Rewriting the Trip by Rick Luna

---

Rewriting the Trip: How Jacques Derrida’s Theory of Deconstruction Can Break the Stigma Around Psychedelic Therapy

Hypothesis: Binary oppositions are the culprit for several stigmas worldwide. In the case of administering psychedelic therapy in the United States, oppositions like medicine vs. drug and rational vs. irrational are preventing Veterans, Law Enforcement, and First Responders with PTSD, TBI, and addiction from receiving treatment within the U.S. Applying Jacques Derrida’s (1976) theory of deconstruction, we can dismantle the terminology to reframe psychedelic therapy as an acceptable form of treatment.

In my elementary knowledge of modern medicine, I know of few treatments that are as stigmatized as psychedelic therapy. I have recently researched and experienced substances like Ibogaine and MDMA, and believe they are showing remarkable results for depression, PTSD, and addiction. Yet, they remain culturally hijacked by decades of fear, misinformation, and political bias.

A fundamental shift is needed in understanding the language that shapes the public's perception. I recently attended a church service that discussed the theory of French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Using the term deconstruction, Derrida (1978) offers an analytical tool to approach how meaning itself is formed and adopted.

The Terms We Swallow Without Questioning

Many of our society’s core beliefs rely on binary oppositions—we see things in black and white. For example, dead vs. alive. There is no neutral space between the two. One cannot be alive if they are dead. However, in the walls of emergency rooms worldwide, what constitutes death? Is it heart stoppage? Loss of consciousness? Someone on life support can be legally dead but biologically alive. Some cultures believe that the dead still influence the living. Applying deconstruction shows how embracing ambiguity destabilizes rigid terms (Derrida, 1976).

In the realm of psychedelic therapy, legal vs. illegal, medical vs. recreational, and rational vs. irrational are familiar oppositions. Psychedelics have long been deemed “irrational” and linked to counterculture or spiritual escapism. Meanwhile, antidepressants are accepted, despite their limitations and significant side effects.

Why is a supervised session of psilocybin considered “experimental,” while a daily dose of antidepressants is normalized? Derrida’s (1976) theory would urge us to ask: Who created this binary, and whose interests does it serve? These are not neutral classifications—they are the products of culturally shaped mindsets, often used to suppress knowledge and maintain adherence to dominant ideologies.

We even refer to the use of psychedelics as “trips” rather than “sessions.” Why not call them “consciousness-enhancing agents” instead of “hallucinogens”? Why say “taking drugs” rather than “engaging with medicine”? These terms shape how we think and, more importantly, how we judge those who use them and their effectiveness.

To have any success in deconstructing the stigma around psychedelics, we must first analyze the language we use to describe them.

How I’ve Applied Derrida’s Theory of Deconstruction

In my recent pledge to advocate for the use of psychedelic treatment for Veterans, Law Enforcement, and First Responders, I’ve turned to Derrida’s theory of deconstruction (1976, 1978) to challenge the logic that labels these therapies as illegitimate or dangerous. This includes challenging terminology, identifying false assumptions, and applying critical thinking to the binary oppositions that led to this stigma.

For example, I’ve questioned why the term drug seems to carry stigma automatically. Why do heroin and psilocybin get lumped together despite their drastically different effects and therapeutic potential? Why do we automatically assume that medicine is produced in a lab, while plant-based healing traditions practiced for centuries are dismissed as “alternatives?”

Most importantly, I’ve used deconstruction to explore how society adopts what is considered healthy and legitimate. In doing so, I hope to spark new narratives grounded not in fear but in possibility—what Derrida might frame as an opening to the “other” and to “what if?” (Derrida, 1978).

Who Do We Trust?

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed how political bias affects public trust in information. I believe much of the current resistance to psychedelic therapy stems from a deeply embedded belief that legitimate medicine must be sterile, pharmaceutical, and Western. Yet, indigenous cultures have used psychedelics throughout history in healing and spiritual rituals.

Deconstruction invites us to confront whose knowledge has been silenced or marginalized and why (Derrida, 1976). When today’s clinical trials “validate” what shamans have practiced for generations, we should ask why society so easily dismisses those who don’t wear white coats.

How Do We Move Toward a Post-Stigmatic Future?

The more scientific research confirms the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, the clearer it becomes that cultural beliefs—not medical facts—are the major obstacle. How do we change public opinion to treat those suffering from PTSD, TBI, and addiction, especially in communities like Law Enforcement, when it is illegal in the US? We must do more than share data—we must unravel the language and the forces that shape what our society defines as “truth” and “trustworthiness.” We must adopt new narratives and elevate the testimonials of those healed through psychedelic medicine. 

If psychedelic therapy is ever to become a legal, trusted method of treatment, we must first deconstruct the cultural and linguistic mindsets that prohibited it for so long.