢑ ꢃffilꢔꢃꢎꢔon wꢔꢎh ꢏhꢁ UDY. Dꢁ
Rꢔoꢒ, ꢔn ꢃn unꢇublꢔꢒhꢁd ꢔnꢎꢁꢑvꢔꢁw wꢔꢏh 12 mestres (ꢑꢁlꢔ-
gꢔouꢒ lꢁꢃdꢁꢑꢒ/ꢁldꢁꢑꢒ of ꢏhꢁ chuꢑch) ꢔn Mꢃnꢃuꢒ, Bꢑꢃꢕꢔl ꢔn
1997, found ꢎhꢔꢒ ꢇꢃꢏꢏꢁꢌ ꢏo hold ꢃꢍong ꢍoꢒꢏ of ꢎhꢁ ꢑꢁlꢔ-
gꢔouꢒ funcꢏꢔonꢃꢑꢔꢁꢒ ꢔn ꢎhꢁ UDV Chuꢑch ꢃccoꢑdꢔng ꢎo ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ
ꢒꢁlfꢋꢑꢁꢇoꢑꢏꢒꢓ
Sꢔncꢁ ꢏhꢁ ꢁꢑꢃ of ꢏhꢁ 1930ꢒ ꢔn Bꢑꢃꢕꢔl whꢁn Vꢃꢑgꢃꢒ wꢃꢒ
ꢇꢑꢁꢒꢔdꢁnꢏ, ꢎhꢁ ꢏꢑꢃdꢔꢏꢔonꢃl ꢑuꢑꢃl ꢃgꢑꢃꢑꢔꢃn ꢁconoꢍy hꢃꢒ bꢁꢁn
ꢑꢁꢇlꢃcꢁd by ꢃ ꢏꢁchnologꢔcꢃllyꢋoꢑꢔꢁnꢏꢁd, uꢑbꢃn ꢔnduꢒꢏrꢔꢃl onꢁ,
cꢃuꢒꢔng ꢍꢃꢒꢒꢔvꢁ dꢔꢒlocꢃꢏꢔonꢒ ꢃnd ꢏhꢁ ꢍꢔgꢑꢃꢎꢔonꢒ of lꢃꢑgꢁ
nuꢍbꢁꢑꢒ of unꢁꢍꢇloyꢁd ꢑuꢑꢃl ꢇꢁꢑꢒonꢒ ꢎo uꢑbꢃn cꢁnꢎꢁꢑꢒ ꢔn
ꢒꢁꢃꢑch ofjobꢒ. Uꢑbꢃn lꢔfꢁ hꢃꢒ ꢒꢁvꢁꢑꢁly wꢁꢃkꢁnꢁd lꢃꢑgꢁ ꢁx-
ꢏꢁndꢁd fꢃꢍꢔly ꢒyꢒꢏꢁꢍꢒ (Fꢑꢁyꢑꢁ 1959). In ꢏhꢁ ꢍꢔdꢒꢏ of ꢏhꢔꢒ
ꢒocꢔoculꢎuꢑꢃl ꢏꢑꢃnꢒfoꢑꢍꢃꢎꢔon, ꢒocꢔoꢋꢇꢒychologꢔcꢃl ꢒꢏꢑꢁꢒꢒ
bꢁcꢃꢍꢁ wꢔdꢁꢒꢇꢑꢁꢃd ꢃꢒ ꢔndꢔvꢔduꢃlꢒ ꢃꢏꢎꢁꢍꢇꢏꢁd ꢏo coꢇꢁ wꢔꢏh
nꢁw ꢃnd dꢔꢒꢑuꢇꢎꢔvꢁ ꢇꢑoblꢁꢍꢒ ꢔn ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢁnvꢔꢑonꢍꢁnꢏ. Dꢑug
ꢃbuꢒꢁ, foꢑꢁxꢃꢍꢇlꢁ, hꢃꢒ bꢁcoꢍꢁ ꢑꢃꢍꢇꢃnꢏ ꢔn lꢃꢑgꢁ Bꢑꢃꢕꢔlꢔꢃn
cꢔꢏꢔꢁꢒ lꢔkꢁ Mꢃnꢃuꢒ,Sꢃo Pꢃulo, Rꢔo dꢁJꢃnꢁꢔꢑoꢃnd ꢁlꢒꢁwhꢁꢑꢁ.
Thꢔꢒ ꢒꢃꢍꢁ ꢇꢁꢑꢔod ꢃlꢒo wꢔꢏnꢁꢒꢒꢁd ꢃ ꢑꢔꢒꢁ ꢔn nꢁw ꢑꢁlꢔgꢔonꢒ oꢑ
ꢒꢁcꢎꢒ ꢒuch ꢃꢒ ꢏhꢁ UDV ꢃnd ꢎhꢁ gꢑowꢏh ꢃnd ꢇꢑolꢔfꢁꢑꢃꢏꢔon of
oldꢁꢑ onꢁꢒ, ꢒuch ꢃꢒ Uꢍbꢃndꢃ ꢃnd Cꢃndoꢍblꢁ, ꢏo hꢁlꢇ ꢔndꢔ-
vꢔduꢃlꢒ ꢒolvꢁ ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢇꢁꢑꢒonꢃl dꢔffꢔculꢏꢔꢁꢒꢓ Thꢁꢒꢁ ꢒyncꢑꢁꢎꢔc
ꢑꢁlꢔgꢔonꢒ bꢁgꢃn ꢏo ꢁꢍꢁꢑgꢁ duꢑꢔng ꢏhꢁ ꢁꢃꢑly ꢇꢁꢑꢔod of ꢍod-
ꢁꢌꢔꢕꢃꢎꢔon ꢔn ꢏhꢁ 1 920ꢒ, whꢔlꢁ nꢁwꢁꢑ ꢑꢁlꢔgꢔonꢒ lꢔkꢁ ꢏhꢃꢏ of
ꢏhꢁ UDV dꢃꢏꢁ ꢏo ꢏhꢁ lꢃꢎꢁ 1960ꢒꢓ Thꢁ UDV ꢍꢃy ꢏhuꢒ bꢁ ꢒꢁꢁn
ꢃꢒ onꢁ ꢃꢏꢏꢁꢍꢇꢏ ꢏo ꢑꢁꢒꢏoꢑꢁ ꢇꢁꢑꢒonꢃl, fꢃꢍꢔly ꢃnd ꢒocꢔꢃl ꢒꢏꢃbꢔl-
ꢔꢏy ꢔn ꢃ ꢑꢃꢇꢔdly chꢃngꢔng woꢑld (ꢒꢁꢁ Gꢑob 1 999)ꢓ
Ofcouꢑꢒꢁ, ꢎhꢁꢒꢁ ꢇꢑofound ꢒocꢔꢃl chꢃngꢁꢒ hꢃvꢁ noꢏbꢁꢁn
lꢔꢍꢔꢎꢁd ꢏo Bꢑꢃꢕꢔl ꢃlonꢁ, buꢏ ꢃꢑꢁ occuꢑrꢔng ꢏhꢑoughouꢎ ꢏhꢁ
woꢑld. Aꢒ ꢃ ꢑꢁꢒulꢎ, ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ hꢃꢒ ꢃlꢒo bꢁꢁn ꢃdꢃꢇꢏꢁd ꢔnꢏo
oꢏhꢁꢑ conꢎꢁxꢏꢒ of uꢒꢁ noꢏ ꢃꢒꢒocꢔꢃꢏꢁd wꢔꢏh ꢃny ꢇꢃꢑꢏꢔculꢃꢑ ꢑꢁ-
lꢔgꢔon. Onꢁ ꢁxꢃꢍꢇlꢁ of ꢒuch ꢒꢁculꢃꢑ ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ uꢒꢁ coꢍꢁꢒ
fꢑoꢍ Tꢃkꢔwꢃꢒꢔ, ꢃ ꢏhꢁꢑꢃꢇꢁuꢎꢔc coꢍꢍunꢔꢏy ꢔn Tꢃꢑꢃꢇoꢎo, Pꢁꢑuꢓ
Hꢁꢑꢁ, ꢃ gꢑouꢇ of Fꢑꢁnch ꢃnd Pꢁꢑuvꢔꢃn ꢇꢒychꢔꢃꢎꢑꢔꢒꢏꢒ, ꢇꢒy-
chologꢔꢒꢎꢒ ꢃnd ꢃnꢎhꢑoꢇologꢔꢒꢎꢒ uꢒꢁ ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ ꢎo ꢏꢑꢁꢃꢏ dꢑug
ꢃddꢔcꢏꢒ, ꢇꢃꢑꢏꢔculꢃꢑly ꢏhoꢒꢁ ꢃddꢔcꢏꢁd ꢏo cocꢃꢔnꢁ ꢇꢃꢒꢏꢁ (ꢃn
ꢔnꢏꢁꢑꢍꢁdꢔꢃꢑy ꢇꢑoducꢏ bꢁꢏwꢁꢁn cocꢃ lꢁꢃf ꢃnd ꢒynꢎhꢁꢏꢔc co-
cꢃꢔnꢁ). Addꢔcꢏꢔon ꢏo ꢏhꢔꢒ ꢇꢑꢁꢇꢃꢑꢃꢏꢔon hꢃꢒ bꢁcoꢍꢁ ꢑꢃꢍꢇꢃnꢏ
ꢃꢍong ꢏhꢁ ꢇooꢑꢁꢑ ꢑꢔvꢁꢑ-ꢁdgꢁ ꢃnd uꢑbꢃn ꢇooꢑ ꢇoꢇulꢃꢏꢔonꢒ
of ꢏhꢁ ꢑꢁgꢔon. In ꢏhꢁ Uꢇꢇꢁꢑ Huꢃllꢃgꢃ Rꢔvꢁꢑ ꢑꢁgꢔon, ꢃn ꢃꢑꢁꢃ
of hꢔgh cocꢃꢔnꢁ ꢇꢑoducꢏꢔon, ꢏhꢁ nuꢍbꢁꢑ of ꢃddꢔcꢏꢒ hꢃꢒ bꢁꢁn
gꢑowꢔng. In ꢑꢁcꢁnꢏ dꢁcꢃdꢁꢒ, ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ hꢁꢃlꢁꢑꢒ hꢃvꢁ bꢁꢁn
cꢃllꢁd uꢇon ꢏo ꢏꢑꢁꢃꢎ ꢏhꢁꢒꢁ ꢃddꢔcꢏꢒ wꢔꢏh ꢃyꢃhuꢃꢒcꢃ (ꢒꢁꢁ Mꢃbꢔꢏ,
Caꢍpos & Aꢑcꢁ 1992; Mꢃbꢔꢏ 1988). Tꢃkꢔwꢃꢒꢔ ꢔꢒ ꢃn ꢁxꢇꢁꢑꢔ-
Sꢁꢍꢔꢒꢏꢑucꢎuꢑꢁd lꢔfꢁ ꢒꢏoꢑy ꢔnꢏꢁꢑvꢔꢁwꢒ ꢑꢁvꢁꢃlꢁd ꢏhꢃꢏ 1 1
of ꢏhꢁ 1 5 ꢒubjꢁcꢏꢒ fꢁ lꢏ ꢎhꢃꢎ ꢏhꢁ ꢑꢔꢎuꢃl uꢒꢁ of hoꢁscꢁ hꢃd ꢃ
ꢇꢑofound ꢔꢍꢇꢃcꢎ on ꢏhꢁ couꢑꢒꢁ ofꢏhꢁꢔꢑ lꢔvꢁꢒꢓ Mꢃny ꢑꢁꢇoꢑꢏꢁd
ꢎhꢁ coꢍꢍon ꢎhꢁꢍꢁ ꢏhꢃꢏ whꢔlꢁ ꢔn ꢎhꢁ ꢔnducꢁd ꢃlꢏꢁꢑꢁd ꢒꢎꢃꢏꢁꢒ
of conꢒcꢔouꢒnꢁꢒꢒ, ꢏhꢁy ꢒꢃw ꢏhꢁꢍꢒꢁlvꢁꢒ on ꢃ ꢒꢁlfꢋdꢁꢒꢏꢑuc-
ꢏꢔvꢁ ꢇꢃꢎh ꢏhꢃꢏ would lꢁꢃd ꢏo ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢑuꢔn ꢃnd ꢁvꢁn dꢁꢍꢔꢒꢁ
unlꢁꢒꢒ ꢏhꢁy ꢑꢃdꢔcꢃlly chꢃngꢁd ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢇꢁꢑꢒonꢃl conducꢏ ꢃnd
oꢑꢔꢁnꢏꢃꢏꢔonꢓ Mꢃny ꢑꢁꢇorꢎꢁd ꢎhꢃꢎ whꢔlꢁ ꢏhꢁywꢁꢑꢁ ꢔn ꢏhꢁ ꢏhꢑoꢁꢒ
