Cognitive Liberty 101-Right to Consciousness

This essay is published in its original form without editorial input.

We accept, without question, that we have the right to our thoughts. We recognize freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience as fundamental human rights enshrined in our constitution and international law.

Yet somehow, we’ve normalized the idea that the state can dictate what we do with our own consciousness—the very substrate of our thoughts, beliefs, and experiences.

This is the paradox at the heart of drug policy. We claim to protect freedom of thought while criminalizing the tools people use to explore, understand, and transform their own minds.

This is a question of cognitive liberty—the right to self-discovery and exploration of our own consciousness. It’s time we recognized it as the fundamental human right it is.

The UN is actively expanding the rights to mental privacy and mental integrity - the underlying concept is “cognitive liberty.”

Cognitive liberty refers to the right of individuals to have sovereignty over their own consciousness, cognition, and mental processes. The term was championed by legal scholar Richard Glen Boire, who founded the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, and has been explored by neuroethicists like Dr. Brian D. Earp at Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Legal scholars like JC Bublitz frame cognitive liberty as a fundamental legal right that should be protected under existing human rights frameworks—an extension of rights to bodily integrity and mental privacy.

At its core, cognitive liberty encompasses:

Dr. Earp argues that just as we protect freedom of speech and religion, we must protect individuals’ rights to explore and modify their own mental states—provided they don’t harm others. He asks a simple question:

If we truly believe in freedom of thought, how can we justify criminalizing the tools people use to think differently?

Bublitz frames this as “the right to alter one’s mental states with the help of neurotools,” arguing it deserves constitutional protection similar to freedom of thought and conscience.

Here’s what hypocrisy looks like in drug policy.

Every morning, millions of people consume caffeine to enhance cognitive function. We’ve normalized this so completely that coffee shops occupy nearly every street corner.

Every weekend, society celebrates alcohol consumption at social gatherings, despite overwhelming evidence of its harms. Research led by Professor David Nutt at Imperial College London found that alcohol ranks as the most harmful drug overall when considering harm to ourselves and others. Their landmark 2010 study in The Lancet assessed 20 drugs across 16 harm criteria. Alcohol scored 72 out of 100—higher than heroin (55), crack cocaine (54), and vastly higher than substances like LSD (7) or psilocybin mushrooms (6).

Yet psilocybin remains a Schedule I substance—classified as having “no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

This isn’t evidence-based policy. It’s cultural prejudice masquerading as public health.

If the government truly cared about protecting us from dangerous consciousness-altering substances, they’d ban alcohol and allow psilocybin. Instead, we get alcohol commercials during family programming and people arrested for possessing mushrooms.

Prohibition of any kind, doesn’t work

The use of consciousness-altering substances isn’t some modern phenomenon or countercultural rebellion. Indigenous communities have incorporated plant medicines into healing, spiritual, and community practices for thousands of years.

These aren’t primitive practices we’ve outgrown. They represent sophisticated understandings of consciousness, healing, and human potential that predate modern Western medicine by millennia. As anthropologist Dr. Bia Labate notes, these traditions offer valuable wisdom about set, setting, intention, and integration that modern clinical research is only now beginning to validate.

The question isn’t whether these substances “work” for consciousness exploration and wellbeing—human history has already answered that. The question is whether we’ll respect evidence and diverse ways of knowing, or continue policies rooted in Nixon-era drug war politics.

Subscribe

Much of the current conversation around psychedelics focuses exclusively on their therapeutic potential for treating mental illness. FDA breakthrough therapy designations for PTSD, depression, and end-of-life anxiety reflect genuine clinical promise.

But limiting the discussion to medical applications unnecessarily narrows our understanding and creates new forms of gatekeeping.

Humans have always sought to:

These aren’t pathologies requiring treatment. They’re part of human flourishing.

Dr. James Fadiman’s research on microdosing documents how sub-perceptual doses may enhance creativity, focus, and emotional balance in people without clinical diagnoses. His work doesn’t pathologize the desire for cognitive enhancement—it explores it as a legitimate aspect of human potential.

We don’t require a diagnosis of “creativity deficiency disorder” to drink coffee for enhanced focus. Why should we medicalize all other forms of cognitive exploration?

Just like we exercise for pro-active physical health, psychedelics can be for pro-active cognitive health

As I wrote in my piece on decriminalization: “I am for safe access by individuals for their own pro-active cognitive enhancement & well-being.” Not just for the sick. Not just for the traumatized. For anyone seeking to understand themselves more deeply, think more creatively, or explore consciousness itself.

The case for cognitive liberty isn’t just about freedom—it’s about basic human dignity and autonomy.

