Legal Status of DMT and Ayahuasca Plants under the 1971 UN Convention

8 min read

Abstract

The 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances established a framework to control psychoactive chemicals, including N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), classifying them under restrictive regimes. However, the Convention and its official Commentary delineate a clear distinction between pure psychoactive substances and the natural plant materials that contain them. This differentiation means that while DMT is controlled as a Schedule I substance, ayahuasca plants such as Banisteriopsis caapi and Psychotria viridis are not, a position upheld by international entities like the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). National implementation varies: Brazil and Peru support ceremonial use, while the U.S. and the Netherlands permit religious exceptions or place restrictions in other contexts. Ongoing debates address implications for ayahuasca research, Indigenous and religious practices, and international drug policy.

Introduction: The 1971 Vienna Convention and DMT

The Convention on Psychotropic Substances, signed in Vienna in 1971, responded to a growing international concern over the emergence and spread of psychoactive compounds not covered by previous treaties. The primary aim was to limit the non-medical use of psychotropics by creating regulatory classifications—Schedules I–IV—based on the risk of abuse and recognized medical value. DMT, a potent hallucinogenic tryptamine, was included in Schedule I, the strictest category, alongside substances like LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline [1][2][3].

The Convention’s control measures—such as requirements for manufacture, distribution, import/export, and medical use—are mandatory only for the listed substances as named in its Schedules. Importantly, the treaty is not self-executing: member states must enact domestic laws to fulfill its requirements [2][4].

UN Commentary (1971): Explicit Position on DMT-Containing Plants

The official Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (United Nations, 1971) provides critical interpretative guidance. Concerning the relationship between scheduled compounds and natural materials, the Commentary states:

“The inclusion in Schedule I of the active principle of a substance does not mean that the substance itself is also included therein if it is a substance clearly distinct from the substance constituting its active principle… Neither the crown (fruit, mescal button) of the Peyote cactus nor the roots of the plant Mimosa hostilis nor Psilocybe mushrooms themselves are included in Schedule I, but only their respective active principles, mescaline, DMT, and psilocybine (psilocin, psilotsin)” [5][6].

This clarification means plants themselves that contain scheduled substances—such as Banisteriopsis caapi (the ayahuasca vine), Psychotria viridis (which contains DMT), and others—are not subject to international control. Only extracted or synthetic forms of the psychoactive alkaloids are covered by the treaty.

The INCB, which oversees treaty compliance, has repeatedly affirmed this distinction, explicitly stating in communications and annual reports that “no plants (natural materials) containing DMT are at present controlled under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Consequently, preparations (e.g., decoctions) made of these plants, including ayahuasca, are not under international control and, therefore, not subject to any of the articles of the 1971 Convention” [7][8][9].

The legal architecture of the 1971 Convention established a substantive difference between isolated or synthesized psychoactive chemicals (like pure DMT) and the raw plant materials in which they naturally occur. This position is rooted in the intention to regulate only the specific substances named in the Schedules, not the dozens of plant species that may contain them as trace or active ingredients [6]. For instance, Psychotria viridis, Mimosa hostilis, and various acacias all contain DMT, but are left outside the scope of the treaty, mirroring the treatment of peyote and psilocybin mushrooms [6][5].

Despite periodic calls from the INCB and some member states for broader regulation, the Convention assigns no obligation to control these plants; any government wishing to regulate such plants must do so solely under national law [6][10]. The Commentary even notes that future treaties could reconsider this, but as of the latest INCB statements, no international controls on ayahuasca plants exist [6][7][8][4].

Case Studies: National Approaches

Brazil

Brazil stands out for its regulatory framework explicitly recognizing and protecting the ritual and religious use of ayahuasca. The National Council on Drug Policy (CONAD) has since 1987 enacted policies authorizing ayahuasca in ceremonial contexts, periodically reaffirming its legitimacy through administrative resolutions. Nonetheless, all commercial or non-ritualized uses, especially export, remain prohibited by regulation. The legal recognition is grounded in constitutional protections of religious practice and cultural expression [11][12].

Peru

In Peru, ayahuasca is legal for traditional use and is officially recognized as part of the country’s national cultural heritage. The government’s National Institute of Culture declared ayahuasca’s ceremonial use by Indigenous communities as cultural patrimony in 2008, reflecting social, medicinal, and ethnobotanical values. Sale or export outside licensed cultural and spiritual contexts is not permitted [13][14][15].

