International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Drug Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo

Research Paper

Psychedelic discourses: A qualitative study of discussions in a Danish

online forum
Søren Holm a, Margit Anne Petersen b,∗, Oskar Enghoff b, Morten Hesse b
a
Municipality of Aarhus, Aarhus 8000 C, Denmark
b
Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research, Aarhus University, Copenhagen 2400 NV, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Background: This study focuses on user-perspectives related to norms, beliefs and practices concerning psychedelic
Psychedelics substances as they are articulated in a Danish online forum. The study combines an interest in online drug
illicit drugs research with a focus on discourse analysis to account for the dialectical relationship between individual and
online forum
shared knowledge regarding the use and meaning of psychedelics.
discourse analysis
user perspectives Methods: A total of 1,865 posts from 154 threads of online discussion were coded and analyzed thematically,
inspired by a socio-cognitive approach to the study of discourse. All topics were arranged into 54 categories which
were further analyzed to map recurring patterns in the construction of meaning resulting in a limited number of
dominant discourses.
Results: Five dominant discourses were identified: the recreational, the therapeutic, the spiritual, the scientific
and the performance discourse. We suggest that these discourses can be seen as the available frameworks which
forum users draw upon and reproduce when they describe, discuss, and negotiate their understandings and uses
of psychedelics.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates the importance of having a nuanced approach to user perceptions. Future
drug policy and practice development should take these nuances into account and expect significant variation in
the motives and modalities of the use of psychedelics.

Introduction
In this article, we explore user perspectives on psychedelic sub-
stances (psychedelics) by analyzing content in a popular Danish online
forum hosting public discussions of the use of psychedelics. Our aim is
to identify the main ways in which people who use psychedelics talk
about, understand, and frame these substances, and to discuss these as
‘psychedelic discourses’, inspired by a socio-cognitive approach to crit-
ical discourse analysis. Further, we discuss the potential implications
that dominant psychedelic discourses in the online sphere may have for
people who currently use or are considering using psychedelics, as well
as for policy.
The study is conducted against the backdrop of what has been termed
a recent ‘psychedelic renaissance’ (Sessa 2012) in the medical sciences
as well as among the wider public, including a proliferation of posi-
tive portrayals of psychedelics. Recently published clinical studies about
the therapeutic benefits of certain psychedelics (e.g. Bird et al., 2021;
Bogenschutz et al., 2015; Danforth et al., 2016; DiVito & Leger, 2020;
Nichols, 2020; Reiff et al., 2020; Yaden et al., 2021) has been accom-
panied by a resurgence of public interest in these substances, result-
ing among other things in a proliferation of mainstream media content
about the benefits of psychedelics (both in clinical therapy and self-
development), such as two of the world’s most popular podcasts, ‘The
Joe Rogan Experience’ and ‘The Making Sense Podcast’, and the popular
Netflix-documentary ‘How to change your mind’ based on best-selling
author Michael Pollan’s book by the same name. Previous research on
media effects would suggest that the increased media attention is likely
to influence especially young people’s understanding and interest in
psychedelics (Jackson et al., 2018; Petersen et al., 2021; Vannucci et al.,
2020). In the highly digitized lives of today’s youth, online platforms,
and especially non-governmental websites with user-contributed con-
tent (such as discussion forums), are some of the most common sources
of information for young people curious about illicit substances to turn
to (Falck et al., 2004; Morton et al., 2015). Thus, it is becoming in-

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: map.crf@psy.au.dk (M.A. Petersen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103945

0955-3959/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al.
creasingly important for researchers, practitioners and policy makers in
the drugs field to understand the ways in which psychedelics are being
discussed online.
Our study focuses on classic serotonergic psychedelics, a group of
substances that are characterized as agonists of the serotonin 2A recep-
tor and includes LSD, psilocybin (mushrooms and truffles), mescaline
(cacti) and DMT (including ayahuasca) (Carhart-Harris et al., 2014).
While there are several other terms in use, such as hallucinogenics (pro-
ducing hallucinations), psychotomimetics (mimicking psychosis), mys-
ticomimetics (mimicking mystical experiences), psychotropics (moving
towards the psyche) and entheogenics (generating the divine within),
we have chosen the term psychedelics (mind-manifesting) because it
seems to be the term currently agreed upon in both research and popu-
lar culture.
