Notes on the Brazilian Congress of Psychology: Marijuana and Psychedelics: Ethics, Ancestral Knowledge, and Challenges in Practice
- Felipe De Nadai
- Oct 23, 2024
- 11 min read
The Brazilian Congress of Psychology took place in Brasília from October 17 to 19, 2024, opening the stage for a complex debate on psychedelics and marijuana in Brazil and around the world. In September of the same year, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) released the ruling for Case RE 635.659, a decision accompanied by over 700 pages of arguments concerning the possession of marijuana for personal use. Around the same time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected—for now—MDMA-assisted therapy, requesting further trials. Brasília, the political capital of the country, became a symbolic, real, and imagined setting for discussing these issues, considering the role of public policy and the advancement of the regulation of psychedelic substances and marijuana in Brazil.
Symbolic
The congress "Marijuana and Psychedelics: Ethics, Ancestral Knowledge, and Challenges in Practice" reflects a growing need to understand the role of psychedelics not only within clinical and psychiatric contexts but also in the traditions and cultural practices that have utilized these substances for millennia. In this sense, the main goal was to bridge the gap between traditional knowledge—based on care practices and rituals of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities—and academic-scientific knowledge, which seeks, albeit belatedly, to legitimize their therapeutic use. The title clearly indicates an ethical concern not only with individual use but with the integration of different knowledge systems, recognizing the impact of prohibitionist policies in Brazil.
The congress was organized by institutions of great national relevance, most notably the Federal Council of Psychology (CFP), the federal body that regulates the practice of psychology in Brazil, the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), one of the country's largest health research institutions. Additionally, the Associação Psicodélica do Brasil (APB) played an important role in supporting the working group that gave rise to the event, with the ad-hoc representation of Dr. Sandro Rodrigues. This congress represents the sum of efforts from many people, including users, activists, psychologists, patients, doctors, neuroscientists, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and lawyers.
Key speakers included well-known figures in psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, and anthropology who study these substances and their various uses, as well as community and religious leaders who highlighted the ritualistic and religious use of psychedelics, along with the therapeutic uses of marijuana. Regarding the title, the explicit use of the word "marijuana" instead of terms like "cannabis"—often used to soften social stigma—reflects the fact that the council of psychologists openly names it, signaling a movement toward redefinition and confrontation of the taboos surrounding the subject. This creates an imaginative framework with new symbols, allowing for a spatiotemporal opening to discuss the spectrum of psychedelics in the "psi" sciences—psychology and psychiatry—and their inherited care technologies, while also showing how these disciplines have progressed (or not) in the use of psychedelic substances to treat mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD. This movement is in line with developments in other countries, where the therapeutic use of psychedelics has gained ground, particularly in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Jamaica. In Brazil, however, the path is more complex due to a prohibitionist framework that keeps regulatory progress under a patchwork of laws that offers less coverage than needed. Although events like this indicate that the debate is moving toward a potential paradigm shift, the moral legacies of the past require ongoing attention to the balance of progress and restriction.
Although undoubtedly prohibitionist, Brazil has a privileged psychedelic and cannabis-rich cultural heritage that cannot be ignored in this debate. Briefly mentioning the use of plants considered sacred by certain ethnicities and religious groups—such as ayahuasca and jurema, for instance, which are already regulated in specific religious contexts—illustrates the country's potential to progress in terms of legislation, provided that ethical and scientific debates are properly deepened. A point of convergence for these discussions to be formalized and brought to broader spheres, such as politics, civil society, and indigenous societies, is our urgency. We must remember that the current legislation on ayahuasca did not include the many indigenous organizations that use it in their ritualistic and religious practices.
Taking a moment here to reflect on my personal connection to the theme of psychedelics, it has seen both its carnivals and winters, traversing the academic field as well as personal life experiences. I am a psychologist and an active member of the Psychedelic Association of Brazil, an organization that has significantly contributed to advancing discussions about the therapeutic application of these substances in the country. However, at this particular congress, I was representing the Regional Council of Psychology of Paraná (CRP 08), as part of a delegation of five psychologists. This official involvement further strengthened my connection with the event and the ongoing debates about psychedelics and cannabis.
My academic journey with psychoactive substances began in 2012, during my time in law school, initially focusing on the legal and regulatory issues surrounding the use of these substances, especially in the Brazilian context. However, as my interests shifted toward psychology, I realized there was much more to explore, particularly regarding the therapeutic potential of these substances in clinical and ritualistic settings. My training and practical experience in psychology allowed me to broaden my understanding of the use of psychedelics, not only as an academic topic but as a highly relevant field for psychological practice.
Participating in the event as a representative of CRP 08 was particularly significant, as it was precisely from CRP 08 in Paraná that the proposal for the congress's theme originated. This theme, initially conceived in Paraná, was gradually refined over time and through various stages, culminating in the final version we see in the congress title.
