Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 11(1): 147 – 156. 2017
REGULATION OF PEYOTE (LOPHOPHORA WILLIAMSII: CACTACEAE)
IN THE U.S.A.: A HISTORICAL VICTORY OF RELIGION AND POLITICS
OVER SCIENCE AND MEDICINE
Martin Terry Keeper Trout
Sul Ross State University Cactus Conservation Institute
Dept. Biology, Geology & Physical Sciences P.O. Box 12
Alpine, Texas 79832, U.S.A. Boonville, California 95415, U.S.A.
mterry@sulross.edu
ab str act
The peyote c actus, Lophophora williamsii, is presen tly class ified as a Sc hedule 1 Control led Substanc e in the USA, wit h an exemptio n for use
as a sacrament in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native Amer ican Church (NAC). Any botanist or other researcher seeki ng to work
with p eyote or any of its alkaloid s, must comply with applicable (nontriv ial) regulatory req uirements. Th is paper presents an e xamination
of the prohibition efforts that paved the way for current peyote regulation, accompanied by documentation of the rel igion-based political
origi ns of such efforts, which involved the “acculturation” of Nat ive America ns (i.e., the destr uction of Americ an Indian culture s). We also
look at the historical emergence of a nationally organi zed and coordinated effort by missiona ries and other prohibitionists to sell a federal
anti-p eyote law to Cong ress, which m anifeste d itself rep eatedly over a pe riod of more th an fifty ye ars, before fi nally rea lizing suc cess in the
Control led Substance s Act of 1970. In view of ongoing ch anges in the le gal/regulator y status of Cannabis sp. (another Schedule 1 pla nt that
was ta rgeted for illega lity duri ng the prohibiti onists’ ri se to politica l predomina nce), we compare a nd contrast t he two plants w ith specul a-
tion on pe yote’s future.
re sum en
El cact us peyote, Lophophora williamsii, actual mente se cla sifica c omo una Sust ancia Cont rolada en l a Lista 1 en lo s EEUU, con una e xención
para su uso como sacramento en ceremon ias religiosas auténticas de la Native American Church. Cualquier botánico u otro investigador
cientí fico quien quiera h acer inve stigaciones con Lophophora williamsii, tiene que cumplir con los (no triviale s) requisitos reglamentarios
aplica bles. Este ar tículo pre senta un ex amen de alg unos de los esf uerzos proh ibicionis tas que all anaron el c amino pa ra las regl amentac iones
actuales del peyote, acompañada por documentación del origen político-religioso de tale s esfuerzos, los cuales involucra ron la “acultura-
ción” de los Americanos Nativos (es decir, la destrucción de las culturas de los Americanos Nativos). También le echamos una mirada a la
aparición histórica de un esfuerzo organizado al nivel nacional y coordinado por misioneros y otros prohibicionist as, cuyo objetivo era
convencer al Congre so de los EEUU de q ue debía promulgar se legislac ión anti-peyote, l o cual se manifestó repetida mente durante u n peri-
odo de más de 50 años, h asta que finalmente t uvieron éxito en la forma del Control led Substances Act de 1970. En vist a de los cambios en
curs o en el estado leg al/regu lador de Cannabis sp. (otra plant a de la Lista 1 qu e fue objeto de ilega lidad duran te el ascens o de los prohibicio -
nist as al predomi nio político), compar amos y contra stamos las d os plantas c on un ojo hacia el f uturo espec ulativo del pe yote.
key words: Lophophora williamsii, peyote, relig ion, drug prohi bition, Ameri can India n culture, ca nnabis
int roduc tio n
Peyote (Lophophora williamsii) is a small cactus of the Chihuahuan Desert and Tamaulipan Thornscrub re-
gions of the Borderland s of Mexico and Texas (Fig. 1) that has a h istory of human use dating back at least 6,000
years (Terry et al. 2006). Currently its principal uses are medicinal sensu lato, including ceremonial use in
meetings of the Native American Church (NAC), an organization which was founded in Oklahoma in 1918
(Stewart 1987) and which has subs equently spread to i nclude congregations t hroughout the 50 states a s well as
Canada and Mexico (Terry, pers. obs.). Peyote is also part of the folk medicine tradition in the areas where it
grows.
