DMT and its deep-rooted religious use.

Dimethyltryptamine has been used for centuries in various South American and Amazonian religions. The earliest known account was found in a dig of an 8th century burial site in Chile where bags of snuff remnants containing DMT, 5-MeO-DMT (5, Methyloxy Dimethyltryptamine; a slightly different sister compound with approximately the same effects and a slightly longer duration), and bufotenine (found in various frogs and toads as a defense mechanism and causes indistinguishably similar effects as the other compounds; probably because the chemical makeup is near identical) were found. From the sixteenth to eighteenth century, Colombian natives and people from the surrounding area used DMT-containing concoctions, including similar brews to the Chilian snuffs as well as oral brews known today as ayahuasca (pronounced EYE-ah-WAS-ka) or simply huasca (WAS-ka). As DMT is not psychoactive orally, it was combined with other herbs (later found to contain MAOIs, or monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which make DMT active orally) to provide an effect.

The snuffs were also found in Trinidad which they called yopo. Brazillian natives used an oral brew which they called vinho de Jurumena. Lastly, Amazonian shamanism is deep rooted in the use of DMT and other psychoactive substances as a medium between the physical and spiritual realms. They use it to communicate to the deceased, spirits of animals, and elder gods. They also administered it to sickly and tribesman with mental issues so they could think about and resolve their problems from within. William Burroughs, ethnobiologist and drug afficionato such as Timothy Leary, stated that "Ayahuasca [and therefore other DMT-containing brews] is said to afford communication across great distances and to permit encounters with animals and ancestors." These experiences have kept the shamanistic religions alive for centuries, quite possibly since before christianity.

Even today, DMT use is active in a few religons, including some based upon the fundamentals of christianity. The two recognised by the United States are the O Centra Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegetal (popularly shortened to UDV) which was founded in 1961 and has approximately 8000 members, and the Santo Daime Church, founded in 1940 with about 2500 members. Both of these churches import hoasca brews from Brazil (where church members dedicated their lives to growing and producing the tea in a ceremonial manner) and injest them during various ceremonies. The UDV, however, is the more popular of the two, as the DEA raided their church and obtained large drums of the tea from the church's office. The church then sued the agency, claiming that the tea is used in their religious practices and therefore should be legal to posess, citing the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This act was the same one that allowed various American Indian religions to use peyote in their practices. They first obtained an injunction allowing them to posess and use the psychoactive brew in their Christmas services that year. Later on, they won their case in Supreme Court after a unianimous decision. In part, this was simply because the courts could not find tangible evidence that the DMT brew was posing a serious health risk to the church members, and therefore not showing reason to interfere with the practice. Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "It shows that you can make an extemption [to drug control policy] without the sky falling."

Pros/Cons

The side supporting the legalization of Dimethyltryptamine has many good points. First, it has been used for centuries by various South American religions as a tool of worship, sacrament, or right of passage.It's scheduling prohibits certain people from practicing what they truly believe in. Secondly, it's psychedelic effects have been tested in providing insight into ones self to battle difficult things such as addictions. As the compound is secreted from the human brain, it poses very little to no heath risk in a user. Lastly, the banning of a compound present in all of us is absurd.

The side against legalization also has very strong points. First, it is a hallucinogenic compound, and its misuse could lead to endangering the lives of others. Secondly, in most oral DMT brews, a Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitor (MAOI) is present for the compound to take effect. MAOIs can cause serious health concerns if used incorrectly. A bad experience could possibly scar a user for life. Also, DMT, in some studies, have been linked to schizophrenia.

For my research I will be taking the pro side of the argument for many reasons. For one, I strongly believe that a compound that is present in the human brain should not be illegal. Secondly, the potential for psychoanalysis in certain cases is remarkable. I also believe that a religion should have the right to use any ethenogen that their beliefs demand. In short, if its in all of our brains, how bad could it be?

Topic Overview

DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) is a compound found in many different natural substances. It can be found in various plants in many different countries, certain toads (specifically Bufo Alvarius, the Colorado River Toad), and other animals. The most interesting place where DMT is synthesized and broken down is in the pineal gland of the human brain during R.E.M. sleep, birth, near-death situations and death. Most say that DMT is the reason why most people have elaborate dreams and cannot remember them.

However, there is much controversy over this specific molecule. DMT, the "Spirit Molecule" as refered to by Dr. Rick Strassman, is a halucinogenic compound. It provides distortion of time, visual and audio halucinations, and other experiences that, by most who have experienced it, defy description. For centuries it has been used by certain religious and shamanistic groups to provide spiritual enlightenment into concepts that are hard to grasp. Being that is halucinogenic, however, most governments of the world consider it a dangerous substance. Therefore, it is considered a scheduled substance in the United States as well as many other nations.

So therefore, the question is simple. Should a naturally occurring brain chemical be outlawed? Some politicians say so, while various churches, psychiatrists, and researchers say otherwise.