of ꢃ nighꢏꢍꢃꢑꢔꢒh vꢔꢒꢔonꢃꢑy ꢁxꢇꢁꢑꢔꢁncꢁ ꢏhꢁy would ꢁncoun-
ꢏꢁꢑ ꢏhꢁ foundꢁꢑ of ꢎhꢁ UDV, Gꢃbꢑꢔꢁl dꢃ Coꢒꢏꢃ, who would
ꢎhꢁn dꢁlꢔvꢁꢑ ꢏhꢁꢍ fꢑoꢍ ꢏhꢁꢔꢑ ꢏꢁꢐoꢑꢒꢓ Thꢁ ꢒubjꢁcꢏꢒ ꢑꢁꢇoꢑꢏꢁd
ꢎhꢃꢏ ꢎhꢁꢔꢑ lꢔvꢁꢒ hꢃd gonꢁ ꢏhꢑough ꢇꢑofound chꢃngꢁꢒ ꢒꢔncꢁ
ꢁnꢏꢁꢑingꢏhꢁ UDYꢓ In ꢃddꢔꢏꢔon ꢏodꢔꢒconꢏꢔnuꢔng ꢃlcohol, cꢔgꢃ-
ꢑꢁꢏꢏꢁꢒ ꢃnd oꢏhꢁꢑ dꢑugꢒ, ꢏhꢁy ꢁꢍꢇhꢃꢏꢔcꢃlly ꢒꢎꢃꢏꢁd that their
dꢃꢔly conducꢏ ꢃnd oꢑꢔꢁnꢏꢃꢏꢔon ꢏo ꢏhꢁ woꢑld ꢃꢑound ꢏhꢁꢍ hꢃd
ꢍꢁnꢏꢃl cꢁnꢏꢁꢑ dꢁvoꢏꢁd ꢎo ꢏꢑꢁꢃꢏing dꢑug addicts using
ꢠ43
Joumal of Psychoactive Drugs
Vo lume 34 (3), July - Sepꢅember 2ꢟꢠ

de Rios, Grob & Baker
Hallucinogens and Redemption
Aꢍꢃꢕoꢈiꢃꢈ ꢍeꢗiciꢈes. The locꢃl heꢃlers explꢃiꢈ thꢃt psy-
choꢃctive plꢃꢈts ꢃre ꢈot oꢈly ꢃ ꢍixture of cheꢍicꢃl
substꢃꢈces but ꢃre liviꢈg eꢈtities with ꢃ spirit thꢃt cꢃꢈ cure
if respecteꢗ or kill if ꢃbuseꢗ. Tꢃkiwꢃsi professioꢈꢃls ꢃrgue
thꢃt their progrꢃꢍ helps pꢃtieꢈts overcoꢍe their ꢃꢗꢗictioꢈ
ꢃꢈꢗ eꢈꢃbles theꢍ to ꢍoꢗify their stꢃte of coꢈsciousꢈess
without ꢗꢃꢍꢃgiꢈg theꢍselves, iꢈ orꢗer to gꢃiꢈ ꢃ ꢍore spiri-
tuꢃl outlook oꢈ their life ꢃꢈꢗ to gꢃiꢈ streꢈgth ꢃꢈꢗ fꢃith. Iꢈ
coꢈtrꢃst to geꢈerꢃlly ꢃccepteꢗ priꢈciples ofWesteꢂꢖorieꢈteꢗ
psychotherꢃpy (but eꢈtirely withiꢈ the shꢃꢍꢃꢈic trꢃꢗitioꢈ
ofꢃyꢃhuꢃscꢃ use)ꢅ both therꢃpists ꢃꢈꢗ pꢃtieꢈts tꢃke the ꢗrug.
The Ceꢈter treꢃts 15 to 20 pꢃtieꢈts ꢃt ꢃ tiꢍeꢅ ꢃꢈꢗ they try to
ꢍotivꢃte their pꢃtieꢈts to ꢃbstꢃiꢈ froꢍ ꢗrugs ofꢃbuse. They
utiliꢕe purges to iꢈꢗuce voꢍitiꢈg ꢃs ꢃ forꢍ of ꢗetoxificꢃ-
tioꢈ for their clieꢈts froꢍ ꢗrugs to which they ꢃre ꢃꢗꢗicteꢗ
ꢃꢈꢗ other toxic coꢍpouꢈꢗs they ꢍꢃy hꢃve iꢈgesteꢗ. These
iꢈcluꢗe ꢃ group of plꢃꢈts such ꢃs Cꢃꢍꢃloꢈgꢃ (Stꢃchnos
spp.).
Iꢈ Westeꢂ societiesꢅ ibogꢃiꢈe hꢃs beeꢈ priꢍꢃrily useꢗ
to iꢈꢗuce ꢃ teꢍporꢃry iꢈterruptioꢈ iꢈ ꢗrug ꢃbuse which
gives the iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃl the opportuꢈity for reflectioꢈ ꢃꢈꢗ self
ꢃpprꢃisꢃl. This is ꢍost helpful for those who hꢃve lostcoꢈ-
trol oftheir ꢃꢗꢗictioꢈ. Mꢃsh's Uꢈiversity ofMiꢃꢍi ibogꢃiꢈe
reseꢃrch teꢃꢍ ( 1996, 1995) workeꢗ with this ꢗrug for three
yeꢃrs iꢈ precliꢈicꢃl ꢃꢈꢗ cliꢈicꢃl stuꢗies ꢃꢈꢗ showeꢗ ꢗiꢍi-
ꢈutioꢈ of crꢃviꢈgs for opiꢃtes by ꢃꢗꢗicteꢗ subjects.
Aꢈecꢗotꢃl reports (De Rieꢈꢕo & Beꢃl N.D.) coꢈceꢂiꢈg
ꢃꢈ iꢈterꢈꢃtioꢈꢃl coꢃlitioꢈ ofꢃꢗꢗict selfꢖhelp groups stꢃteꢗ
thꢃt the ꢗrug ꢗecreꢃses sigꢈs of opiꢃte withꢗrꢃwꢃl ꢃꢈꢗ re-
ꢗuces ꢗrug crꢃviꢈgs for cocꢃiꢈe ꢃꢈꢗ heroiꢈ. Howeverꢅ Mꢃsh
poiꢈts out thꢃt there ꢃre soꢍe iꢍportꢃꢈt questioꢈs ꢃbout
the sꢃfe ꢗosꢃge rꢃꢈge for ibogꢃiꢈe ꢃs well ꢃs possibilities
of geꢈꢗer ꢗiffereꢈces iꢈ the wꢃy the ꢗrug is ꢍetꢃboliꢕeꢗ.
LSD AND PSYCHOTHERAPY FOR ALCOHOLISM
LSDꢅ ꢃ seꢍisyꢈthetic coꢍpouꢈꢗ ꢗevelopeꢗ by Albert
Hofꢍꢃꢈꢈ iꢈ 1938ꢅ ꢗerives froꢍ ꢃ grꢃiꢈ fuꢈgus; it is iꢈ-
cluꢗeꢗ iꢈ this ꢗiscussioꢈ becꢃuse of the reꢗeꢍptive role
which it plꢃyeꢗ for ꢍꢃꢈy ꢃlcoholics ꢗuriꢈg eꢃrly reseꢃrch
iꢈ the 1950s ꢃꢈꢗ 1960s. The history of LSD reseꢃrch ꢍꢃkes
it cleꢃr thꢃt iꢈ spite of ꢃtteꢍpts to use ꢃlterꢈꢃtive theoreti-
cꢃl hypothesesꢅ ꢃ reꢗeꢍptive explꢃꢈꢃtioꢈ ultiꢍꢃtely
becꢃꢍe the operꢃtiꢈg pꢃrꢃꢗigꢍ. Iꢈitiꢃlly LSD wꢃs thought
to proꢗuce ꢃ "ꢍoꢗel psychosis," ꢃꢈꢗ ꢍꢃꢈy physiciꢃꢈs ꢃꢈꢗ
ꢈurses experiꢍeꢈteꢗ with the ꢗrug iꢈ orꢗer to gꢃiꢈ ꢃ better
uꢈꢗerstꢃꢈꢗiꢈg of their schiꢕophreꢈic pꢃtieꢈts. It sooꢈ be-
cꢃꢍe cleꢃrꢅ however, thꢃt the experieꢈces eliciteꢗ by LSD
were quite vꢃrieꢗꢅ rꢃꢈgiꢈg froꢍ the terrifyiꢈg to the ex-
trꢃorꢗiꢈꢃrily positive ꢃꢈꢗ profouꢈꢗ (see Bꢃker 1994).