Our study focuses on a Danish online forum which has more than
25,000 registered members but is available also to non-members and
is likely to be one of the first psychedelic forums visited by Danish
youth before they embark into different corners of cyberspace. Online
forums and similar digital communities are sometimes described as plat-
forms where the meanings and uses of psychedelics are articulated,
constructed, shared, and negotiated (Bøhling, 2017; Kjellgren & Sous-
san, 2011), drawing on a broad range of conceptual frameworks includ-
ing (but not limited to) natural science, indigenous harm reduction and
spirituality (Bøhling, 2017; Hearne & Van Hout, 2016; O’Brien et al.,
2014). These communities thus constitute contexts for the production
and reproduction of knowledge and attitudes, including understand-
ings of psychedelics which may constitute a challenge to the incumbent
paradigm (Walsh, 2011).
From a post structuralist perspective, such online social processes
of knowledge production and sense-making suggest that it is discourse,
rather than the subject, which produces knowledge and defines the pa-
rameters of the agency of sense-making (Martin & Stenner, 2004). While
we, in this article, build on Martin and Stenner’s concept of drug dis-
courses, we highlight the importance of analyzing user-contributed fo-
rum content as both a form of social interaction and as expression and
reproduction of social cognition (Van Dijk 2014:12). In order to ac-
count for the internal workings and external impacts of such an online
psychedelic forum, it is thus necessary to identify any governing dis-
courses, understand the limits and possibilities they make available and
examine how forum participants operate within them.
Theoretical framework and methodological approach
In the field of alcohol and drug research, particularly within the
study of drug policy, much work on discourses has been connected to a
Foucauldian approach, particularly within the study of drug policy, in
which experiences, practices and populations are constituted as ‘things’
in need of governance (Houborg et al 2020). Focusing on ‘problemati-
zation’, scholars following a ‘governmentality’ approach, emphasize the
power of discourse to define, describe or represent problems that exist
only in the sense that they express political and cultural perspectives
(Houborg et al. 2020; Bacchi, 2018). Thus, in a Foucauldian approach,
and more specifically, in the study of ‘problematization’, thoughts and
actions related to drug use are constructed through knowledge-making
practices influenced by the power of discourse. Online drug discussion
forums and similar platforms are often characterized as technologies of
resistance where experiential discourses and notions of counter-public
health challenge hegemonic narratives of drug use as inherently prob-
lematic, for example by highlighting positive aspects of illicit drug use
and ways to reduce its negative aspects (Barratt et al., 2013, 2014;
Engel et al., 2021; Walsh, 2011). Thus, we expected the forum data
used in this study to contain evidence of psychedelic knowledge and
understandings which are constructed in response to ‘problematization’
and institutional discourses found within e.g., policy, treatment, and
prevention.
2
International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945
A discussion forum is a complex social interaction with highly
divergent patterns of participation intensity and type, and the type
of content that can be posted is internally shaped by highly prolific
users (Bilgrei, 2017; van Mierlo, 2014), community ethos (Boothroyd &
Lewis, 2016) trust (Bilgrei, 2017), social desirability (Massanari, 2015)
and further social dynamics which constitute relations of power. In or-
der to examine how forum users, construct, challenge or affirm domi-
nant beliefs and practices, we adopted the theoretical framework of crit-
ical discourse analysis, which focuses on opaque and transparent struc-
tural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power, and control as
manifested in language (Wodak, 2011). More specifically, we are draw-
ing on a socio-cognitive approach (SCA), a branch of critical discourse
analysis that focuses on the social and cognitive aspects of knowledge
production (Van Dijk, 2014a, 2014b). Such an approach accounts for
both the social, cultural, and political aspects of discourse, as well as
the subjective ways social actors produce and reproduce social repre-
sentations and social structure (Van Dijk 2014: 13a). According to SCA,
discourse is influenced by both personal cognition, i.e. subjective beliefs
and interpretations, and social cognition i.e. shared knowledge, ideolo-
gies, and norms (Van Dijk 2014a). Thus, individuals actively shape dis-
course and discourse is produced and reproduced both as a bottom-up
and top-down interaction. In SCA, knowledge and beliefs are assumed
to be “the shared beliefs of an epistemic community, justified by con-
textually, historically and culturally variable (epistemic) criteria of reli-
ability” (Van Dijk 2014a: 21). A focus on the socio-cognitive approach
combines social cognition theory with linguistic analysis, making it a
suitable framework to analyze how knowledge and beliefs are expressed
through social interaction, thereby producing, reinforcing, or resisting
discourse at the micro level.