As mentioned by counselor Fábio Lopes from CRP 08, this process was the result of a democratic effort within the psychology council system, where the subject was discussed and approved at various levels. According to Fábio,
"[] ... The theme was proposed at a regional congress in Paraná, gained momentum at the national congress, and later at the APAF, until the formation of the working group (GT) that led this effort."
Fábio Lopes' statement highlights the collaborative and democratic nature of the construction of this congress. It was not an event hastily organized or imposed from the top down, but rather the result of years of discussion, maturation, and engagement from various psychology professionals. This reflects the seriousness with which the subject of psychedelics is being addressed, not merely as an academic curiosity or a therapeutic trend, but as a legitimate area of study and clinical practice, with ethical, scientific, and political implications. Psychedelics are crossing a hemato-paradigmatic barrier.
Imaginary
When I received the news that the Federal Council of Psychology (CFP) would be organizing a congress on the theme "Cannabis and Psychedelics: Ethics, Ancestral Knowledge, and Challenges of Practice," my expectations were immediately high. An event of this nature, organized by a federal institution like the CFP, naturally raises a lot of expectations, especially considering the seriousness with which the Council System addresses controversial and often stigmatized issues. Coming from a background of academic rejection, where there has been resistance to even researching these substances or imagining intersections between clinical psychology and substance use, the announcement felt like a breakthrough. In this, Pedro Bicalho, president of the Federal Council of Psychology, emphasized that while some prohibitions may have been legally abolished, they persist in people’s minds and attitudes. I would add: they infect institutions, practices, and professions.
Even though I knew the event would bring deep, high-quality discussions, often conflicting, I must confess that the level of debate exceeded my expectations. As the president of the CFP noted during his closing remarks, “Talking about cannabis within a professional council like psychology is not an easy task.” He mentioned that this is a subject that touches many social wounds, and that addressing it within the field of psychology requires not only technical knowledge but also courage. In Bicalho's words:
"[] ... Naming ‘cannabis’ as ‘marijuana’ is, in itself, an act of defiance against the prohibitionism and conservatism that still permeates our institutions."
This choice indeed carries an intense burden of signs and symbols. It quickly brings to mind police programs on TV showcasing the seizure of marijuana bricks. Men, mostly Black, hooded, holding guns, constantly facing police intervention in their communities. The term "cannabis" is often used to soften the stigma associated with the plant, making it more palatable to certain audiences. However, by choosing to use the popular term "marijuana," the congress organizers took a bold step to dismantle the overused, inaccurate imagery that doesn't correspond to the full (or true) reality. This is crucial because the use of psychedelics and marijuana isn't confined to a niche of privileged professionals or academics disconnected from the increasingly decaying matrix that socially distances already stigmatized groups from comprehensive care. These issues, at their core, involve matters of social inequality, the criminalization and stigmatization of entire populations over centuries, with a constantly shifting target.
This was not an introductory event meant to convince the public about the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. On the contrary, the congress started from an already advanced level, presenting cutting-edge research and highly politicized discussions. There was little to no room for presentations that attempted to "sell" psychedelics as something new or revolutionary. Instead, participants—both speakers and attendees—were already deeply immersed in a well-established context of knowledge on the subject. The event cultivated a highly enriching debate environment, where complex issues, often neglected in other forums, were brought to the surface. There was special care taken to integrate scientific knowledge with ancestral wisdom and to respect the plurality of experiences and contexts in which psychedelics are used, including recreational or exploratory uses in festival or non-festival settings. This attention to detail was evident in many lectures and debates, which emphasized the importance of not disconnecting these substances from their cultural and spiritual roots.
Dr. Sandro Rodrigues, co-founder of the Psychedelic Association of Brazil (APB), provided insight into how the APB has established itself as a fundamental actor on the national scene, mobilizing not only the scientific field but also civil society to discuss the use of psychedelics in Brazil. With nearly a decade of existence, the APB was born from the Marcha da Maconha (Marijuana March) in Rio de Janeiro and has since spread to numerous other marches across Brazil.
Shortly afterward, Fábio Lopes, a board member of CRP-08 and my colleague at the State Council on Drug Policy in Paraná, took the floor. Fábio provided crucial context about how we arrived at this congress, reminding us that since 2020, he has been one of the proponents of this theme, leading discussions that gained momentum over the past few years. His speech was full of emotion as he celebrated this historic moment for Brazilian psychology and the progress in understanding psychedelics and cannabis in therapeutic contexts. Fábio emphasized the role of psychology in creating space for these discussions and how the profession has been courageous in bringing terms like "marijuana" to the forefront of the debate, reinforcing the commitment to include historically marginalized populations.