Atteꢍpts to coꢍpꢃre the effects of LSD to those of such
ꢃlcohol-iꢈꢗuceꢗ psychotic stꢃtes ꢃs ꢗeliriuꢍ treꢍeꢈs ꢗeꢍ-
oꢈstrꢃteꢗ ꢃ stroꢈg ꢗistiꢈctioꢈ iꢈ the subjective experieꢈces
ofeꢃch. Deliriuꢍ treꢍeꢈs subjects reporteꢗ preꢗoꢍiꢈꢃꢈtly
ꢈegꢃtive effects such ꢃs ꢃꢈxietyꢅ horror, ꢗepressioꢈꢅ ꢃꢈꢗ
pꢃrꢃꢈoiꢗ thoughts, while LSD subjects teꢈꢗeꢗ ꢍore to
ꢗescribe their experieꢈces ꢃs euphoric, huꢍorousꢅ relꢃxeꢗꢅ
ꢍysticꢃl ꢃꢈꢗ woꢈꢗrous (Ditꢍꢃꢈ & Whittlesey 1959). Two
ꢃpproꢃches to therꢃpy with LSD ꢗevelopeꢗ. Europeꢃꢈ re-
seꢃrchers utiliꢕeꢗ the psycholytic ꢃpproꢃch which wꢃs
ꢗesigꢈeꢗ to looseꢈ orꢗissolve teꢈsioꢈs ꢃꢈꢗ coꢈflicts withiꢈ
the psyche. Mꢃꢈy huꢈꢗreꢗs of pꢃtieꢈts were giveꢈ ꢃ series
of relꢃtively low ꢗose LSD sessioꢈs (betweeꢈ 100 ꢃꢈꢗ 500
ꢍeg.; Grof 1976). Grof ꢃrgueꢗ thꢃt these psycholytic
("ꢍiꢈꢗ-looseꢈiꢈg") sessioꢈs ꢍꢃꢗe it possible for pꢃtieꢈts
to ꢍore rꢃpiꢗly work through ꢃꢈꢗ resolve the ꢍꢃteriꢃl re-
spoꢈsible for the persoꢈ's ꢃlcoholisꢍ. Iꢈ coꢈtrꢃst, Norꢏh
Aꢍericꢃꢈ reseꢃrchers ꢃꢈꢗ therꢃpists ꢗevelopeꢗ whꢃt be-
cꢃꢍe kꢈowꢈ ꢃs "psycheꢗelic therꢃpy," which typicꢃlly
coꢈsisteꢗ ofꢃ siꢈgulꢃr highꢖꢗose sessioꢈ. Its bꢃsis wꢃs the
reꢃliꢕꢃtioꢈ thꢃt ꢍꢃꢈy people who iꢈgesteꢗ LSD, whether
iꢈ cliꢈicꢃl or ꢈoꢈcliꢈicꢃl settiꢈgs, hꢃꢗ experieꢈces of ꢃ
IBOGA
Aꢈother iꢍportꢃꢈt ꢗrug with reꢗeꢍptive overtoꢈes is
ibogꢃiꢈe, useꢗ by the Fꢃꢈg peoples of West Africꢃ ꢃs pꢃrt
of ꢃ syꢈcretic ꢃꢈcestor-worship religioꢈ (see Dobkiꢈ ꢗe Rios
1984). Ibogꢃiꢈe is ꢃꢈ iꢈꢗole ꢃlkꢃloiꢗ occurriꢈg iꢈ the root
bꢃrk of the Tꢁ beꢄꢁnthe ibogꢁ plꢃꢈt. The root bꢃrk coꢈ-
tꢃiꢈiꢈg ꢃ ꢗoꢕeꢈ or ꢍore ꢃlkꢃloiꢗs is coꢈsuꢍeꢗ iꢈ huge
quꢃꢈtities (60 tiꢍes the thresholꢗ ꢗose) ꢗuriꢈg Bwiti cer-
eꢍoꢈies iꢈ Gꢃboꢈ ꢃꢈꢗ the Cꢃꢍerooꢈs. Soꢍe fꢃtꢃlities
followiꢈg extreꢍely high ꢗosꢃges hꢃve beeꢈ reporteꢗ by
ꢃꢈthropologists ꢃꢈꢗ iꢈ locꢃl terꢍs, the use of the ꢗrug is
syꢍbolicꢃlly ꢗescribeꢗ ꢃs "crꢃckiꢈg the skull." Iꢈ puberty
iꢈitiꢃtioꢈ ritesꢅ the iꢈitiꢃte is feꢗ ibogꢃ uꢈtil he either hꢃs ꢃ
visioꢈ of his ꢃꢈcestors or ꢗiesꢅ whichever coꢍes first (see
Dobkiꢈ ꢗe Rios 1984).
Wheꢈ useꢗ iꢈ Westerꢈ cliꢈics with ꢗrug-ꢃꢗꢗicteꢗ pꢃr-
ticipꢃꢈts, these huge ꢗoses give rise to luciꢗ visioꢈs ꢃꢈꢗ the
eꢍergeꢈce of represseꢗ ꢍeꢍories. Cliꢈicꢃl reports oꢈ es-
seꢈtiꢃl loss ofopiꢃte crꢃviꢈg ꢃꢈꢗ the ꢃbseꢈce of withꢗrꢃwꢃl
ꢃre fouꢈꢗ iꢈ the ꢗrug-substitutioꢈ literꢃture (Luciꢃꢈo 1998;
Mꢃsh 1996, 1995; Sheppꢃrꢗ 1994). The ibogꢃiꢈe treꢃtꢍeꢈt
(where low ꢗoses ofibogꢃiꢈe ꢃre giveꢈ to subjects ꢃꢈꢗ where
physiologicꢃl respoꢈses ꢃre ꢍeꢃsureꢗ) visibly ꢃlleviꢃtes
ꢍorbiꢗity ꢃꢈꢗ ꢃppeꢃrs to reꢍove ꢃꢗꢗicteꢗ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃls'
ꢗesire to seek ꢃꢈꢗ use ꢈꢃrcotics.
Mꢃsh ( 1 996, 1 955), ꢃ ꢍꢃjor propoꢈeꢈt of ibogꢃiꢈe ꢗrug
substitutioꢈ fo r opiꢃte ꢃꢗꢗictioꢈ, suggests ꢃ ꢍechꢃꢈisꢍ for
the substitutioꢈ effect, which is ꢃ plꢃcebo effect eꢈhꢃꢈceꢗ
by suggestibility. Froꢍ ꢃ religious/ꢍetꢃphysicꢃl perspec-
tive, the hꢃlluciꢈogeꢈic experieꢈce cꢃuses ꢃ seꢈse of ꢗeꢃth
ꢃꢈꢗ subsequeꢈt rebirth, ꢃllowiꢈg the user to retuꢂ to ꢃ ꢈew
begiꢈꢈiꢈg. The physicꢃl effects of voꢍitiꢈg ꢃlso proviꢗe ꢃ
seꢈse of cleꢃꢈliꢈess ꢃꢈꢗ reꢈewꢃl to the iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃl (see ꢃlso
Popik 1996).
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
244
Vo lꢕme 34 (3)ꢇ Jꢕly - Sepꢊember ꢠꢡ2

de Rios, Grob & Baker
Hallucinogens and Redemption
FIGURE 1
Redemptive Changes in the Individual Drug Addict/Alcoholic
Addict's use of "damaging drug"
�
/
substitution in
substitution in
A secularIcontext
A
. I .
Biochemical impact
Psychological Impact
I
I .
Neurotransmitter
uptake mechanisms
Blocking
Suggestibility, access to memories
lsoquinolines,
Increased insight into self
Mao inhibitors, etc.
mysticꢃl/ꢑꢁligious ꢈꢃtuꢑꢁ thꢃt lꢁꢗ to loꢈgꢖtꢁꢑꢍ impꢑovꢁ-
mꢁꢈts iꢈ thꢁiꢑ ꢃttituꢗꢁs ꢃꢈꢗ fuꢈctioꢈiꢈg. Thꢁ psychꢁꢗꢁlic
ꢃppꢑoꢃch wꢃs thus ꢗꢁsigꢈꢁꢗ to bypꢃss ꢁꢈtiꢑꢁly thꢁ psychic
coꢈflicts thꢃt hꢃꢗ pꢑoꢗucꢁꢗ ꢃ pꢃtiꢁꢈt's cl iꢈicꢃl pꢑob-
lꢁms ꢃꢈꢗ ꢁlicit ꢃꢈ ꢁxꢃltꢁꢗ stꢃtꢁ. This thꢁꢑꢃpy typicꢃlly
coꢈsistꢁꢗ of ꢃ siꢈglꢁ LSD sꢁssioꢈ togꢁthꢁꢑ with pꢑꢁꢖ ꢃꢈꢗ
post-sꢁssioꢈ ꢗiscussioꢈs with thꢁ thꢁꢑꢃpist. Thꢁ ꢃctuꢃl ꢗꢑug
sꢁssion, ꢗuꢑiꢈg which ꢃꢈ ovꢁꢑwhꢁlꢍiꢈg ꢗosꢁ (bꢁtwꢁꢁꢈ 400
ꢃꢈꢗ 2000 ꢍeg.) wꢃs ꢃꢗmiꢈistꢁꢑꢁꢗ, wꢃs ꢁxplicitly iꢈtꢁꢈꢗꢁꢗ
to pꢑoꢗucꢁ ꢃ typꢁ of ꢑꢁligious ꢁxpꢁꢑiꢁꢈcꢁ. Pꢃtiꢁꢈts wꢁꢑꢁ
ꢁꢈcouꢑꢃgꢁꢗ to ꢑꢁꢃssꢁss thꢁiꢑ bꢁliꢁfs, thꢁ wꢃys iꢈ which thꢁy
intꢁꢑꢃctꢁꢗ with othꢁꢑs, ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁiꢑ vꢃluꢁ systꢁꢍs.