Within the field of substance use, some studies have applied dis-
course analysis to empirical data such as interviews, in order to identify
distinct discursive repertoires that frame drug use, for example as en-
hancement (Askew & Williams, 2021) or to account for the impact of
neo-liberalism on magic mushroom users (Riley et al, 2010). In these
studies, discourses have been explored in the context of interview data,
and while there is substantial merit to such a research methodology
(Martin & Stenner, 2004), there are also certain limitations. Interviews
and focus groups constitute an important context for the production of
discourses, and there are implicit and explicit rules for what can be ex-
pressed and what cannot be expressed in the context of an interview
(Roulston & Choi 2018). Other studies within the illicit drugs field have
analyzed user-driven online platforms as sources of ‘naturally occurring’
data on user perspectives, which due to its unsolicited character avoids
some of the limitations of interview data, and other biases and practi-
cal challenges (e.g. recruitment) associated with solicited data such as
interviews and surveys (Enghoff & Aldridge, 2019). In the online fo-
rum, where our study takes its point of departure, the unsolicited dis-
cussions about psychedelics may stress aspects of the use of psychedelics
that would be less visible in a solicited interview, since communication
in the forum occurs independently from researchers and their research
projects (Lamerichs & te Molder 2003, Meredith & Potter 2014).
The online forum and research ethics
The Danish online forum we studied has a self-described harm reduc-
tion approach to drug use, no commercial interests and is publicly avail-
able without restrictions. The forum is user-initiated and completely
user-driven. While posts are moderated and the forum has rules for par-
ticipation, it is rare that we have come across instances in which it ap-
pears that a moderator has intervened in a debate. While research on
publicly available discussions online does not require a formal ethical
approval in Denmark, using this type of data nevertheless necessitates
research ethical considerations. Even though the forum users have sub-
mitted their content to a public website, researchers should take care not
to disrupt the website or its users by risking compromising anonymity
or creating unwanted attention. Aligning ourselves with standards for
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al.
non-disruptive online research, we do not publish the name of the fo-
rum or any of its users, and we paraphrase (as well as translate) all
direct quotes from forum posts (Barratt & Maddox, 2016; Markham &
Buchanan, 2012; Wilkinson & Thelwall, 2010). Our work lives up to
rules and regulations from the Danish Data Protection Agency and GDPR
practices.
Data collection
In many qualitative studies of online drug discussions, researchers
obtain a purposive sample of discussion threads, obtained via key-
word searching and/or subforum selection, and subsequently filter
the results based on further criteria such as popularity, recency, sub-
jective evaluation of analytical relevance and probabilistic sampling
(D’Agostino et al., 2017; Duxbury, 2018; Kjellgren & Soussan, 2011;
Soussan & Kjellgren, 2014). In line with these approaches, we applied
keyword searching within specific sub-forums and kept all threads that
were deemed to be relevant for the analysis.
Specifically, discussion threads were retrieved from the forum by us-
ing the internal search engine and the following keywords (in Danish):
“psychedelic drugs” (psykedeliske stoffer), “entheogens” (entheogener),
“LSD”, “psilocybin”, “mushrooms” (svampe), “DMT”, “ayahuasca” and
“mescaline” (meskalin). To sort out as many irrelevant threads as
possible, we searched only in the sub-forums, where discussions of
psychedelics were most likely to occur (pertaining to general drug use,
several specific psychedelic substances and more specialized topics such
as ceremonies, therapy, adverse effects, chemistry, philosophy and sci-
ence) and in trip report sections for psychedelics (mescaline, ayahuasca,
psilocybin mushrooms, LSD and DMT).