In the USA, the use of peyote by American Indians (or anyone else) was not widely known outside the
tribal cultures—although aggressive official efforts were made to publicize and demonize it by one Bureau of
Indian Affairs agent ( Johnson 1912), in much the same manner as cannabis was l ater vigorously demonized by
a single individual in the federal government in the 1930s and 1940s (Anslinger 1937; Anslinger & Cooper
1937)—until the 1950s, when Aldous Huxley published The Doors of Perception (1954) and the Beat Genera-
This article has been licensed as Open Access
by the authors(s) and publishers.
148 Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 11(1)
tion discovered the psychoactive effects of peyote and its principal alkaloid, mescaline (e g , Kerouac 1955). As
the Beatniks, who were always a small artistic and literary subculture constituting only a tiny fraction of the
U.S. population, gradually faded from the scene due to actuarial attrition, they were replaced in the 1960s and
1970s by a new “counterculture” that included t he Hippies—e ssentially a w idespread and highly vocal genera-
tion of young people who espoused quite different values from those of the dominant culture with which they
reluctantly shared the country. Among those values, clearly articulated in the pop music and literature of the
time (e.g., Dylan 1966; Robbins 1971), was an often sophisticated taste for a spectrum of psychoactive drugs
which the cognoscenti of the counterculture referred to as “psychedelics” (drugs that expand the mind)—
which, of course, included peyote.
As the 1960s progressed, several forces came to bear on peyote and its regulation:
(1) Drug use in general increased in the U.S., due in pa rt to the countercult ure’s openness to ex perimenta-
tion with drugs for their psychoactive effects, a broader selection of both traditional and novel materials
becoming available, and also due to the exposure to drugs (particularly cannabis and opiates) that oc-
curred on a massive scale among U.S. soldiers in the war in Vietnam (Bentel & Smith 1971).
(2) In addition to the “baseline” level of peyote harvesting by American Indians for their ceremonial use,
in the 1960s the wild peyote populations were invaded by non-Indians of the counterculture, seeking
peyote for their own uses, some of which could be objectively descr ibed as ceremonial, spiritual or educa-
tional, and some of which were described pejoratively as “recreational”. This incre ased level of harvesting
in the wild peyote populations in South Texas resulted in the gradual decimation of those populations,
Fig. 1. A large, multi-stemmed peyote plant growing in the understory of the Chihuahuan Desert of West Texas.
Terry and Trout, Prohibition and regulation of peyote in the U.S.A. 149
which even now remain the only legal source of peyote for NAC groups across the U.S. The increased
harvesting—generally by trespassing—also created animosity between the uninvited harvesters and the
ranchers on whose land the peyote grew. Another effect of increased harvesting of peyote from the limit-
ed—and shrinking—area of land in Texas where peyote grew in commercial quantities, was the gradual
reali zation among many A merican Indians in the 1990s that peyote of the desired size and potency was in
short supply. Indeed, by the first decade of the 21st century, the sacramental quality of peyote had deterio-
rated markedly (Texas Department of Public Safety, unpublished data) as the licensed peyote distributors
and their workers had no choice but to harvest the mostly small buttons that constituted the regrowth
from previous (recent) harvests. The small, immature regrowth buttons with their markedly reduced
mescaline content (Kalam et al. 2013) had largely replaced mature peyote plants in the accessible South
Texas populations, and some Road Men (American Indian spiritual leaders who lead the NAC peyote
meetings) were finding it difficult to obtain adequate supplies of peyote for their own groups of NAC
members, a nd therefore they no longer had the luxu ry of being able to inv ite non-NAC members i nto their
ceremonies (E. Jackson, personal communication). This consequence of the peyote shortage was com-
pounded by an announcement b y the U.S. Drug Enforcement Admini stration (DEA) of a possible n arrow-
ing of their definition of the subset of Native Americans who would be permitted to use peyote legally in
their religious ceremonies—namely that only “members of federally recognized tribes” would benefit
from the legislative exemption from prosecution for the use of peyote in t heir religious ceremonies (Nagel
2001, in litt.). This followed an earlier suggestion from DEA that anyone other than members of federally
recognized tribes be banned from participation in peyote ceremonies; the Native American Church of
North America (NACNA) formally voted to adopt this policy for their organization in June of 1993
(NACNA 1993). The result was the loss of a socioreligious meeting venue where trans-cultural under-
standing and harmony could be achieved between non-Indians and Native Americans, and also between
members of federally recognized tribes and members of federally unrecognized tribes.