Consider this. We accept that adults can:

All of these involve risk. All alter our physical or mental states. Yet we recognize adults’ right to make informed decisions about their own bodies and minds.

Why should psychedelics—among the safest substances studied—be different?

Dr. Brian D. Earp frames this as a question of “morphological freedom” extended to the mind. Just as we increasingly recognize people’s right to bodily autonomy, we must recognize mental autonomy—the right to explore, understand, and modify our own consciousness.

The philosopher and drug policy expert Dr. Carl Hart puts it bluntly in his book Drug Use for Grown-Ups: We need to distinguish between use, misuse, and abuse. We also need to recognize recreational, intentional, and therapeutic use. Most substance use isn’t problematic—anything can be medicine or poison, depending on the dosage—and treating all use as inherently dangerous paradoxically increases risk by preventing honest, evidence-based education.

Decades of drug war policies have proven a fundamental truth. Prohibition doesn’t prevent use; it just makes use less safe.

Whether the substances exist above or underground:

Criminalization doesn’t protect people; it makes them more vulnerable.

Portugal’s decriminalization model, in place for over two decades, demonstrates this clearly. Drug-related harms—including overdose deaths and HIV transmission—have declined, while treatment engagement has increased. Decriminalization didn’t lead to widespread abuse. It fostered a culture of education, safety, and harm reduction.

Organizations working within harm reduction frameworks provide:

This is what cognitive liberty looks like in practice. Treating adults as capable of making informed decisions, providing them with honest information, and ensuring they can access safety resources without fear.

Safety & Ethics Education Event

Donate

Embracing cognitive liberty doesn’t mean abandoning all caution or pretending risks don’t exist. It means the following.

Adults have the right to make informed decisions about their own consciousness, just as they do about their diet, exercise, or spiritual practices. This means access to honest, evidence-based information—not propaganda designed to scare people.

Providing accurate information about risks, benefits, contraindications, and best practices. This includes:

Honoring both clinical therapeutic applications and personal wellbeing exploration. Respecting indigenous wisdom and modern neuroscience. Not creating false hierarchies where only medical use is “legitimate.”

As I’ve advocated in my policy work, every individual should have the ability to test substances for quality, purity, and potency, anonymously and with liability protection for locations and organizations that enable the testing.

No one should be arrested or penalized for using or possessing psychedelics for personal purposes. Period. Full stop. This is the baseline of cognitive liberty.

Recognizing that Western medical frameworks aren’t the only valid ways of understanding consciousness and healing. Respecting millennia of indigenous knowledge and practice.

Understanding that cognitive liberty comes with responsibility for informed choice, appropriate set and setting, and respect for others’ wellbeing.

Cognitive liberty isn’t a license for recklessness. Psychoactive substances carry real risks.

But here’s the key. These risks don’t justify blanket prohibition any more than the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol. If we can manage those risks, then we can manage the risks of psychedelics use. They call for education, preparation, and respect—not criminalization.

And let’s be clear. The risks of psychedelics pale in comparison to the risks of alcohol.

Even well-intentioned medicalization creates new forms of gatekeeping that violate cognitive liberty.

As I wrote about legalization without decriminalization:

“Medicalization requires individuals to go through a healthcare system that is already broken, expensive, and inaccessible to many. Psychedelic therapy sessions, often costing thousands of dollars, are out of reach for the average person.”

Why should someone need:

...just to explore their own consciousness?

We don’t require permission to meditate, pray, exercise, or drink coffee. These all alter our mental states. The idea that we need medical gatekeepers for psychedelics—but not for far more dangerous legal substances—is paternalistic, classist, and contradicts the principle of cognitive liberty.

Just as we need ethics certification to navigate the capitalistic system’s potential for exploitation (as outlined in the Mind Lumen Ethics Certification Program), we need cognitive liberty to protect individuals’ fundamental right to self-discovery and exploration.

Cognitive liberty and ethics aren’t separate concerns—they’re deeply interconnected.

Just because something is medicalized, legal, or de-criminalized doesn’t mean that it is automatically ‘ethical’ in a profit-driven capitalistic system. Behaviors can be criminal and still be highly ethical, just as behaviors that are legal and medicalized can be highly unethical.

This applies directly to cognitive liberty:

The most ethical approach combines cognitive liberty with strong ethical frameworks—exactly what Mind Lumen advocates for.

Donate

Subscribe

Cognitive liberty isn’t just a philosophical concept—it’s a growing social movement working to align policy with evidence and human rights.

Here’s what you can do.