A thread typically consists of several posts. Posts are often a reply
or comment to another post within a thread. Within the sub-forums and
trip report sections, a total of 689 threads and 4,823 posts over a period
of five years (2015/09/01 – 2020/09/01) were analyzed individually by
reading all posts in each thread in pursuit of relevant content. Inspired
by the socio-cognitive approach, we were particularly interested in so-
cial and cognitive aspects of discourse production and how understand-
ings of psychedelics were constructed through socially shared knowl-
edge, norms and beliefs. An example of ‘shared knowledge’ could be
references to theory or research, as well as descriptions of own or oth-
ers’ experiences. An example of ‘norms’ would often relate to statements
about the context and setting in which psychedelics should be used or
definitions of legitimate purposes. An example of ‘beliefs’ could be in
descriptions that explain the effects of psychedelics or interpretations of
the psychedelic experience, risk assessment, or arguments for a specific
harm reduction strategy.
Distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant threads was done by
determining whether at least one of the posts in the thread contained
what we interpreted as socio-cognitive content, i.e. knowledge, norms
or beliefs, related to psychedelics. Irrelevant threads tended to focus on
specific questions related to practical topics like cultivation, mushroom
identification, and drug testing.
Data analysis
A total of 154 threads with 1,865 posts and a combined number
of more than 750,000 views were chosen as relevant for further qual-
itative coding and analysis. In line with previous studies (Soussan &
Kjellgren, 2014), each thread was coded thematically in a spreadsheet
by analyzing the text and interpreting the underlying topics. Each time
a new topic emerged in the texts, a new content category was created
and related to that thread with accompanying quotations. For example,
one thread contained the following text: “The most important thing is
not what happened in your trip but what the spirit of the vine (red.
ayahuasca vine) is trying to tell you”. This text was coded with the con-
tent category “Gaining insights from spirits”. A different thread would
3
International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945
be coded with the same content category if it expressed a similar be-
lief: that it is possible to gain insights from spirits through psychedelics.
This analytical process produced 54 content categories related to differ-
ent aspects of; use; purpose; setting; effects; perceived risk; harm reduc-
tion strategies; recommended dose; and references to “experts”. Having
identified 54 categories, we further analyzed these to map the network
of shared knowledge, norms, and beliefs into recurring patterns in the
social construction of meaning. Some categories were linked together
as a system of axiomatic beliefs or an ideology, whereas others were of-
ten found in opposition to one another or were logically incompatible.
We aimed at identifying a limited number of distinct discursive reper-
toires to account for the interrelations and contrasts of the 54 content
categories, and in our analysis, we therefore pay special attention to the
ways in which contrasts and clashes were visible in the exchanges of
knowledge, norms, and practices as well as beliefs about psychedelics
in the threads and posts. As we show in the following sections, the 5
discursive repertoires that our analysis brought out, were mainly driven
by what we identified in the empirical data, yet was also informed by
and compared with previous research on psychedelics (Bøhling, 2017;
Letcher, 2007; Askew & Williams, 2021; Riley et al, 2010) to determine
whether such discursive repertoires constituted a meaningful and ade-
quate framework for understanding the threads and posts under study.
Results: Psychedelic discourses
We suggest that five dominant discourses are evident in the discus-
sions on the studied online forum: the recreational, the therapeutic, the
spiritual, the scientific and the performance discourse. The spiritual and
the therapeutic discourses appeared to be the most dominant, with 64
and 61 threads out of 154 coded with these discourses, respectively.
The recreational discourse had a similar prevalence in data, with 51
threads coded as belonging to this discourse, while the scientific and per-
formances discourse seemed less present, with (37/154) and (10/154)
coded threads, respectively. The five discourses and how they relate to
one another is described in the following sections. The descriptions are
accompanied by selected quotes from the discussion threads to illustrate
differences and similarities between and within discourses. After giving
insight into each discourse, we discuss them in relation to existing liter-
ature and our theoretical framework.