(3) Paranoia about alleged harmful effects of psychedelics, enhanced by ignorance about the pharmacol-
ogy of psychedelics among the U.S. cultural mainstream and by the dire alarmist reports in newspapers
and popular publications (examples with regard to peyote include Anonymous 1916; Seymour 1916;
Tranter 1942; Davis 1961), affected t he thinki ng of the ruling cl ass/generation, p articularly in the 1960s a s
the gap between the mainstream culture and the counterculture widened, due in part to differences in
perception and experience of the psychedelics per se and in part to the increasing volume and stridency
of U.S. domestic protests against the Vietnam War, particularly on the part of the younger generation.
(4) The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) was the domina nt culture’s presumptive solution to “the
Drug Problem”. It had a number of flaws, however, and one of them was classify ing peyote as a Schedule 1
Controlled Substance—defined as a substance for which “(A) the drug or other substance has a high po-
tentia l for abuse; (B) the drug or other sub stance has no cu rrently accepted me dical use in t reatment in the
United States; and (C) there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medi-
cal supervision” (Drug Enforcement Administration 2015). That compound error by the U.S. Congress
and the congressional advisors could be attributed to their lumping peyote with the “hallucinogens”
without recognition for the legitim acy of its indigenous uses, amidst the hasty assembly of the CSA by the
advisors of Congress, which was more interested in “solving the drug problem” with legislation that
would appeal to the beliefs of their constituents than they were in discovering the facts (both pharmaco-
logical and cultural) about peyote. Peyote is a “hallucinogenic” plant, but it clearly possesses a long his-
tory of medicinal and ceremonial applications.
The clearest manifestation of the latter observation is the way Congress dealt with “the Native American prob-
lem” in framing the CSA and subsequent peyote legislation. The “inconvenient truth” was that the Native
Americans—who were becoming increasingly vocal and politically powerful—had been using peyote legally
in the U.S. ever since the NAC was established by charter in Oklahoma in 1918, and some tribes (e.g., the Co-
150 Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 11(1)
manche and the Caddo) could point to their oral histories as evidence that their use of peyote for medical and
spiritual purposes went back several centuries before that. Intense lobbying and propaganda to suppress this
indigenous use of peyote had been made earlier in the 20th century by prohibitionists and religious opponents
to the peyote religion (e.g., Hall 1920; Haskell Institute 1917; Parker 1917; Sells 1920; Hayden in U.S. Congress
1921). The American Indians and their allies repeated their strong case to several Congresses over the years
(including those of 1918, 1921, 1937 and 1963), persisting through the discussions leading up to the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994 (AIRFAA), that their ceremonial (or “religious”) use of
peyote was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and should not therefore be subject to
the prohibition of peyote use that was imposed in the Controlled Substances Act. The Native Americans were
victorious in the end, and Congress included in AIRFAA an exemption for “the nondrug use of peyote in bona
fide religious ceremonies of the [NAC].” And yet peyote (the plant) and mescaline (the predominant psychoac-
tive alk aloid in the plant) rema ined in Schedule 1—the same schedule that included LSD and heroin—indicat-
ing that peyote was still considered to be a “dangerous drug” under federal law. Carrying the logic one step
further, the classification of peyote as a Schedule 1 drug, plus the AIRFAA language that explicitly provides an
exemption allowing the continued use of peyote by American Indians, clearly signifies that Congress was
claiming that peyote is a dangerous drug for most people but is perfectly safe and wholesome for American
Indians—irrespective of whether their tribe or group had ever actually used peyote historically or not. What a
fascinating toxicological anomaly!
Congress had, for reasons unfettered by facts, long viewed peyote as an addictive substance. This calls to
mind Francis Bacon’s observation: “Quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id potius credit.” [“For man believes
what he prefers to be true.”] (Bacon 1620). Congress had long selectively respected the testimony coming from
missionarie s, other religiously mot ivated zealots, Ind ian agents and law enforcers over that presented by quali-
fied scientists and unbiased health professionals. Clear provisions for committing those persons habituated to
peyote to the federal Narcotic Farms were included in the original legislation creating those two facilities (U.S.