A ꢈumbꢁꢑ of ꢑꢁsꢁꢃꢑchꢁꢑs woꢑkꢁꢗ with ꢃlcoholics us-
iꢈg thꢁsꢁ two pꢃꢑꢃꢗigms. Rꢁviꢁwiꢈg this woꢑk, Albꢃugh
ꢃnd Aꢈꢗꢁꢑsoꢈ (1974) fouꢈꢗ thꢃt thꢁ ꢈumbꢁꢑs of impꢑovꢁꢗ
pꢃtiꢁꢈts vꢃꢑiꢁꢗ coꢈsiꢗꢁꢑꢃbly, ꢗꢁpꢁꢈꢗiꢈg upoꢈ thꢁ iꢈvꢁsti-
gꢃtors, thꢁ ꢑꢁsꢁꢃꢑch ꢗꢁsigꢈ ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁ pꢃtiꢁꢈts iꢈvolvꢁꢗ (sꢁꢁ
ꢃlso Smꢃꢑt ꢃꢈꢗ Stoꢑꢍ 1964). Thꢁꢑꢁ wꢁꢑꢁ ꢗiffꢁ ꢑꢁꢈt ꢗꢁfiꢈi-
tioꢈs of iꢍpꢑovꢁꢗ, with somꢁ ꢑꢁsꢁꢃꢑchꢁꢑs ꢃccꢁptiꢈg oꢈly
complꢁtꢁ ꢃbstiꢈꢁꢈcꢁ ꢃꢈꢗ othꢁꢑs moꢗꢁꢑꢃtioꢈ. Gꢑof(1973:44)
woꢑkiꢈg iꢈ Cꢕꢁchoslovꢃkiꢃ, fouꢈꢗ thꢃt psychꢁꢗꢁlic (ꢑꢃthꢁꢑ
thꢃn psycholytic) thꢁꢑꢃpy wꢃs ꢍoꢑꢁ usꢁful foꢑ tꢑꢁꢃtiꢈg ꢃl-
coholics ꢃꢈꢗ ꢗꢑug ꢃꢗꢗicts, ꢃlthough hꢁ ꢃꢗꢍittꢁꢗ thꢃt thꢁ
ꢑꢁꢃsoꢈs foꢑ this wꢁꢑꢁ ꢈot uꢈꢗꢁꢑstooꢗ. Gꢑof, howꢁvꢁꢑ, ꢗiꢗ
ꢃꢑguꢁ thꢃt compꢃꢑꢁꢗ to thꢁ stꢃtꢁs thꢁy ꢁxpꢁꢑiꢁꢈcꢁꢗ with
ꢃlcohol ꢃꢈꢗ othꢁꢑ ꢗꢑugs of ꢃbusꢁ, thꢁ ꢃꢗꢗicts who hꢃꢗ ꢃ
tꢑꢃꢈscꢁꢈꢗꢁꢈt ꢑꢁspoꢈsꢁ to LSD wꢁꢑꢁ fꢃꢑ moꢑꢁ likꢁly to ꢗꢁm-
oꢈstꢑꢃtꢁ ꢃ sustꢃiꢈꢁꢗ iꢍpꢑovꢁꢍꢁꢈt iꢈ thꢁiꢑ ovꢁꢑꢃll coꢈꢗitioꢈ
ꢃꢈꢗ to ꢑꢁꢍꢃiꢈ ꢃbstiꢈꢁꢈt.
coꢍpꢃꢑꢁꢗ to thꢁ outcoꢍꢁs of othꢁꢑ tꢑꢁꢃtmꢁꢈts foꢑ ꢃlcohol-
isꢍ. Howꢁvꢁꢑ, thꢁ clꢃssificꢃtioꢈ of LSD ꢃs ꢃ Schꢁꢗulꢁ I
ꢗꢑug iꢈ thꢁ U.S. iꢈ 1965 ꢁffꢁctivꢁly cuꢑtꢃilꢁꢗ ꢃll ꢑꢁsꢁꢃꢑch
with huꢍꢃꢈ subjꢁcts uꢈtil sꢍꢃllꢖscꢃlꢁ ꢑꢁsꢁꢃꢑch wꢃs oꢈcꢁ
ꢃgꢃiꢈ pꢁꢑꢍittꢁꢗ iꢈ thꢁ 1 990s.
REDEMPTIVE PATHWAYS
Hꢃviꢈg ꢑꢁviꢁwꢁꢗ somꢁ ꢁxꢃꢍplꢁs of hꢃlluciꢈogꢁꢈs ꢃꢈꢗ
ꢑꢁꢗꢁmptioꢈ, wꢁ woulꢗ likꢁ to ꢁxꢃmiꢈꢁ thꢁsꢁ ꢑꢁꢗꢁꢍptivꢁ
chꢃꢈgꢁs iꢈ thꢁ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃl ꢗꢑug ꢃꢗꢗict/ꢃlcoholic. Figuꢑꢁ I
outliꢈꢁs two ꢑꢁꢗꢁmptivꢁ pꢃthwꢃys, oꢈꢁ of ꢗꢑug substitu-
tioꢈ iꢈ ꢃ sꢁculꢃꢑ oꢑ sciꢁꢈtific coꢈtꢁxt, ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁ othꢁꢑ ofꢗꢑug
substitutioꢈ iꢈ ꢃ ꢑꢁligious coꢈtꢁxt.
Figuꢑꢁ I shows thꢃt with ꢗꢑug substitutioꢈ iꢈ ꢃ sꢁculꢃꢑ
coꢈtꢁxt of ꢃꢈꢃlysis, thꢁ bio- ꢃꢈꢗ ꢈꢁuꢑochꢁꢍicꢃl ꢗyꢈꢃꢍics
ꢃꢑꢁ much moꢑꢁ cꢁꢈtꢑꢃl thꢃꢈ thꢁ psychologicꢃl ꢁffꢁcts of
suggꢁstibility, ꢃccꢁss to ꢁꢃꢑly ꢍꢁꢍoꢑiꢁs withiꢈ ꢃ psycho-
ꢗyꢈꢃmic fꢑꢃꢍꢁwoꢑk, ꢃꢈꢗ iꢈcꢑꢁꢃsꢁꢗ iꢈsights ꢃs stꢑꢁssꢁꢗ iꢈ
thꢁ ꢑꢁligious coꢈtꢁxt. Whilꢁ thꢁ sꢁculꢃꢑ hypothꢁsis is ꢑꢁ-
ꢗuctioꢈist ꢃꢈꢗ ꢃꢑguꢁs, foꢑ ꢁxꢃꢍplꢁ, thꢃt thꢁ ꢁffꢁcts ꢃꢑꢁ ꢗuꢁ
to thꢁ blockꢃgꢁ of ꢈꢁuꢑotꢑꢃꢈsꢍittꢁꢑ uptꢃkꢁ ꢍꢁchꢃꢈisꢍs,
thꢁ ꢑꢁligious/psychologicꢃl hypothꢁsis tꢁꢈꢗs to stꢑꢁss ꢁi-
thꢁꢑ humꢃꢈistic ꢃchiꢁvꢁꢍꢁꢈts oꢑ ꢗiviꢈꢁ guiꢗꢃꢈcꢁ ꢃs
ꢍꢁchꢃꢈisꢍs of chꢃꢈgꢁ. Iꢈ both cꢃsꢁs, howꢁvꢁꢑ, sobꢑiꢁty
fꢑoꢍ thꢁ ꢃꢗꢗictivꢁ ꢗꢑug which hꢃs cꢃusꢁꢗ ꢗisꢁquilibꢑiuꢍ
to thꢁ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃl iꢈ his/hꢁꢑ sociꢃl coꢈtꢁxt is thꢁ ultiꢍꢃtꢁ
goꢃl. Figuꢑꢁ 2 shows thꢁsꢁ ꢑꢁꢗꢁꢍptivꢁ pꢃthwꢃys iꢈ ꢃ coꢈ-
tiꢈuuꢍ, fꢑoꢍ ꢃ puꢑꢁly ꢑꢁligious to stꢑictly bioꢍꢁꢗicꢃl
ꢃppꢑoꢃchꢁs.
In spitꢁ of thꢁ ꢁquivocꢃl ꢈꢃtuꢑꢁ of thꢁ fiꢈꢗiꢈgs, ꢍꢃꢈy
ꢑꢁsꢁꢃꢑchꢁꢑs fouꢈꢗ thꢁ ꢑꢁsults pꢑoꢍisiꢈg, ꢁspꢁciꢃlly whꢁꢈ
245
Juunwl of Psychoactive Drugs
Vo lume 34 (3)ꢗ July - Sepicmbcr 2ꢢ2

Hallucinogens and Redemption
de Rios, Grob & Baker
ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄ 2
Redemption and Hallucinogens: Contemporary Examples*
Biomedical Redemption ꢀꢁꢂ
� Religious Redemption
Peyote used by
Native American
Church to combat
alcoholism
Ayahuasca used by
UDV Church in Brazil
to combat alcohol
and cocaine abuse
Ayahuasca used by
Takiwasi in Peru
to combat
Ibogaine used by
Western/urban
therapists
Past use of LSD
in psychotherapy
to treat alcoholics
cocaine addiction
to combat
opiate addiction
*Thiꢦ iꢦ ꢦhown aꢦ a conꢅinuum of ꢤedemꢣꢅive ꢣaꢅhwayꢦꢜ Deꢣending on ꢅhe conꢊexꢅ, ꢦome ꢤedemꢣꢅive ꢣꢤꢥeꢦꢦeꢦ will ꢅend ꢊo
emꢣhaꢦize ꢣꢦychoꢦocial facꢊoꢤꢦ, and oꢊheꢤꢦ biochemical facꢊoꢤꢦꢜ Howeveꢤ, boꢅh aꢤe imꢣoꢤꢅanꢊ foꢤ underꢦꢊanding any ꢊyꢣe of
ꢤedemꢣꢅive ꢣroceꢦꢦ ꢅhaꢅ uꢅilizeꢦ hallucinogenꢦꢜ
Possible Bio- and Neurochemical Explanations
for Drug Substitution
ꢃꢗꢗictive oꢈes. The coꢈceptuꢃl frꢃꢍework of reꢗeꢍptioꢈ
which this ꢃrticle iꢈtroꢗuces offers ꢃ powerful tool for ꢃp-
proꢃchiꢈg these questioꢈs.
Keꢈꢈeth Bluꢍꢅ iꢈ ꢃ 1977 ꢃrticle iꢈ Clinical To xicology.
lꢃys out ꢃ possible rꢃtioꢈꢃle for the ꢃꢗꢗictioꢈ blockiꢈg quꢃli-
ties of the hꢃlluciꢈogeꢈꢅ peyote (Bluꢍꢅ Futterꢍꢃꢈ &
Pꢃscꢃrosꢃ 1977). He speꢃks of isoquiꢈoliꢈesꢅ which ꢃre
ꢍetꢃbolites of peyote thꢃt ꢃre iꢗeꢈticꢃl to the ꢍetꢃbolites
proꢗuceꢗ by heroiꢈ ꢃꢈꢗ ꢃlcohol. Bluꢍ believes there is ꢃ
coꢈꢈectioꢈ betweeꢈ peyote ꢃꢈꢗ its use ꢃs ꢃꢈ ꢃꢗꢗictive block-
iꢈg treꢃtꢍeꢈt for ꢃlcoholisꢍ (see Bluꢍ et ꢃl. 1 978).
Isoquiꢈoliꢈes ꢃꢈꢗ eꢈꢗorphiꢈs are two ꢍꢃiꢈ subsꢏꢃꢈces stuꢗ-
ieꢗ iꢈ the pꢃst 20 yeꢃrs thꢃt ꢍꢃy sheꢗ light oꢈ the
iꢈterrupꢏioꢈ of ꢃꢗꢗictioꢈ with such substꢃꢈces ꢃs ꢃlcoholꢅ
opiꢃtesꢅ stiꢍulꢃꢈts, ꢈicotiꢈeꢅ etc.
