Speaker Bio
Crescenzo is a PhD candidate at Maastricht University (School CAPHRI, Care and Public Health Research Institute; Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences; Department of Health, Ethics and Society). The aim of their doctoral research is to explore how currently illicit substances are medically legalised, what human and non-human actors are involved in this process and how they are involved in it, what relationships exist between evidence and policymaking in this sector, how these processes are influenced by the socio-political and economic context, and what subjectivities, identities and ethical implications are emerging from this context. They have previously completed a bachelor’s degree in Sociology at the University of Naples, Federico II (Italy), and a Master of Science in Social Research at Birkbeck University, London (UK). They also are part of the National Centre for Social Research (London, UK) where they work as a Senior Researcher in the Centre for Health (Health Policy Team). In this role, they have conducted studies and evaluations on subjects such as drug use, bereavement, loneliness, and gambling, and co-authored several reports (most recently, on the use of cannabis and non-opiates among people from minority ethnic groups in England).
ICPR 2024 Abstract
The roads less taken: Alternative approaches to a regulatory framework for psychedelics.
The legalisation for therapeutic purposes of psychedelics is currently underway in different countries, but at different speeds and with distinct features. This process of medical legalisation is influenced by techno-scientific innovation, but is also shaped by the economic, cultural, and political context. The regulation of drugs, like other health policies and interventions, is in fact non-neutral, often politicised [1], and influenced by cultural structures such as morality-based networks and power relations [2]. In the case of psychedelics, it seems we are trapped in a dualist framework divided between two poles of reductionist materialism on one extreme and psychological optimisms on the other [3]. What kind of policies are emerging from this process? What is the role of evidence, ethics, and other human and non-human actors? Are there alternative approaches that can be used to explore less taken paths where both individual and collective interests are safeguarded? To define the possible routes towards an alternative regulatory framework, I have conducted a literature review that integrates contributions from different fields and theoretical approaches. What has emerged is the need for more horizontal planning of policies and interventions, the need for relational approaches that see the individual not as a separate entity but as part of assemblages of human and non-human actors, and the need for policies that value the input of Indigenous and underground communities. Meeting these needs will require a better understanding of the relationship between individuals and collectives, moving away from extractivism [4], and actively engaging with non-institutional actors [5].