Congress 1929). The Congressional presupposition of the blatantly false notion of peyote being addictive, was
perfectly compatible with the CSA classification of peyote as Schedule 1 because of its alleged “high potential
for abuse”. An editorial in the March 15, 1916 Red Lake News captured both the degree of misinformation and
misconceptions respected by Congress and the motivations underlying the war being waged against peyote
and the peyote religion:
The physiological and toxic action of peyote places it in the same general class with opium, cocaine, In-
dian hemp and chloral hydrate. […] This action, if repeated, unquestionably results in a fixed habit. The
normal functions of the human body can not be interfered with at frequent intervals by such an agent as
peyote without serious injury resulting. Even if the physiological effects of this drug were not serious, its
use would have to be prohibited for the same sociological reasons as have led the Government strongly
but tactfully to modify Indian dances. As is well known, exercises which the Indians consider of a reli-
gious nature are made the occasion of taking the drug. These meetings are held as often as once a week.
[…] Furthermore, the effects of the drug in making the Indian contented with his present attainments
seriously interfere w ith his progress by cuttink [sic] off from him the possibility of healthful aspiration. It
is needless to say t hat peyote is a greater enemy to civ ilization, especia lly to the Indian r ace, than whiskey.
(Anonymous newspaper editor 1916).
In the eyes of officials such as Anslinger, the provisions for peyote addicts in the legislation establishing the
federal Narcotic Farms were regarded to mean that peyote was already considered to be an illegal and danger-
ous plant (Tranter 1942, citing Anslinger, personal communication). However, the claim that peyote is addic-
tive has never been substantiated scientifically. On the contrar y, it is universally recognized, both by members
of the NAC and by experts in the modern medical community (e.g., H.G. Pope, personal communication), that
peyote is not addictive, as can be evidenced by the fact that peyote ceremonies are never scheduled for several
consecutive days; they are normally held at most once a week and, for many NAC groups, once a month or even
Terry and Trout, Prohibition and regulation of peyote in the U.S.A. 151
less frequently (C.B. Hopkins, personal communication). Peyote ingestion by NAC members is normally lim-
ited to peyote cer emonies. Such low frequenc y of self-admin istration is c learly not compatible wit h the patterns
of daily use typical of an addictive drug.
Regarding the question of whether any neurotoxicity or cognitive impairment is caused by the ceremo-
nial u se of peyote, the data from a study designed to address th is question showed no evidence of either in NAC
members using peyote ceremonially on a regular basis (Halpern et al. 2005).
In a study of hospital record s of an urban population of what appear to be non-NAC members who sought
medical attention after self-ad ministrat ion of peyote or mescaline, t he authors concluded: “Most peyote intoxi-
cations appear to be mild in nature and are unlikely to produce life-threatening symptoms” (Carstairs &
Cantrell 2010). The most common clinical sign observed was tachycardia (to be expected from the structural
similarity of the mescaline molecule to other sympathomimetic phenethylamines), and the most common
clinical symptom noted in the study was “hallucinations” (undefined in the report). The proposition that the
unknowing participants in the study were not NAC members, is supported by the fact that, to our knowledge,
hallucinations are never reported by NAC participants in peyote ceremonies—only visions.
Classification in Schedule 1 also denotes that the drug in question “has no accepted medical use in the
United States.” The classification of peyote as Schedule 1 by the U.S. Congress in 1970 raises an important
question: Who failed to accept the medical use s (plural!) of peyote over at least t he last 500 years, and why? The
very name of the peyote plant in several tribal languages is the same as the word for medicine. Even in moder n
American English, members of the Native American Church consistently use the word “medicine” to refer to
peyote. There is a substantial literature on the therapeutic uses of peyote among the American Indian tribes
(e.g., Schultes 1938, 1940). There are also clear descriptions of bona fide medical uses of peyote in the 16th-
century Spanish literature (e.g., Hernández 1628 [1577]; Sahagun 1829 [1582]). At present there are wide-
spread uses of peyote as topical tinctures, oils (aceites) and ointments (pomadas) in Mexico, and a number of
these products are sold freely as over-the-counter remedies for rheumatic muscle pains (Fig. 2). It is clear that,
contrary to the ample available evidence, the U.S. Congress and its advisors failed to recognize the medical
value of peyote to ordinary people who live with and value the plant as a therapeutic agent, and the reason for
that deliberate failure was that they needed to force peyote into Schedule 1 in order to maximize its “scare
value” to the U.S. public, so that the citizens would feel amply protected from the dangers (falsely) attributed to
peyote by our ill-informed legislators.