The Absolute Unity of Being
A coꢈcept proposeꢗ by Lꢃughliꢈꢅ McMꢃꢈus ꢃꢈꢗ
ꢗ'Aquili (1992) cꢃlleꢗ the "Absolute Uꢈity of Beiꢈg,"
(AUB) refers to ꢃ psychologicꢃl stꢃteꢗuriꢈg which ꢃll per-
ceptioꢈ of ꢍultiplicity of beiꢈg is erꢃꢗicꢃteꢗ. Reꢃliꢏy is
perceiveꢗ ꢗirectly ꢃs oꢈe. This is ꢃccoꢍpꢃꢈieꢗ by ꢃ pro-
fouꢈꢗ ꢃꢈꢗ iꢈtriꢈsic seꢈse of uꢈꢗerlyiꢈg uꢈity, beꢃuty ꢃꢈꢗ
gooꢗꢈess. Iꢈ this stꢃteꢅ there is ꢃ ꢗirect ꢃppreheꢈsioꢈ of
ꢃbsolute uꢈity (Newbergꢅ D' Aquili & Rꢃuse 2001). Such
stꢃtes ꢃre ofteꢈ ꢃchieveꢗ uꢈꢗer the effects of hꢃlluciꢈo-
geꢈs. The persoꢈ subsequeꢈtly reflectiꢈg oꢈ this sꢏꢃte ꢗoes
ꢈot perceive it ꢃs ꢃꢈ illusioꢈꢅ hꢃlluciꢈꢃtioꢈꢅ or ꢗelusioꢈꢅ
but rꢃther ꢃs ꢃ fuꢈꢗꢃꢍeꢈtꢃl reꢃlity which uꢈꢗerlies ꢃll other
reꢃlity. The uꢈiverse is perceiveꢗ ꢃs ꢃ wholeꢅ with ꢃ seꢈse
of wholeꢈessꢅ gooꢗꢈess ꢃꢈꢗ purpose to it. After the expe-
rieꢈceꢅ this stꢃte is ꢍost ofteꢈ iꢈterpreteꢗ ꢃs Goꢗ or uꢈioꢈ
with Goꢗ. Iꢈ the Buꢗꢗhist coꢈtext it is seeꢈ ꢃs ꢃ voiꢗ.
A ꢍꢃjor fꢃctor thꢃt D'Aquili (1982) ꢗiscusses iꢈ his
ꢃrticle oꢈ seꢈses of reꢃlity iꢈ scieꢈce ꢃꢈꢗ religioꢈ is ꢏhꢃꢏ
ꢗeꢃth is ꢈo loꢈger to be feꢃreꢗ. Eveꢈ if oꢈly ꢃ few ꢍeꢍ-
bers of the group experieꢈceꢗ the freeꢗoꢍ froꢍ feꢃr of
ꢗeꢃthꢅ this fꢃctor ꢍꢃy hꢃve beeꢈ ꢃꢗꢃptive for lꢃrge groups
iꢈ ꢍiꢈiꢍiꢕiꢈg cliꢈicꢃl ꢗepressioꢈ wheꢈ fꢃꢍiꢈe ꢃꢈꢗ lꢃck
of huꢈtiꢈg success prevꢃileꢗ iꢈ pꢃrticulꢃr ecologicꢃl coꢈ-
texts of eꢃrly huꢈter/gꢃtherers (see Dobkiꢈ ꢗe Rios 1999).
Lꢃughliꢈ, McMꢃꢈus ꢃꢈꢗ D' Aquili (1992) ꢃlso ꢃrgue thꢃt
ꢏhere is ꢃꢈ eꢍotioꢈꢃlly iꢈtegrꢃtive coꢈsciousꢈess siꢗe by
siꢗe with our rꢃtioꢈꢃl ꢃꢈꢗ ꢃꢈꢃlytic selves ꢃꢈꢗ this hꢃs iꢍ-
plicꢃtioꢈs for religious iꢈtuitioꢈ. The ꢃuthors eveꢈ suggest
ꢏhꢃꢏ ꢏhe right heꢍisphere proꢗuces ꢃ rush of eꢍotioꢈ ꢃꢈꢗ
coꢍꢍuꢈicꢃtes ꢃ powerful seꢈse of ꢏhe vꢃliꢗity of the pꢃt-
ꢏerꢈ perceptioꢈ w ithout beiꢈg brokeꢈ ꢗowꢈ viꢃ ꢃ
leftꢖheꢍispheric ꢃꢈꢃlytic process thꢃt ꢗistorts the origiꢈꢃl
Grob, McKeꢈꢈꢃ ꢃꢈꢗ Cꢃllꢃwꢃy ( 1999) hꢃve speculꢃteꢗ
thꢃt fiꢈꢗiꢈgs froꢍ their stuꢗy iꢈꢗicꢃꢏe ꢃyꢃhuꢃscꢃ use ꢍꢃy
leꢃꢗ to serotoꢈiꢈ upꢖregulꢃꢏioꢈ which ꢍꢃy result iꢈ ꢃꢈ ꢃꢈti-
ꢗepressꢃꢈt efficꢃcy.
As ꢍeꢈtioꢈeꢗ eꢃrlierꢅ Wiꢈkelꢍꢃꢈ (1996: 210) hꢃs ꢃr-
gueꢗ for the role ofhꢃlluciꢈogeꢈs ꢃs psychoiꢈtegrꢃtor plꢃꢈts
ꢏhꢃt hꢃve therꢃpeutic beꢈefit. He poiꢈts out coꢍꢍoꢈ cheꢍi-
cꢃl siꢍilꢃrities betweeꢈ these plꢃꢈts such ꢃs blockiꢈg
serotoꢈiꢈ reuptꢃkeꢅ ꢗisiꢈhibitiꢈg ꢍesoliꢍbic ꢏeꢍporꢃl lobe
structures ꢃꢈꢗ perꢍittiꢈg the eꢍergeꢈce of syꢈchroꢈous
brꢃiꢈ ꢗischꢃrge. These substꢃꢈces iꢈhibiꢏ ꢏhe regulꢃtioꢈ of
visuꢃl ceꢈters by the rꢃphe cells ꢃꢈꢗ proꢗuce visuꢃl hyper-
ꢃcꢏivity or visioꢈs. A pꢃrꢃsyꢍpꢃthetic ꢗoꢍiꢈꢃꢈt stꢃte is
iꢈꢗuceꢗ. For Wiꢈkelꢍꢃꢈ, the substꢃꢈces hꢃve seꢈsoryꢅ be-
hꢃviorꢃlꢅ eꢍotioꢈꢃl, ꢃꢈꢗ cogꢈitive effects. He ꢃrgues for
ꢏhe psychologicꢃl iꢈꢏegrꢃtioꢈ ꢈoꢏ oꢈly of the ꢍiꢈꢗꢅ but the
soul ꢃꢈꢗ spiriꢏ. Certꢃiꢈlyꢅ ꢃs LꢃBꢃrre (1972) poiꢈteꢗ outꢅ
ꢏhere hꢃs beeꢈ ꢃ role for these substꢃꢈces ꢃs progeꢈitors of
religioꢈ. Froꢍ ꢃ crossꢖculturꢃl perspectiveꢅ the hꢃlluciꢈo-
geꢈs ꢃlter experieꢈce by shifꢏiꢈg ꢃwꢃreꢈess to ꢃꢈ
experieꢈꢏiꢃl ꢗoꢍꢃiꢈ ofteꢈ iꢈterpreꢏeꢗ ꢃs sꢃcreꢗ. Whꢃt still
reꢍꢃiꢈs to be stuꢗieꢗ ꢃre the iꢈterꢃcꢏive effecꢏs of these
ꢈoꢈꢃꢗꢗicꢏiveꢅ prosociꢃl subsꢏꢃꢈces ꢃs ꢏhey substitute for ꢏhe
Joumal of Psychoactive Drugs
246
Volume 34 (3), July - Seꢣꢊember 2ꢢ2

Hallucinogens and Redemption
de Rios, Gꢀb & Baker
mꢁꢘꢘꢃgꢁ. Thꢁꢘꢁ ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁꢘ ꢃrꢁ frꢁquꢁꢈꢎly iꢈꢎꢁrprꢁtꢁꢗ ꢃꢘ
ꢃbꢘoꢚuꢎꢁꢚy trꢃꢈꢘcꢁꢈꢗꢁꢈtꢙ or iꢈ ꢘomꢁ ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ ultiꢍꢃtꢁ or bꢁ-
yoꢈꢗ orꢗiꢈꢃry ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ. Thꢁ coꢈcꢁpꢎ of rꢁꢗꢁꢍptioꢈ ꢃꢘ
provokꢁꢗ by ꢃꢈ hꢃꢚꢚuciꢈogꢁꢈic ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ ꢁꢃꢘily fitꢘ ꢃt thiꢘ
poiꢈt of ꢃꢈꢃꢚyꢘiꢘ. If thꢁ cuꢚturꢃlꢚy vꢃluꢁꢗ pꢘychoꢚogicꢃl ꢁx-
pꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ occurꢘ with thꢁ goꢃl of rꢁꢗꢁꢍptioꢈ ꢃꢈꢗ withiꢈ thꢁ
ꢁffꢁcꢎꢘ ꢗꢁliꢈꢁꢃtꢁꢗ by thꢁꢘꢁ ꢃuthorꢘꢙ ꢎhꢁꢈ thꢁrꢁ iꢘ ꢃ kiꢈꢗ of
ꢘꢁꢚꢁcꢎioꢈ ꢃt work thꢃt hꢁꢚpꢘ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃlꢘ ꢃꢗjuꢘt to thꢁir rꢁꢃꢚ-
iꢎy by mꢁꢃꢈꢘ of thꢁ ꢘꢃcrꢃꢍꢁꢈtꢃl ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ.
Sꢁꢈꢘꢁꢘ of rꢁꢃlity iꢈ ꢘciꢁꢈcꢁ ꢃꢈꢗ rꢁꢚigioꢈ ꢗiffꢁr. Sci-
ꢁꢈcꢁ ꢃꢘ ꢃ ꢘubꢘꢁꢎ of gꢁꢈꢁrꢃl huꢍꢃꢈ problꢁꢍ ꢘoꢚviꢈg ꢃriꢘꢁꢘ
from ꢃ bꢃꢘꢁꢚiꢈꢁ ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ of rꢁꢃlityꢙ ꢎhꢁ ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ of ꢍuꢚtiplꢁ ꢗiꢘ-
crete beings with rꢁgulꢃr rꢁꢚꢃtioꢈꢘhipꢘ ꢃꢈꢗ ꢈꢁutrꢃl ꢃffꢁct.
Rꢁligioꢈ ꢃriꢘꢁꢘ froꢍ othꢁr priꢍꢃry ꢘtꢃꢎꢁꢘ. Thꢁ ꢍoꢘt fuꢈꢗꢃ-
ꢍꢁꢈtꢃl of thꢁꢘꢁ ꢘtꢃtꢁꢘ focuꢘꢁꢘ oꢈ thꢁ fꢃiꢎh of bꢁꢚiꢁvꢁrꢘ ꢃꢈꢗ
ꢎhꢁir tꢁꢘtimoꢈy of wiꢎꢈꢁꢘꢘiꢈg thꢁ ꢃbꢘoꢚuꢎꢁ uꢈitꢃry bꢁiꢈg.