United States

The United States classifies DMT as a Schedule I controlled substance, prohibiting its possession, use, or manufacture except for research. However, legal precedents—including a unanimous 2006 Supreme Court decision (Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal)—allow some religious groups limited exemptions for ceremonial use of ayahuasca, granted under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Such exemptions involve rigorous legal processes and are not available to the general public [16][17][18].

Netherlands

Initially accommodating, Dutch courts once recognized the religious use of ayahuasca by organizations such as Santo Daime. However, a 2019 Dutch Supreme Court decision ruled that ayahuasca, because of its DMT content, falls under the Opium Act’s prohibition. The court determined that the restriction on religious practice was justified for public health and legal conformity. The use, importation, or distribution of ayahuasca is now effectively prohibited, though legal challenges continue at national and European levels [19][20].

Broader Implications: Research, Religion, and Indigenous Rights

The legal distinction between pure substances and plant materials under the 1971 Convention has enabled the persistence—and sometimes growth—of ayahuasca research and ceremonial practice worldwide. In South America, state recognition of ayahuasca’s Indigenous and syncretic religious significance has fostered a unique form of legal pluralism, supporting biocultural heritage and contributing to ongoing pharmacological and ethnobotanical studies [21][6][14].

Elsewhere, the ambiguous status of DMT-containing plants creates uncertainty. While international law does not mandate the prohibition of ayahuasca, national governments may, and sometimes do, criminalize its use, even for religious or scientific purposes. This uneven patchwork poses risks to researchers, Indigenous groups, and religious minorities, sometimes resulting in prosecution or the restriction of traditional practices [6][19][20].

International debate continues over the rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain ceremonial plant use, and the interface with modern drug control regimes. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) underscores the need for legal recognition of such practices and opposes their blanket prohibition when not justified by compelling public health evidence [6][22][21].

Conclusion

The 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances regulates DMT as a controlled substance but—according to its own Commentary and subsequent INCB guidance—does not extend that control to plants or preparations like ayahuasca that contain DMT. National approaches vary both legally and culturally, with South American countries generally upholding ceremonial use and other states imposing tighter restrictions or providing limited religious exemptions. The Convention’s main effect has been to allow member states the flexibility to interpret and implement their own controls regarding ayahuasca plants, with implications for research, religious freedom, and Indigenous rights that continue to evolve.

References

  1. Classification of controlled drugs – topic overview
  2. Convention on Psychotropic Substances – Wikipedia
  3. N,N-Dimethyltryptamine – an overview
  4. UNODC – Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971)
  5. Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971)
  6. Tupper, K.W., & Labate, B.C. (2012). The Control of Nature and the Nature of Control. Human Rights and Drugs, 2(1)
  7. ICEERS (2010). INCB Clarification on Legal Status of Ayahuasca Plants
  8. ICEERS (2010). Hoasca 1971 Convention Legal Brief
  9. UNODC (2023). Psychotropic Substances Portal
  10. Transform Drug Policy Foundation. Can We Legalise Psychedelics under the UN Drug Treaties?
  11. ICEERS – Legal Situation of Ayahuasca: Brazil
  12. Spirit Vine – Brazilian Law Regarding Ayahuasca
  13. ICEERS – Legal Situation of Ayahuasca: Peru
  14. Worldwide Psychedelic Laws Tracker
  15. Ayahuasca – Wikipedia
  16. Is Ayahuasca Legal in the US? – Nimea Kaya
  17. Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006)
  18. New Life Rising – Is Ayahuasca Legal?
  19. ICEERS (2020). Ayahuasca and Religious Freedom in the Dutch Courts
  20. ICEERS (2023). Report: Legal Status of Ayahuasca in the Netherlands
  21. Transnational Institute (2015). Ayahuasca: From the Amazon to the Global Village
  22. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

Note: This summary is part of the Yaogará Ark Research Archive. It is intended for academic and informational purposes and should not be interpreted as legal advice.

References and Licensing

This article is part of the Yaogará Ark Research Archive — an open ethnobotanical repository documenting sacred plants and Indigenous ecological knowledge of the Amazon.

Publisher: Yaogará Research Initiative — Fundación Camino al Sol License: Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) Citation: Yaogará Research Initiative (2025). Legal Status of DMT and Ayahuasca Plants under the 1971 UN Convention. Yaogará Ark Research Archive. https://ark.yaogara.org/policy/dmt-un-report-1971

  • Explore more research soon.