There currently appears to be little traction for post-hoc efforts to apply valid scientific data to the regula-
tion of peyote, and so peyote remains relegated to Schedule 1 (Fig. 3). And let us be clear: the blame for assign-
ment of peyote to Schedule 1 lies squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Congress. That schedul ing of peyote was
done in the same legislative act (the CSA) that created the DEA. Once the CSA was enacted, it was incumbent
upon the DEA to enforce it as best they could, despite the masses of contradictions—not merely bad science,
but anti-science—that Congress enshrined in the legislation for the political purpose of satisfying their anti-
drug constituencies.
Almost all Schedule 1 drugs regulated under the CSA are chemical compounds that have politically un-
popular pharmacological activity. There are two interesting exceptions to that generalization: peyote and can-
nabis. In both cases, not only the principal pharmacologically active constituents of the plants (mescaline in
the case of peyote), but also the whole plants (living or dead), have been placed in Schedule 1 by Congress or
the DEA. It has recently become obvious—and is becoming daily more obvious with the current proliferation
of valid scientific studies of cannabis being published in respected scientific journals (Committee on the
Health E ffects of Mariju ana 2017)—that c annabis was relegated to Sche dule 1 in the CSA largely becaus e it had
been relentlessly demonized in false and blatantly racist propaganda by Harry Anslinger (Anslinger 1937; An-
slinger & Cooper 1937). The winds of change are blowing favorably for cannabis now, with the plant being
decriminalized for med ical use in over ha lf the states of the United State s and for “recreationa l” use in a sm aller
but growi ng number of states. However, at the federal level the plant remains bot h illegal and stuck in Schedule
1 in accordance with the CSA. Accordingly, contradiction and friction remain between state law and federal
152 Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 11(1)
Fig. 2. A selection of topical pomadas (ointments) and aceites (oils) with labeling which suggests that peyote is a major active ingredient for the topical
treatment of rheumatic pains.
Terry and Trout, Prohibition and regulation of peyote in the U.S.A. 153
Fig. 3. Peyote in bloom behind bars. The purpose of the cage is to prevent “diversion” of the Schedule 1 plant.
154 Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 11(1)
law on the reg ulation of cannabis. However, the notion that Congress may act to remove cannabis from Sched-
ule 1 of the CSA in the foreseeable future is no longer laughable.
But where does that leave the other whole plant regulated by the CSA—peyote? While it is true that pey-
ote, like cannabis, was polit ically packaged a s a sheep in wolf’s clothing in the 1960 s, ensuring it s classification
in Schedule 1 of the CSA, reversing that original CSA classification would b e a more difficult process for peyote
than for cannabis. The principal reasons for this include:
(1) Cannabis is much better known than peyote in mainstream U.S. society and is far more widely used.
Three U.S. Presidents have admitted to having smoked cannabis, and recent research indicates that 49%
of the U.S. population has done likewise, whereas only about 2% of Americans has ever ingested peyote
(Krebs & Johansen 2013). Cannabis occurs naturally in Asia, is naturalized in the U.S., and is widely
cultivated on every continent except Antarctica, whereas peyote occurs naturally only in Mexico and the
U.S., and is cultivated only on a very small scale, mostly for the ornamental cactus market in Europe and
Asia. Accordingly, peyote is less well-known—and particularly less appreciated for its medicinal uses—
outside of its range of natural occurrence in northeastern Mexico and adjacent Texas.
(2) The potential commercial peyote market is microscopic compared to the demonstrably enormous
market for cannabis, and cannabis (a fast-growing massive annual) brings a return on investment that is
far larger than what can be projected for peyote (a slow growing, small perennial, normally requiring
about a decade between seed germination and appropriate first harvesting). Because of (1) and (2), fund-
ing for safety and efficacy studies of new medical uses of peyote is still scarce—in contrast to the scram-
bling of investors to provide funding for studies of new medical uses of cannabis and its assorted molecu-
lar constituents.