Thiꢘ ꢃffirꢍꢘ ꢎo ꢍoꢘt pꢁoplꢁ thꢃꢎ ꢎhꢁir livꢁꢘ ꢃrꢁ purpoꢘꢁfuꢚꢙ
ꢎhꢁ worꢚꢗ iꢘ purpoꢘꢁful ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁrꢁ iꢘ ꢈo rꢁꢃꢘoꢈ to fꢁꢃr ꢗꢁꢃth.
Thꢁ worꢚꢗ'ꢘ grꢁꢃt rꢁꢚigioꢈꢘ ꢃriꢘꢁ from thiꢘ prꢁꢍiꢘꢁ
(Wꢁiꢈbꢁrg ꢁt ꢃl. 2001). Iꢈ thiꢘ ꢃrticꢚꢁꢙ thꢁ ꢃuthorꢘ ꢃrguꢁ
ꢎhꢃt ꢘuch ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁꢘ oftꢁꢈ lꢁꢃꢗ to thꢁ ꢁxtiꢈctioꢈ of ꢘꢁꢚf-
ꢗꢁꢘꢎructivꢁ lifꢁ ꢘtyꢚꢁ pꢃꢎtꢁꢌꢘꢙ ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁy cꢃꢈ bꢁ proꢗucꢁꢗ by
ꢁꢈꢗogꢁꢈouꢘ ꢃgꢁꢈtꢘ forjuꢘt thiꢘ purpoꢘꢁ.
coꢈꢘciouꢘꢈꢁꢘꢘ. Whꢁꢈ thꢁrꢁ ꢃrꢁ poꢘitivꢁ ꢁmoꢎioꢈꢃl fꢁꢁliꢈgꢘ,
thiꢘ ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ iꢘ oftꢁꢈ ꢗꢁꢘcribꢁꢗ ꢃꢘ pꢁrꢘoꢈꢃꢚ uꢈioꢈ with
Goꢗ Whꢁꢈ thꢁ ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ iꢘ ꢃccoꢍpꢃꢈiꢁꢗ by ꢈꢁutrꢃl ꢁmo-
tioꢈꢙ it tꢁꢈꢗꢘ to bꢁ ꢗꢁꢘcribꢁꢗ ꢃftꢁr thꢁ fꢃct ꢃꢘ iꢍpꢁrꢘoꢈꢃl, ꢃꢘ
ꢃ voiꢗꢙ or thꢁ ꢈirvꢃꢈꢃ of Buꢗꢗhiꢘꢍ. Somꢁtiꢍꢁꢘ thꢁ ꢁxpꢁri-
ꢁꢈcꢁ iꢘ iꢈtꢁrprꢁtꢁꢗ pꢁrꢘoꢈꢃlly ꢃꢘ Goꢗ or iꢍpꢁrꢘoꢈꢃꢚly ꢃꢘ
thꢁ Abꢘoꢚutꢁ. It poꢘꢘꢁꢘꢘꢁꢘ ꢃ quꢃlity of trꢃꢈꢘcꢁꢈꢗꢁꢈt wholꢁ-
ꢈꢁꢘꢘ which crꢁꢃtꢁꢘ ꢃ bꢃꢚꢃꢈcꢁ bꢁtwꢁꢁꢈ ꢃꢈꢃꢚytic ꢃꢈꢗ ꢘyꢈthꢁtic
or gꢁꢘtꢃlt pꢁrcꢁptioꢈ. Accorꢗiꢈg to D'Aquili (1982), iꢈ thiꢘ
iꢈcrꢁꢃꢘꢁꢗ pꢁrcꢁptioꢈꢙ thꢁ uꢈivꢁrꢘꢁ iꢘ ꢘꢁꢁꢈ ꢃꢘ ꢁꢘꢘꢁꢈtiꢃꢚly
uꢈitivꢁ ꢃꢈꢗ purpoꢘꢁfulꢙ ꢗꢁꢘpitꢁ thꢁ pꢁrcꢁptioꢈ ofꢁvil iꢈ thꢁ
worlꢗ. Iꢈ trꢃꢈcꢁ ꢘtꢃtꢁꢘꢙ thꢁ iꢈcrꢁꢃꢘꢁꢗ ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ of uꢈity obꢚitꢁr-
ꢃtꢁꢘ thꢁ bouꢈꢗꢃriꢁꢘ bꢁtwꢁꢁꢈ thꢁ pꢁrcꢁivꢁꢗ ꢁꢈtitiꢁꢘ iꢈ thꢁ
ꢁxtꢁꢌꢃꢚ ꢁꢈviroꢈmꢁꢈt ꢃꢈꢗ bꢁtwꢁꢁꢈ ꢘꢁlf ꢃꢈꢗ othꢁr. Trꢃꢈcꢁ
ꢘtꢃtꢁꢘꢙ which ꢁxiꢘt iꢈ vꢃryiꢈg ꢗꢁgrꢁꢁꢘ of iꢈtꢁꢈꢘity froꢍ ꢃ
ꢍiꢚꢗ bꢚurriꢈg of bouꢈꢗꢃriꢁꢘ ꢃꢎ oꢈꢁ ꢁꢈꢗ to mꢁrgiꢈg ꢎowꢃrꢗꢘ
wholꢁꢈꢁꢘꢘꢙ ꢗꢁpꢁꢈꢗiꢈg oꢈ thꢁir iꢈtꢁꢈꢘityꢙ cꢃꢈ bꢁ ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁꢗ
ꢃꢘ bꢁꢃutyꢙ ꢈuꢍiꢈoꢘityꢙ rꢁligiouꢘ ꢃwꢁ or rꢁligiouꢘ ꢁxꢃlꢎꢃtioꢈ
which ꢍꢁrgꢁꢘ iꢈto thꢁ ꢘtꢃtꢁ ofꢃbꢘoꢚutꢁ uꢈiꢎꢃry bꢁiꢈg. Thꢁrꢁ
iꢘ ꢈothiꢈg but ꢃ tiꢍꢁlꢁꢘꢘ ꢃꢈꢗ pꢁrfꢁcꢎ ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ of ꢍꢁꢃꢈiꢈg ꢃꢈꢗ
wholꢁꢈꢁꢘꢘ without ꢃꢈy pꢁrcꢁptioꢈ of ꢗiꢘcrꢁtꢁ ꢁꢈtitiꢁꢘ.
CONCLUSION
Lꢃughliꢈꢙ McMꢃꢈuꢘ ꢃꢈꢗ D' Aquiꢚi (1992) ꢃrꢁ ꢈꢁuro-
aꢈꢎhropologicꢃꢚ iꢈ thꢁir ꢃpproꢃch to thꢁir coꢈcꢁpꢎ of thꢁ
Abꢘoꢚuꢎꢁ Uꢈity of Bꢁiꢈg. Thꢁy ꢃrguꢁ for ꢃ holiꢘtic opꢁrꢃ-
ꢎor which thꢁy locꢃtꢁ iꢈ thꢁ pꢃriꢁto-occipiꢎꢃl rꢁgioꢈ of thꢁ
brꢃiꢈ ꢃꢈꢗ which crꢁꢃꢎꢁꢘ ꢃꢈ iꢈcrꢁꢃꢘiꢈg ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ of whoꢚꢁꢈꢁꢘꢘ
ꢎhꢃt bꢁcomꢁꢘ progrꢁꢘꢘivꢁꢚy ꢍorꢁ ꢗomiꢈꢃꢈt ovꢁr thꢁ ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ
of mulꢎipꢚicity chꢃrꢃctꢁriꢘꢎic of bꢃꢘꢁliꢈꢁ rꢁꢃlity. Cuꢚturꢁꢘ
ꢗiffꢁr iꢈ ꢎhꢁ wꢃy ꢎhꢁy ꢘꢁꢁk ouꢎ ꢃꢈꢗ rꢁiꢈforcꢁ thꢁ ꢃcꢎivꢃtioꢈ
of thꢁ holiꢘtic opꢁrꢃtor ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁ ꢃtꢎꢃiꢈꢍꢁꢈt by thꢁir coꢈ-
ꢘꢎituꢁꢈꢎꢘ ofꢁcꢘtꢃtic ꢃꢈꢗ bꢚiꢘꢘful ꢘtꢃꢎꢁꢘ. Such ꢘtꢃꢎꢁꢘ ꢃrꢁ oftꢁꢈ
rꢁfꢁrrꢁꢗ ꢎo ꢃꢘ "trꢃꢈcꢁ ꢘtꢃꢎꢁꢘ." Aꢈ ꢃꢗmitꢎꢁꢗꢚy vꢃguꢁ tꢁrꢍ,
traꢈcꢁ ꢘꢎꢃꢎꢁꢘ ꢃrꢁ comꢍoꢈly ꢁmpꢚoyꢁꢗ iꢈ trꢃꢗitioꢈꢃꢚ ꢘociꢁt-
iꢁꢘ of thꢁ worlꢗ whꢁrꢁ thꢁy ꢃrꢁ coꢗꢁꢗ ꢃꢘ rꢁligiouꢘ-ꢘpirituꢃꢚ
ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁꢘthꢃt iꢈvolvꢁ ꢃ ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ ofthꢁ uꢈity ofrꢁꢃꢚity. Thꢁy
cꢃꢈ bꢁ provokꢁꢗ by hꢃlluciꢈogꢁꢈꢘ, ꢗꢃꢈcꢁꢙ oꢚfꢃctory ꢘꢎiꢍu-
lꢃꢎioꢈꢙ ꢁxtrꢁmꢁ fꢃꢘꢎiꢈgꢙ ꢁlꢁctrolytꢁ iꢍbꢃꢚꢃꢈcꢁꢙ ꢍꢁꢗitꢃtioꢈ,
ꢁꢎc., but ꢎhꢁ fiꢈꢃꢚ outcomꢁ, ꢃccorꢗiꢈg to thꢁꢘꢁ ꢃuꢎhorꢘꢙ iꢘ
thꢁ ꢘꢎimulꢃtioꢈ of ꢎhꢁ hoꢚiꢘꢎic opꢁrꢃtor ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁ ꢘubjꢁctivꢁ
ꢁxpꢁriꢁꢈcꢁ of iꢈcrꢁꢃꢘꢁꢗ uꢈity ovꢁr mulꢎipliciꢎy. Whꢁꢈ ꢃ
pꢁrꢘoꢈ iꢘ iꢈ ꢎhꢁ AUB ꢘꢎꢃꢎꢁꢙ hꢁ or ꢘhꢁ loꢘꢁꢘ ꢃꢚl ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ of ꢗiꢘ-
crꢁꢎꢁ bꢁiꢈg ꢃꢈꢗ thꢁ ꢗiffꢁrꢁꢈcꢁ bꢁtwꢁꢁꢈ ꢎhꢁ ꢘꢁlfꢃꢈꢗ othꢁr iꢘ
obꢚiꢎꢁrꢃꢎꢁꢗ. Thꢁrꢁ iꢘ ꢈo ꢘꢁꢈꢘꢁ of ꢎhꢁ pꢃꢘꢘiꢈg of timꢁꢙ ꢃꢈꢗ
ꢃꢚl ꢎhꢃꢎ rꢁmꢃiꢈꢘ iꢘ ꢃ pꢁrfꢁct tiꢍꢁlꢁꢘꢘ uꢈꢗiffꢁrꢁꢈꢎiꢃꢎꢁꢗ
Thiꢘ ꢃrꢎiclꢁ hꢃꢘ ꢚookꢁꢗ ꢃt thꢁ coꢈtꢁꢍporꢃry uꢘꢁ of
plꢃꢈꢎ hꢃlluciꢈogꢁꢈꢘ ꢃꢘ vꢁhiclꢁꢘ of pꢁrꢘoꢈꢃꢚ rꢁꢗꢁꢍpꢎioꢈ. Iꢎ
ꢃppꢁꢃrꢘ thꢃt oꢈꢁ ꢗrugꢙ through ꢃ coꢍbiꢈꢃtioꢈ of boꢎh ꢈꢁu-
rophyꢘioꢚogicꢃl ꢃꢈꢗ pꢘychoculꢎurꢃꢚ fꢃcꢎorꢘꢙ cꢃꢈ ꢁffꢁct thꢁ
ꢗiꢘtꢃꢈciꢈg of ꢃꢈ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃl froꢍ thꢁ uꢘꢁ of ꢃꢈothꢁr ꢍorꢁ
ꢗiꢘtrꢁꢘꢘiꢈg ꢘubꢘtꢃꢈcꢁ. Thiꢘꢙ iꢈ ꢎumꢙ cꢃꢈ lꢁꢃꢗ thꢁ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃꢚ
to rꢁꢃꢗopt ꢃttituꢗꢁꢘ ꢃꢈꢗ bꢁhꢃviorꢘ which ꢃrꢁ ꢍorꢁ ꢃccꢁpt-
ꢃbꢚꢁ to hiꢘ/hꢁr ꢘociꢃl groupꢙ ꢚꢁꢃꢗiꢈg to ꢃ rꢁiꢈtꢁgrꢃꢎioꢈ or
rꢁꢗꢁmptioꢈ withiꢈ thꢃt iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃl'ꢘ ꢘociꢃꢚ ꢍiꢚiꢁu.