Write, call, email your state senator or representative. 2026 elections are coming up - ask your representative, what their stance is on decriminalizing classic plant based psychedelics

Donate to organizations working on these policy reforms:

A critical issue. Professionals—doctors, therapists, educators—face losing their licenses for using or advocating for these substances, while those who use alcohol or prescription drugs face no consequences. We must demand explicit protections for licensed individuals to safely use, study, and discuss psychedelics without professional repercussions.

Write to your elected officials. Testify at hearings. Vote based on these issues. The psychedelic and mental health community should hold representatives who don’t support decriminalization accountable.

Just as seekers should ask providers: “May I see your Mind Lumen Ethics Certification Seal?”

They should also ask policymakers and advocates: “Do you support cognitive liberty and decriminalization?”

If the answer is yes—support their work and amplify their message.

If the answer is no—invite them to reconsider. Your voice is the leverage that shifts policy toward evidence and ethics.

At its core, cognitive liberty is simple. Your consciousness belongs to you.

The state may have legitimate interests in preventing harm to others. But the private contents of your mind—your thoughts, your experiences, your exploration of consciousness—are fundamentally your own.

We’re at a crossroads. As psychedelic research advances and public opinion shifts, we face a choice.

Will we continue prohibition policies that contradict evidence, criminalize personal autonomy, and create expensive gatekeeping systems?

Or will we embrace cognitive liberty—recognizing that the freedom to explore consciousness is as fundamental as freedom of speech or religion?

The conversation about cognitive liberty isn’t about encouraging drug use. It’s about:

As someone who has contributed to the Oxford-Johns Hopkins ethics consensus statement, published in the American Journal of Bioethics, and attended Harvard’s Psychedelic Bootcamp and Oxford’s HOPE conference on psychedelic ethics, I’ve seen firsthand how the academic and policy communities are grappling with these questions. The evidence is clear. The moral case is compelling. What’s missing is the political will, which comes from us as voters asking our representatives when they come asking for our vote.

My intention is to advocate for safe and ethical access to these powerful catalysts for an inward journey. I believe adults should have the freedom to explore their consciousness for pro-active cognitive enhancement and wellbeing—not just when medically “approved,” but as an expression of their fundamental human right to mental self-determination.

Your mind is yours. That’s not a privilege—it’s a right.

Change Your Life - Seek Your Bliss is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe

Essential Thinkers

Resources

Organizations

Related Articles

Earp, B. D. (2018, November 12). Freedom of thought must include the freedom to alter our minds. Aeon. https://aeon.co/ideas/freedom-of-thought-must-include-the-freedom-to-alter-our-minds
Bublitz, J. C. (2013). Freedom of thought in the age of neuroscience. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie (ARSP), 99(1), 1-25. https://philpapers.org/rec/BUBFOT
Boire, R. G. (2003). On cognitive liberty. Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 3, 53-87. https://www.cognitiveliberty.org/ccle1/1jcl/1jcl7.htm
Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 1558-1565.
Fadiman, J. (2011). The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide: Safe, therapeutic, & sacred journeys (1st ed.). Park Street Press.
Hart, C. (2017). Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing liberty in the land of fear. Penguin Press.
Labate, B. C. (2019, Spring). Introductory note from guest editor Bia Labate, Ph.D. MAPS Bulletin. https://maps.org/news/bulletin/introductory-note-from-guest-editor-bia-labate-ph-d-spring-2019/
—— (2020). Psychedelic scientists should honor indigenous plants and traditions. Chacruna Net. https://chacruna.net/psychedelic-scientists-indigenous-plants/
Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? British Journal of Criminology.
Rêgo, X., Oliveira, M. J., Lameira, C., & Cruz, O. S. (2021). 20 years of Portuguese drug policy – developments, challenges and the quest for human rights. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 16, 59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8285857/
Felix, S., Portugal, P., & Tavares, A. (2017). Going after the addiction, not the addicted: The impact of drug decriminalization in Portugal. IZA Discussion Paper No. 10895. https://docs.iza.org/dp10895.pdf
Drug Policy Alliance. (2023, August). Drug decriminalization in Portugal: A health-human centered approach.https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-decriminalization-portugal-health-human-centered-approach_0.pdf

Neil Gehani is the founder of Mind Lumen, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a world where everyone, regardless of background or financial means, has access to safe, ethical, and high-quality well-being care from reputable providers. Mind Lumen created an Ethical Reputation System (ERS™) with the aim to reduce the risk of abusive practices in the burgeoning therapeutic psychedelic & wellbeing industry. As a neurodivergent (ADHC) Indian, Neil is a passionate advocate for safe and ethical access to psychedelics. Driven by his own personal journey of healing, he is on a mission to help others. He leverages his years of experience in Silicon Valley to support the burgeoning field of psychedelic-assisted facilitation/therapy/guiding.

Psychedelic State(s) of America