City and Local "Decriminalise Nature" Movements

The "Decriminalise Nature" movement emerged in the United States as a grassroots effort to change how local governments treat plant-based and fungal psychedelics. Starting in the late 2010s, advocates began successfully campaigning for city councils and local voters to approve municipal resolutions that de-prioritise the enforcement of laws against natural psychedelics, such as psilocybin mushrooms, ayahuasca, and iboga. These initiatives do not legalise these substances, but rather signal a shift in local law enforcement priorities, reflecting a broader global reconsideration of psychedelic drug policy from a criminal justice model toward a public health framework.

How Local Resolutions Work

In 2019, Denver, Colorado, became the first US city to pass a ballot initiative making the arrest and prosecution of adults for personal possession of psilocybin the "lowest law enforcement priority." Shortly after, Oakland, California, passed a resolution decriminalising a broader category of "entheogenic plants and fungi." Other cities, including Santa Cruz, Washington D.C., and Ann Arbor, followed with similar measures.

These resolutions typically instruct local police and prosecutors to deprioritise arrests related to the personal use of these substances and often prohibit the use of city funds to investigate or penalise such activities. They are designed to operate as a form of localised harm reduction, shifting municipal focus away from personal use and toward community safety and public health resources.

The Limits of Municipal Action

A critical limitation of the Decriminalise Nature movement is that municipal resolutions only affect local policy; they do not alter state, federal, or international law. In the United States, psilocybin remains a Schedule I substance at the federal level, meaning it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess. Consequently, while local police might not arrest someone for personal possession, individuals can still be prosecuted by state or federal authorities.

Furthermore, decriminalisation does not create a regulated market or provide legal avenues for obtaining these substances. It also does not protect against federal law enforcement actions, nor does it address the legal risks associated with distribution. The movement changes local enforcement priorities, but it leaves the underlying legal status of the drugs intact, often creating a complex legal grey area for both users and local authorities.

The "Nature" in Decriminalise Nature

The Decriminalise Nature movement specifically targets "natural" psychedelics—those derived from plants and fungi—while generally excluding synthetic substances like LSD or MDMA. Advocates argue that plant-based psychedelics have a long history of indigenous and traditional use and are often viewed as having a lower risk profile compared to synthetic drugs.

However, this distinction is scientifically debated. Pharmacologists note that the active compounds in natural psychedelics, such as psilocybin, are chemically similar or identical to their synthetic counterparts. Critics of the natural versus synthetic divide argue that it creates an arbitrary legal distinction that could hinder access to synthetic psychedelics that may have therapeutic value. It also risks reinforcing a common pharmacological fallacy that "natural" inherently means safer, which is not always the case.

Contrasts with South African Policy

In South Africa, drug policy is governed at the national level rather than through local municipal ordinances. Psilocybin is classified as a Schedule 7 substance under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, making it strictly controlled and illegal. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) oversees all scheduling and medical use approvals, and there is no legal mechanism for local city councils to override this national scheduling.

Unlike the US, South Africa does not have a tradition of local ballot initiatives that can alter national drug enforcement priorities. While there has been a precedent for challenging drug laws on constitutional grounds—such as the 2017 Constitutional Court judgment regarding the private possession and cultivation of cannabis by adults—the legal status of psilocybin remains unchanged. Any shift toward decriminalisation or medical access in South Africa would require action at the national level through Parliament or SAHPRA, rather than piecemeal municipal resolutions.