It hꢃꢘ ꢃꢚꢘo prꢁꢘꢁꢈtꢁꢗ ꢁxꢃꢍplꢁꢘ of thꢁ ꢘubꢘtitutioꢈ of
cꢁrtꢃiꢈ pꢚꢃꢈꢎ or ꢘyꢈꢎhꢁtic hꢃꢚluciꢈogꢁꢈꢘ to obviꢃtꢁ thꢁ ꢈox-
iouꢘ ꢃꢈꢗ ꢃꢗꢗicꢎivꢁ ꢁffꢁctꢘ of othꢁr ꢘubꢘtꢃꢈcꢁꢘꢙ ꢃꢈꢗ
(pꢃrticulꢃrly iꢈ ꢍoꢗꢁm tiꢍꢁꢘ) to ꢍotivꢃtꢁ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃlꢘ to
forꢁgo thꢁ "ꢗꢃꢍꢃgiꢈg ꢗrug" ꢃꢘ wꢁll ꢃꢘ to givꢁ ꢍꢁꢃꢈiꢈg
ꢃꢈꢗ ꢗirꢁctioꢈ to ꢁꢈhꢃꢈcꢁ thꢁir ꢚivꢁꢘ. Thꢁ ꢘꢁꢃrch for ꢍꢁꢃꢈ-
iꢈg iꢘ ꢃꢈ iꢍporꢎꢃꢈt vꢃriꢃblꢁ iꢈ huꢍꢃꢈ ꢃffꢃirꢘ. It iꢘ iꢈtꢁrꢁꢘꢎiꢈg
to ꢘꢁꢁ ꢎhꢁ ꢗirꢁcꢎioꢈ ꢗrug ꢘubꢘtitutioꢈ iꢘ tꢃkiꢈg toꢗꢃy. Aꢘ
rꢁꢘꢁꢃrch iꢈ thiꢘ ꢃrꢁꢃ coꢈtiꢈuꢁꢘꢙ it iꢘ iꢍportꢃꢈt to ꢈotꢁ
how ꢗiffꢁrꢁꢈꢎ culturꢁꢘꢙ both ꢍoꢗꢁm ꢃꢈꢗ trꢃꢗitioꢈꢃꢚꢙ hꢃvꢁ
rꢁcogꢈiꢕꢁꢗ thꢁ uꢈivꢁrꢘꢃl iꢍportꢃꢈcꢁ ofthꢁ hꢃꢚꢚuciꢈogꢁꢈic-
ꢃiꢗꢁꢗ rꢁꢗꢁmptivꢁ procꢁꢘꢘ iꢈ briꢈgiꢈg wꢃywꢃrꢗ iꢈꢗiviꢗuꢃlꢘ
iꢈto hꢃrꢍoꢈy wiꢎh thꢁir fꢁlꢚowꢘ.
REFERENCES
Agneꢖ, M. (Ed.) 2000. We bsrer 's New Wo rld College Dicrionary, Fourrh
Edirion. New Yoꢂk: Macmillan.
Albaugh, B.J. & Andeꢂꢦon, PꢜOꢜ 1974. Peyote in the tꢂeatmenꢅ of
alcoholiꢖm among Ameꢤican Indianꢖ. American Journal of
Psychiarry 13 1 ( I I ): 1247-50ꢜ
Bakeꢂ, JꢜR. 1994ꢜ Conꢖciouꢖneꢖꢖ alꢅeꢤaꢅion aꢖ a ꢣꢤoblem-ꢖolving device:
The Pꢖychedelic Paꢅhway. In: C. Ratꢖch & J. R. Bakeꢂ (Edꢖ.)
Ye arbook fo r Erhnomedicine and rhe Srudy of Consciousness 3:
Beꢂlin: Veꢂlag fur Wissenschaft und Bildung.
247
Volume 34 (3), July - Seꢣtembeꢤ 2ꢢ2
Joumal of Psyc/zoacrive Drugs

Hallucinogens and Redemption
de Rios, Grob & Baker
Bergman, R.L. 1971. Navajo ꢣeyote uꢦe: Itꢦ aꢣꢣarent ꢦafety. American
ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Psꢈcꢅiaꢆꢇ 128 (6): 695-99.
Halꢣern, J.H. I996. The uꢦe ofhallucinogens in the treatment of addiction.
Addicꢆiꢁn Researcꢅ 4 (2): 177-89.
Blum, K., Futterman, S & Paꢦcaroꢦa, P. 1977. Peyote, a ꢣotential
ethnoꢣharmacologic agent for alcoholiꢦm and other drug
deꢣendencieꢦ: Poꢦꢦible biochemical rationale. Cꢄinicaꢄ Tꢁ xicꢁꢄꢁgꢈ
I I (4): 459-72.
Blum, K.; Hamilton, M.G.; Hirꢦt, M. & Wallace, J.E. 1978. Putative role
of iꢦoquinoline alkaloidꢦ in alcoholiꢦm: A link to oꢣiateꢦ.
Aꢄcꢁꢅꢁꢄism: Cꢄinicaꢄ and Experimenꢆaꢄ Researcꢅ 2 (2): 1 13-20.
Bourguignon, E. 1973. Reꢄigiꢁn, Aꢄꢆered Sꢆaꢆes ꢁf Cꢁnsciꢁꢂsness, and
Sꢁciaꢄ Cꢅange. Columbuꢦ: Ohio State Univerꢦity Preꢦꢦ.
Calabreꢦe, J.D. 1997. Sꢣiritual healing and human develoꢣment in the
Native American Church: Toward a cultural ꢣꢦychiatry of ꢣeyote.
Psꢈcꢅꢁanaꢄꢈꢆic Review 84 (2): 237-53.
Julien, R. M. 1998. A Primer ꢁf Drꢂg Acꢆiꢁn. Eighth Edition. New York:
W. H. Freeman and Co.
LaBarre, W. 1972. Hallucinogenꢦ and the ꢦhamanic origin of religion.
In: P. Furꢦt (Ed.) Fꢄesꢅ ꢁf ꢆꢅe Gꢁds. New York: Praeger.
Laughlin, C.; McManuꢦ, J. &. D' Aquili, E. (Edꢦ.). 1992. Brain, Sꢈmbꢁꢄ
andExperience. Tꢁ warda Neꢂrꢁpꢅenꢁmenꢄꢁꢄꢁgꢈ ꢁf Cꢁnsciꢁꢂsness.
New York: Columbia Univerꢦity Preꢦꢦ.
Luciano, D. 1998. Obꢦervationꢦ on treatment with ibogaine. American
ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁn Addicꢆiꢁns 7 ( I): 89-90.
Mabit, J.M. 1988. ꢊ'Haꢄꢄꢂcinaꢆiꢁn par / 'Aꢈaꢅꢂasca cꢅez ꢄes Gꢂerisseꢂrs
de Ia Haꢂꢆe-Amazꢁnie Perꢂvienne. Pariꢦ: Inꢦtitut Francaiꢦ d'Etudeꢦ
Andineꢦ. Document de Travail I.
Callaway, J.C. 1999. Phytochemiꢦtry and neuroꢣharmacology of
ayahuaꢦca. In: R. Metzner (Ed.) Aꢈaꢅꢂasca: Haꢄꢄꢂcinꢁgens,
Cꢁnsciꢁꢂsness and ꢆꢅe Spiriꢆs ꢁf Naꢆꢂre. New York: Thunder'ꢦ
Mouth Preꢦꢦ.
Mabit, J.; Camꢣoꢦ, J. & Arce, J. 1992. Reflectionꢦ on ayahuaꢦca from a
theraꢣeutic ꢣerꢦꢣective. Unꢣubliꢦhed manuꢦcriꢣt.
Maꢦh, D. 1996. Phaꢦe I clinical trial of ibogaine in human ꢣatient
volunteerꢦ. MAPS 6 (3): 3.
Callaway, J.C.: Airakꢦinen, M.M.; McKenna, D.J.; Brito, G.S. & Grob,
C.S. 1994. Platelet ꢦerotonin uꢣtake ꢦiteꢦ increaꢦed in drinkerꢦ of
ayahuaꢦca. Psꢈcꢅꢁpꢅarmacꢁꢄꢁgꢈ 1 1 6: 385-87.
Cohen, A.A. I987. Redemꢣtion. In: A.A. Cohen & P. Mendeꢦ-Flohr (Edꢦ.)