Real
One of the most powerful speeches came from Fernanda Kaingang, an indigenous lawyer and the director of the National Museum of Indigenous Peoples. As a member of the Kaingang people from southern Brazil, Fernanda brought to light the harsh reality faced by indigenous communities throughout more than 500 years of colonization and expropriation. Her words flowed like rapids—fearless and striking—leaving a profound impact on the participants during the event’s opening session. The ancestral knowledge of healing and spirituality held by indigenous peoples has been systematically appropriated by Western science and the psychedelic industry. Fernanda's critique did not soften the common concept of "knowledge holders," which often idealizes those who were on this land long before the colonizers arrived. Instead, she called for a shift towards recognizing them as "knowledge owners," emphasizing the importance of ensuring that their rights over these sacred understandings are respected and protected.
Academic research on traditional knowledge did not escape unscathed, with its etymology and teleology called into question, as Fernanda pointed out the hypocrisy of policies that treat indigenous peoples as "invisible" while exploiting their knowledge without any form of restitution. In her compelling speech, she underscored the urgent need for reparations and equity in the relationship between universities and indigenous peoples, highlighting the importance of recognizing the intellectual property of indigenous knowledge. The current psychedelic movement, according to her, must confront this cyclical horror of appropriation, where indigenous knowledge is turned into products without proper recognition or reparation. Without these, any advancements in the psychedelic field would be just another chapter in ongoing colonization. Fernanda’s words were a sharp reminder that to truly progress in this area, we must consider the voices of communities that have long been excluded and silenced, often reduced to mere footnotes in scientific researchThe regulatory challenges and ethical-political issues surrounding the use of psychedelics in Brazil were shaken up by Fernando Bezerra, psychologist and co-founder of the APB. He offered a clear critique of the concept of the "psychedelic renaissance," often propagated as a narrative from the Global North, disconnected from local realities and the history of counterculture and marginalized communities in Brazil. Fernando emphasized that the use of psychedelic substances, since the 1960s, has been intrinsically linked to counterculture and political resistance movements. However, with the advance of regulations and legalization, there is a risk that this movement could be co-opted by elite interests that have historically excluded vulnerable and marginalized populations. As he stated, "The elitist regulation of psychedelics, as we're seeing in some parts of the world, can easily exclude those who need these practices the most, such as indigenous peoples, Black communities, and the poor. We need to fight for inclusive regulation that integrates psychedelics into the SUS and values the harm reduction perspective."
He illuminated fundamental issues regarding the mental health of workers involved in psychotherapy clinics using ketamine, warning about the impact this emerging field could have on working conditions and the rights of these professionals. He firmly advocated for regulations that ensure not only access to treatments but also the protection of the rights of workers engaged in harm reduction at parties, as well as the strengthening of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).
Throughout the congress, round tables and discussions explored fundamental themes such as the regulation of psychedelics, psychedelic therapies, and the impact of these practices on traditional and marginalized populations. One of the most impactful panels discussed legal frameworks and public policies, highlighting the path to legalization in Brazil and the need for social reparations for communities affected by prohibition. The discussions on the integration of psychotherapies, including ketamine and other substances in therapeutic contexts, brought a strong ethical-political dimension, emphasizing inclusion and harm reduction. The event served as a meeting point for mental health professionals, activists, community leaders, and the general public, creating a space for the deepening of ethical, cultural, and scientific issues surrounding the use of psychedelics. The intergenerational impact of the congress was also notable. There were young undergraduate students, curious and enthusiastic, side by side with masters, doctors, and post-doctorates, all actively participating in the discussions. This meeting of generations demonstrated how the topic of psychedelics is expanding and being embraced by different age groups and levels of professional experience. My expectations were high, and the congress exceeded many of them: the depth of the discussions, the courage in addressing the issues, and the integration of different forms of knowledge made this event a historic milestone for psychology in Brazil, elevating the debate on psychedelics to a new level.
The outcomes from the congress included a) advocating for the repeal of the crime for those penalized with less than 40g of marijuana and b) considering the future training of therapists who will work in this field.
The Real was spoken. And the Real hurts.
Desert of the Real
Undoubtedly, this congress divides opinions within the field. Many colleagues believe that spending money from the Federal Council of Psychology (CFP) on events like this, especially with such a name, is unjustifiable. The takeaway from this experience is that we must keep our eyes open. Two days are not enough to even introduce, let alone deeply explore, the topics of psychedelics and cannabis, considering that they are similar yet distinct in pharmacology, etiology, and posology.
The reality—or hyperreality—becomes evident in the interplay of influences: there exists a group that acknowledges the potential benefits of psychedelics and cannabis, while naturally, there’s a second group that vehemently denies any therapeutic layers that might be uncovered. Meanwhile, issues such as the abuses occurring in therapies in the Global North or even the clandestine practices that take place have received little attention. The exorbitant costs of training, the ongoing lack of representation in psychedelic trials, and the active attempts to capture patents remain topics for future discussions. I don't think it will turn into a "we'll get to it later" situation, but everyone is keeping their eyes and ears open.
コメント