(3) Although the expensive and ineffectual “War on Drugs” is now waning, ignorance and fear still sur-
round the group of drugs pejoratively characterized as “hallucinogens,” and peyote is still considered by
federal law to belong to that group of psychoactive drugs. It is actually possible to find drug treatment
services offered for peyote addiction (e.g., Recovery.org 2015), though it seems doubtful that such organi-
zations have encountered any calls for their services. Or at least there is no apparent evidence suggesting
that anything has changed since 1945 when R.C. Williams, the assistant Secretary of State, responded to
then Comm issioner of India n Affairs John Collier th at they had never tre ated a peyote add ict at the federal
Narcotic Farm at Lexington, Kentucky (Williams 1945). In addition, knowledgeable authorities have
maintained for decades that the term “hallucinogen” is inappropriate for peyote (which causes no hallu-
cinations in the sense of seeing objects that are not present), and that the term “entheogen” is a more ac-
curate characterization for a religious sacrament such as peyote (see Ruck et al. 1979).
In what little work has been published on medicinal uses of peyote (e g, Franco-Molina et al. 2003; Zuo et al.
2011), the results suggest that peyote has potential medicinal value that may support the anecdotal accounts.
Similarly the persistence and proliferation of topical folk-pharmaceutical aceites and pomadas for the relief of
rheumatic pain likewise suggest that there is a need for more research into the activity of peyote as medicine.
How long it will take peyote to shake off the chain s of misconception associated with the War on Drugs is
unclear. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that the unavoidable shift in public opinion eventually fol-
lowing the ongoing legislative reform of the regulation of cannabis will someday clear the political path for
peyote to be more widely investigated for medicinal benefits, to be more widely accepted, and to take its right-
ful place as medicine, in the pharmacopoeia as well as in the tipi.
ack nowled gme nts
We are very appreciative of the efforts of the two reviewers, whose input resulted in substantial improvement
in the focus and clarity of the paper. We wish to thank the Alvin A. and Roberta T. Klein Foundation for gener-
ous support of the cactus work in our lab.
Terry and Trout, Prohibition and regulation of peyote in the U.S.A. 155
re fer enc es
anonyMouS. 1916. Red Lake News (Red Lake, Minnesota), 15 March, page 2. Editorial column. (Quote contained in that
article was drawn from the Annual Report of the Commissioner for Indian Affairs, 1911).
anonyMouS. 1916. The peyote evil. The Steamboat Pilot (July 5). P. 2.
anSlinger, H.J. 1937. Hearing on the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Statement of H.J. Anslinger (http://www.druglibrary.org/
schaffer/hemp/taxact/t10a.htm) & Additional statement of H.J. Anslinger , Commissioner of Narcotics (http://www.
druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm.)
anSlinger, H.J. & C.R. cooPer. 1937. Marijuana: Assassin of youth. Amer. Mag. 124:19–20, 150–153.
bacon, F. 1620. Aphorism 49. Novum Organum, Book 1. Joannum Billium Typographum Regium, London, U.K.
benTel, D.J. & D.E. SMiTH 1971. Drug abuse in combat: The crisis of drugs and addiction among American troops in Viet-
nam. J. Psychedelic Drugs 4(1):23–30.
carSTairS, S.D. & F.L. canTrell. 2010. Peyote and mescaline exposures: A 12-year review of a statewide poison center da-
tabase. Clin. Toxicol. 48:350–353.
coMMiTTee on THe HealTH effecTS of MariJuana. 2017. The health effects of Cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of
evidence and recommendations for research. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (PDF is
available at http://www.nap.edu/24625.)
daviS, J.H. 1961. Peyote: America’s baffling sex button. Escape to Adventure (May) 14–15, 60, 62–64.
drug enforceMenT adMiniSTraTion, 2015. DEA drug info, drug scheduling. www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml, accessed 18
September 2015. [or www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/812.htm][2/27/17]
dylan, B. 1973. Dylan, Bob. Writings and drawings. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, U.S.A. Pp. 205, 212–213.
franco-Molina, M., R. goMeZ-floreS, P. TaMeZ-guerra, R. TaMeZ-guerra, L. caSTillo-leon, & C. rodrigueZ-Padilla. 2003. In vitro im-
munopotentiating properties and tumour cell toxicity induced by Lophophora williamsii (peyote cactus) methanolic
extract. Phytotherapy Res. 17(9):1076–1081.
Hall, R.D. 1920. Peyote. Home Mission Monthly 34(4):89.
HalPern, J.H., A.R. SHerWood, J.I. HudSon, D. yurgelun-Todd, & H.G. PoPe Jr. 2005. Psychological and cognitive effects of long-
term peyote use among Native Americans. Biol. Psychiatry 58:624–631.
