Why LSD and magic mushrooms deserve reclassification from Class A to Class C – Deborah Chambers
A 2023 New Zealand study ranked alcohol as the most harmful drug, with LSD near the bottom.
When I was married to a senior judge, (and he was alive), Rob attended compulsory judicial education sessions. One weekend, the judges attended a course at what was then known as the DSIR – now part of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), New Zealand’s leading forensic and public health science provider. Rob came home surprised by a comment from a lead scientist: LSD was completely misclassified and should be a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act, not Class A.
That was at least 14 years ago. The idea that a drug could be significantly misclassified according to actual scientific harm had never occurred to me before that discussion.
More recently, conversations with my friend Fiona Cottam, a psychologist in my book club who has been participating in University of Auckland psychedelic research, have sharpened my thinking. Hearing her first-hand accounts of the university trial has made the human stakes feel more real.
It seems increasingly difficult to justify that people continue to receive convictions for substances carrying a Class A label on their criminal record, when robust international and New Zealand evidence shows they pose a far lower risk of harm than other Class A drugs like methamphetamine. The same applies to psilocybin in magic mushrooms. With mounting scientific evidence, it is time for a pragmatic review.
Our current classifications largely trace back to the international drug control system of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The United Nations’ 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances was drafted amid global alarm over LSD and other hallucinogens, influenced by cultural upheavals and US policy under President Richard Nixon, who seemed determined to crack down on anything that might inspire another Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds or White Rabbit.
New Zealand’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 mirrored this framework, placing LSD and psilocybin/psilocin (the active compound in magic mushrooms) in Class A “very high risk of harm” alongside methamphetamine and heroin.
The act classifies drugs based on criteria including potential for addiction, physical and psychological harm, lethality and social harm. Class A signals the highest risk. Simple possession of a Class A drug carries a maximum of six months’ imprisonment and/or a $1000 fine. However, supply, manufacture or importation of a Class A drug carries a maximum of life imprisonment – the same penalty that applies to methamphetamine. Class C (moderate risk) has much lighter penalties: possession up to three months/$500 and supply up to eight years.
Yet modern evidence sharply contradicts this 1970s-era placement. A landmark 2023 New Zealand drug harms ranking study using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) ranked alcohol as the most harmful overall (although this was largely the result of its extremely high prevalence, ie most of us love a drink), followed by methamphetamine. Even when adjusted for prevalence, hallucinogens like LSD and psilocybin ranked near the bottom, scoring very low on dependence, mortality, crime and community damage.
Direct comparison to methamphetamine is striking. Methamphetamine causes severe addiction, cardiovascular damage, psychosis, premature death, family breakdown and massive community costs estimated as exceeding $1.5 billion annually in New Zealand in 2024.
In contrast, LSD and psilocybin exhibit extremely low physical addiction potential, very low overdose mortality and minimal contribution to violence or social harm. Yet under current law, a person manufacturing or supplying LSD faces the same life imprisonment maximum as a methamphetamine manufacturer.
Convictions for LSD remain rare. For psilocybin/magic mushrooms, there were 129 charges from 2016–21 (mostly possession). This low number likely reflects police exercising discretion for low-level offences and prioritising resources on far more harmful drugs like methamphetamine, where offences number in the thousands annually. Māori, who comprise about 17% of the population, represent around 48% of drug possession convictions overall. Misclassification exacerbates inequities without tackling the real drivers of harm.
A growing body of rigorous clinical research supports reclassification to enable supervised medical use. Conversations with Fiona have been particularly eye-opening. She has been participating in the University of Auckland’s PAM Trial (Psychedelic-Assisted Meaning-Centred Psychotherapy), which explores LSD microdosing combined with psychotherapy for people with advanced cancer and their families in palliative and hospice settings.
She describes the results she has witnessed as promising in helping participants and caregivers cope with anxiety, depression and existential distress during incredibly difficult times. Early caregiver feedback highlights strengthened relationships and emotional benefits.
This aligns with other Auckland research, such as the LSDDEP1 trial, which showed significant reductions in depression, anxiety and stress. The international research on therapeutic use of psilocybin and, to a lesser extent LSD, has become very substantial and is strongly moving in one direction: towards greater acceptance of supervised medical and therapeutic access. Psilocybin research shows similarly strong results for treatment-resistant depression and end-of-life anxiety. New Zealand already permits the limited prescribing of psilocybin in exceptional cases. Canada’s Special Access Program offers a sensible model for therapeutic access under medical supervision.
Given the amount of high-quality research now going into LSD and psilocybin for therapy, it seems inevitable that restrictions on these two substances will reduce, and for good reason. We may as well get on with a sensible, evidence-based update now rather than lagging behind the science.
Of course, these substances are not risk-free. Potential bad trips, psychological vulnerability (particularly for those with pre-existing conditions) and unregulated supply dangers exist. Reclassification to Class C must include strict age limits, education, quality controls, and restrictions on recreational use. This is not a call for a free-for-all.
Other countries are already moving towards more nuanced approaches. Canada’s Special Access Program, for example, allows authorised therapeutic use of psilocybin and LSD for serious conditions when conventional treatments have failed. These developments suggest a growing international recognition that rigid 1970s-era classifications are no longer fit for purpose.
This proposal differs markedly from the cannabis referendum, which I voted against. I was not convinced that full commercial legalisation would reduce harm overall, particularly for young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds who experience higher rates of early and heavy use because of disadvantage and systemic factors. Anyone at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap faces amplified risks, and Māori are over-represented in this group. And okay, yes, I admit it, I was convinced by Mike Hosking to vote no.
Reclassifying LSD and psilocybin to Class C is not legalisation or a declaration that it is safe. It would acknowledge lower relative harm, reduce unnecessary criminal records for personal possession, create more proportionate penalties for any supply-related activity, free police resources for high-harm drugs like methamphetamine, and lower barriers to research and therapy.
Fourteen years after that scientist’s comment, and after thoughtful discussions with Fiona, the evidence has strengthened considerably. Parliament should review these outdated classifications, informed by New Zealand harm data, therapeutic advances and lessons from overseas.
Our drug policy must protect public health without inflicting disproportionate justice-system damage through misclassification. Moving LSD and magic mushrooms to Class C would be a compassionate, evidence-based reform. It is time to move beyond 1970s-era panic towards smarter, fairer policy.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.