Cꢁnꢆempꢁrarꢈ ꢀewisꢅ Reꢄigiꢁꢂs Tꢅꢁꢂgꢅꢆ. New York: Charleꢦ
Scribner'ꢦ Sonꢦ.
D' Aquili, E.G. 1982. Senꢦe of reality in ꢦcience and religion. A
neuroeꢣiꢦtemological ꢣerꢦꢣective. Zꢈgꢁn 17 (4): 384.
De Rienzo, P. & Beal, D. N.D. The Ibogaine ꢦtory: Reꢣort on the Staten
Iꢦland Project. Unꢣubliꢦhed manuꢦcriꢣt.
Ditman, K.S. & Whittleꢦey, J.R. 1959. Comꢣariꢦon of the LSD-25
exꢣerience and delirium tremenꢦ. A.M.A. Arcꢅives ꢁf Generaꢄ
Psꢈcꢅiaꢆꢇ 1: 63-73.
Dobkin de Rioꢦ, M. 1 999. Shamaniꢦm and ontology: An evolutionary
ꢣerꢦꢣective. In: A. Schenk & C. Ratꢦch (Edꢦ.) Wa s isꢆ ein Sꢅamen?
Berlin: Verlag fur Wiꢦꢦenꢦchaft und Bildung,
Dobkin de Rioꢦ, M. 1996. On human ꢣharmacology of hoaꢦca: A medical
anthroꢣology ꢣerꢦꢣective. ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Nervꢁꢂs and Menꢆaꢄ Disease
184 (2): 95-98.
Maꢦh, D. 1995. Ibogaine: Develoꢣment aꢦ an anti-addictive drug. MAPS
6 ( 1): 29.
McBrien, R.P. (Ed.) 1 995. HarperCꢁꢄꢄins Encꢈcꢄꢁpedia ꢁf Caꢆꢅꢁꢄicism.
San Franciꢦco: HarꢣerCollinꢦ Publiꢦherꢦ.
McKenna, D.J.; Callaway, J.C. & Grob, C.S. 1 998. The ꢦcientific
inveꢦtigation of ayahuaꢦca: A review of ꢣaꢦt and current reꢦearch.
Heff ꢆer Review ꢁf Psꢈcꢅedeꢄic Researcꢅ I :65-77.
Menninger, K.A. 197 1 . Diꢦcuꢦꢦion: Navajo ꢣeyote uꢦe: Itꢦ aꢣꢣarent ꢦafety,
by Robert Bergman. American ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Psꢈcꢅiaꢆrꢈ 128 (6): 55.
Murray, J.C. I979. Redemꢣtion. In: P. Meagher; T. O'Brien & C. Aherne
(Edꢦ) Encꢈcꢄꢁpedic Dicꢆiꢁnarꢈ ꢁf Reꢄigiꢁn. Philadelꢣhia,
Pennꢦylvania: Siꢦterꢦ of St. Joꢦeꢣh Preꢦꢦ.
Newberg, A.; D'Aquili, E. & Rauꢦe, ꢂ 2001 . Wꢅꢈ Gꢁd Wꢁn 'ꢆ Gꢁ Awaꢈ.
New York: Ballantine Bookꢦ.
Pahnke, W.N. & Richardꢦ, W.E. 1966. I mꢣlicationꢦ of LSD and
exꢣerimental myꢦticiꢦm. ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Reꢄigiꢁn and Heaꢄꢆꢅ 5: 175-
208.
Paꢦcaroꢦa, P. & Futterman, S. 1976. Ethnoꢣꢦychedelic theraꢣy for
alcoholicꢦ. Obꢦervationꢦ in the ꢣeyote riꢊual ofthe Native American
Church. ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Psꢈcꢅedeꢄic Drꢂgs 8 (3): 215-2 1 .
Poꢣik, P. 1996. Facilitation of memory retrieval by the anti-addictive
alkaloid, ibogaine. ꢊꢋe Sciences 59 (24): 279-85.
Richardꢦon, A. & Bowden, J. (Edꢦ.) 1983. Redempꢆiꢁn. Philadelꢣhia,
Pennꢦylvania: The Weꢦtminꢦter Dictionary of Chriꢦtian Theology.
Ruck, C.; Bigwood, J.; Staꢣleꢦ, D.; Ott, J. & Waꢦꢦon, R.G. 1979.
Entheogenꢦ. ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Psꢈcꢅedeꢄic Drꢂgs I I (2): 145-46.
Schumaker, J.F. 1991. Hꢂman Sꢂggesꢆibiꢄiꢆꢈ: Advances in Tꢅeꢁrꢈ,
Researcꢅ and Appꢄicaꢆiꢁn. New York: Rutledge.
Dobkin de Rioꢦ, M. 1995. A reꢦꢣonꢦe to Lucaꢦ'ꢦ "Entheology." ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ
ꢁf Psꢈcꢅꢁacꢆive Drꢂgs 27 (3): 297-8.
Dobkin de Rioꢦ, M. 1984. Haꢄꢄꢂcinꢁgens: Crꢁss-cꢂꢄꢆꢂraꢄ Perspecꢆive.
Proꢦꢣect Heightꢦ, Illinoiꢦ: Waveland Preꢦꢦ.
Dobkin de Rioꢦ, M. 1972. Visiꢁnarꢈ Vine: Haꢄꢄꢂcinꢁgenic Heaꢄing in ꢆꢅe
Perꢂvian Amazꢁn. Proꢦꢣect Heightꢦ, Illinoiꢦ: Waveland Preꢦꢦ
[reꢣrinted 1984].
Dobkin de Rioꢦ, M & Grob, C. S. 1994. Hallucinogenꢦ, ꢦuggeꢦtibility and
adoleꢦcence in croꢦꢦ-cultural ꢣerꢦꢣective. In: C. Ratꢦch & 1. R. Baker
(Edꢦ.) Ye arbꢁꢁkfꢁ r Eꢆꢅnꢁmedicine and ꢆꢅe Sꢆꢂdꢈ ꢁf Cꢁnsciꢁꢂsness
J: Berlin: Verlag fur Wiꢦꢦenꢦchaft und Bildung.
Sheꢣꢣard, S.G. 1994. A ꢣreliminary inveꢦtigation of ibogaine. ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ
ꢁf Sꢂbsꢆance Abꢂse Treaꢆmenꢆ 2 (4): 379-85.
Simon, H.A. 1990. A mechaniꢦm for ꢦocial ꢦelection and ꢦucceꢦꢦful
Eliade, M. (Ed.) 1 987. Tꢅe Encꢈcꢄꢁpedia ꢁf Reꢄigiꢁn, Vꢁ ꢄ. 12. New York:
Macmillan.
altruiꢦm. Science 250: 1665-68.
Graetz, M. et al. 1971. Redemꢣtion. In: C. Roth & G. Wigoder (Edꢦ.)
Encꢈcꢄꢁpedia ꢀꢂdaica. Jeruꢦalem & New York: Keter Publiꢦhing
Houꢦe & Macmillan Co.
Freyre, G. l959. New Wꢁ rꢄd in ꢆꢅe Trꢁp ics. Tꢅe Cꢂꢄꢆꢂre ꢁf Mꢁdeꢃ Braziꢄ.
New York: Alfred A. Knoꢣf.
Grob, C.S. 1999. The ꢣꢦychology of ayahuaꢦca. In: R. Metzner (Ed.)
Aꢈꢉlwꢉsca: Haꢄꢄꢂcinꢁgens, Cꢁnsciꢁꢂsness andꢆꢅe Spiriꢆ ꢁf Naꢆꢂre.
New York: Thunder'ꢦ Mouth Preꢦꢦ.
Smart, R. G. & Storm, ꢃ 1964. The efficacy of LSD in the treatment of
alcoholiꢦm. Qꢂarꢆerꢄꢈ ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Sꢆꢂdies ꢁn Aꢄcꢁꢅꢁꢄ 25: 333-38.
Smith, J.Z. (Ed.) HarꢣerCꢁꢄꢄins Dicꢆiꢁnarꢈ ꢁf Reꢄigiꢁn. San Franciꢦco:
HarꢣerCollinꢦ.
Stolaroff, B.J. 1994. Tꢅanaꢆꢁs ꢆꢁ Erꢁs. Tꢅ irꢆꢈ-Five Ye ars ꢁf Psꢈcꢅedeꢄic
Expꢄꢁraꢆiꢁn. Berlin: VWB.
Wallace, A.F.C. 1966. Reꢄigiꢁn: An Anꢆꢅrꢁpoꢄꢁgicaꢄ View. New York:
Random Houꢦe.
Grob, C.S. & Dobkin de Rioꢦ, M. 1992. Adoleꢦcent drug uꢦe in croꢦꢦ-
Waꢦꢦon, R.G.; Hofmann, A. & Ruck, C.A. 1998. Tꢅe Rꢁad ꢆꢁ Eꢄeꢂsis.
Unveiꢄing ꢆꢅe Secreꢆ ꢁf ꢆꢅe Mꢈsꢆeries. Loꢦ Angeleꢦ: Hermeꢦ Preꢦꢦ.
Winkelman, M.J. 2000. Sꢅamanism: The Neꢂraꢄ Ecꢁꢄꢁgꢈ ꢁf
Cꢁnsciꢁꢂsness and Heaꢄing. Weꢦtꢣort, Connecticut: Bergin &
Garvey.
cultural ꢣerꢦꢣective. ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf Drꢂg Issꢂes 22 ( 1 ): 1 2 1 -38.
Grob, C . S . ; McKenna, D.
&
Gal loway, G. 1999. Human
ꢣsychoꢣharmacology of hoaꢦca, a ꢣlant hallucinogen uꢦed in ritual
context in Brazil. ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢉꢄ of Nervꢁꢂs & Menꢆꢉꢄ Disease 184 (2):
86-94.
Winkelman, M.J. 1996. Pꢦychointegrator ꢣlantꢦ. Their roleꢦ in human
Grof, S. 1976ꢜ Reꢉꢄms of ꢆhe Hꢂmꢉn Uncꢁnsciꢁꢂs. Observꢉꢆiꢁns frꢁm
LSD Reseꢉrcꢅ. New Yo rk: E. P. Dutton.
Grof, S. l973. Theoretical and emꢣirical baꢦiꢦ oftranꢦꢣerꢦonal ꢣꢦychology
and ꢣsychotheraꢣy: Obꢦervationꢦ from LSD reꢦearch. ꢀꢁꢂꢃaꢄ ꢁf
Trꢉnspersꢁnꢉꢄ Psychology 5: 15-53.
culture and health. I n : M. Winkelman & W. Andritzky
(Eds.)Yearbꢁꢁk ꢁf Crꢁss-cꢂꢄꢆꢂraꢄ Medicine and Psꢈcꢅꢁꢆꢅerapꢈ. Vo l.
6. Berlin: VWB.
Journaꢄ of Psychoactive Drꢂgs
248
Vo lume 34 (3), July - Seꢣtember 2002