Haskell Institute. 1917. Peyote. The Indian Leader 21(13):18–19.
HernándeZ, F. 1628 [1577]. Rerum medicarum Novae Hispaniae thesaurus, sue (nova) plantarum, animalium, mineralium
Mexicanorum historia. Mascardi, Rome, Italy.
Huxley, A. 1954. The doors of perception. Chatto & Windus, London, U.K.
JoHnSon, W.E. 1912. History, use and effects of peyote. Indian School J. 12:239–242, 289–293.
KalaM, M.A., M.T. Klein, D. HulSey, K. TrouT, P. daley, & M. Terry 2013. A preliminary report of mescaline concentrations in
small regrowth crowns vs. mature crowns of Lophophora williamsii (Cactaceae): Cultural, economic and conservation
implications. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 7(1):435–440.
Kerouac, J. 1957. On the road. Viking Press, New York, NY, U.S.A.
KrebS, T.S. & P.-Ø. JoHanSen. 2013. Over 30 million psychedelic users in the United States. F1000Research 2:98. doi:
10.12688/f1000research.2-98.v1.
NACNA 1993. Resolution 6-19-93A regarding Title II of DEA S. 1021 “Traditional use of peyote.” 44th Annual Conference
of the Native American Church of North America, 18–20 June, New Town, North Dakota, U.S.A.
nagel, L.M. 2001. Proposed changes in DEA’s peyote regulation. In litt., 18 Dec 2001.
ParKer, A.C. 1917. The perils of peyote. Amer. Indian Mag. 5(1):12–13.
recovery.org. http://www.recovery.org/topics/choosing-the-best-inpatient-peyote-recovery-center/ Accessed online
19 September 2015.
robbinS, T. 1971. Another Roadside Attraction. Random House, New York, U.S.A.
rucK, C.A.P., J. bigWood, D. STaPleS, J. oTT, & R.G. WaSSon. 1979. Entheogens. J. Psychedelic Drugs 11(1–2):145–146.
ScHulTeS, R.E. 1938. The appeal of peyote (Lophophora Williamsii) as a medicine. Amer. Anthropol. 40:698–715.
ScHulTeS, R.E. 1940. The aboriginal therapeutic uses of Lophophora Williamsii. Cactus Succ. J. 12:177–181.
SaHagun, B. de. 1829 [1582]. Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España. Carlos Maria de Bustamante, Mexico City,
Mexico.
SellS, C. 1920. Peyote. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., U.S.A. P. 20.
SeyMour, G. 1916. Peyote worship: An Indian cult and a powerful drug. The Red Man 8(10):341–351.
156 Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 11(1)
STeWarT, O.C. 1987. Peyote religion: A history. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, U.S.A.
Terry, M., K.L. STeelMan, T. guilderSon, P. dering, & M.W. roWe. 2006. Lower Pecos and Coahuila peyote: New radiocarbon
dates. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33:1017–1021.
TranTer, C.L. 1942. Peyote: New dope menace. PIC Magazine. Street & Smith, New York, U.S.A. Pp. 6–9.
U.S. congreSS. 1918. Bill for prohibition of use of peyote. H.R. 2614. 65th Congress. Report 560.
U.S. congreSS. 1921. House debate on peyote legislation. Congressional Record, 4681–4691. [Comments and letters
submitted by Representative Carl Hayden are on pages 4681–4682.]
U.S. congreSS. 1929. Porter Narcotic Farm Act (P.L. 70–672, 45 Stat. 1085) [See chapter 82.]
U.S. congreSS. 1937. Documents on Peyote. Part 1. US Senate SB–1399.
U.S. congreSS. 1963. Constitutional Rights of the American Indian. Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Consti-
tutional Rights of the American Indian.
U.S. congreSS. 1970. Controlled Substances Act (CSA). (P.L. 91–513, 84 Stat. 1242).
U.S. congreSS. 1994. American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as Amended. (P.L. 103–344) [H.R. 4230].
WilliaMS, R.C. 1945. Letter to John Collier. (Retrieved from the Shulgin Archives, Lafayette, California, U.S.A.)
Zuo, Z.-y., X.-T. Song, ZHang, X.-l., SHi, & B.-K. ZHou. 2011. Inhibitory and apoptosis-inducing effects of Lophophora williamsii
extracts on HeLa cells. J. Med. Pl. Res. 5(8):1305–1312.