The recreational discourse
I am still smashed and very disappointed. It was a real bummer to be 1-2
hours into a LLOONNGG trip when one does not like the trip. I missed
the warmth and joy of Shrooms, MDMA and Opiates. I was not wildly
impressed with OEV (ed. Open eyed visuals), and I had no CEV (ed.
Closed eyed visuals) which is something I love about shrooms.
The recreational discourse encapsulates communications about be-
liefs, norms and practices related to psychedelics that primarily focus on
pleasure, altered sensory perception, fun or curiosity, and often focus on
the use of psychedelics in crowded “real life” settings such as nightclubs,
concerts or festivals. Posts categorized as part of this discourse often
discuss psychedelics in combination with other kinds of drugs such as
for example, cannabis, MDMA and stimulants, or sometimes alcohol.
The main focus is often on the ability of a drug to create visual effects
and there are seldom any significant distinctions between categories of
substances, or between synthetic and natural ones, as is often the case
with posts connected to the spiritual discourse. The quote above relates
to an experience with mixing mescaline (Peruvian Torch) with a syn-
thetic opioid (Tramadol), and the disappointment described in the quote
above really emphasizes the purpose of using these substances to obtain
enjoyable experiences – the quoted forums user expected an enjoyable
experience, but did not have one. The person clearly has considerable
experience with psychoactive drugs, and while favoring the enjoyable
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al.
effects of psilocybin mushrooms, the post does not contain any norma-
tive differentiation between using psychedelics and using other types of
drugs. In fact, a genuine curiosity and willingness to experiment seems
to be an underlying value, acknowledging that not all ideas are good,
and perhaps hoping to help someone else in their pleasure-seeking ad-
ventures by posting about what didn’t go well.
The recreational discourse can generally be characterized by a con-
siderable variance in, and sometimes lack of, well-defined norms, knowl-
edge, and ideologies. This discourse typically does not involve prej-
udices, references to theory or research, nor specific beliefs about
psychedelics, and is generally not guided by any rationalized or pre-
defined aims other than intentions of a ‘good experience’. The forum
users often combine the use of psychedelics with other pleasure-seeking
activities such as watching movies, gaming, or surfing the internet, as
well as talking, dancing, having sex or engaging in other forms of so-
cial interaction. A common topic present in discussions is the sharing of
ideas for pleasant activities while under the influence. Answer-seeking
posts most often inquire about appropriate dose or how to achieve visual
effects, and advice-giving posts are typically based on first- or second-
hand experience. Theoretical topics or in-depth analysis related to ad-
verse effects of psychedelics are not discussed in any detail. Within posts
coded as part of the recreational discourse, negative experiences (often
described as bad trips) tend to be regarded as unnecessary and as some-
thing that should be avoided, primarily by obtaining reliable informa-
tion on how to dose.
While the recreational discourse is typically seen in relatively non-
normative dialogues between forum users, we have found several ex-
amples of clashes between the recreational discourse and more ‘nor-
mative’ discourses, such as the therapeutic and spiritual discourses. In
these cases, the pleasure-seeking approach to psychedelics which char-
acterizes posts within the recreational discourse was criticized, frowned
upon and labeled inappropriate, disrespectful, or harmful. Disapproving
comments often relate to using psychedelics in “inappropriate” settings
or mixing them with other drugs, as the following example shows:
Question: Me and my friend want to celebrate the release of this year’s
Christmas brew (ed. beer), so we want to smoke some joints and take a
lot of mushrooms. Last time we took 7.5g of dried mushrooms and two
LSD trips. Today we’re thinking of drinking 5-6 beers and take the same
dose of mushrooms, maybe a little more. Are beer and shrooms a bad mix
or can it give a good kick?
Reply: It doesn’t quite seem like you have the respect for psychedelics
they deserve. Be careful with that, it might bite you in the ass. I don’t
like it (ed. mixing mushrooms and alcohol), the body load is too strong,
furthermore it’s a bit like pissing the spirit of the mushrooms in the face.
The reply clearly shows a normative differentiation between mush-
rooms and alcohol, and suggests that the forum user posting the question
does not have respect for psychedelics in general. By referencing “the
spirit of the mushroom”, the replying user draws on the spiritual dis-
course to reject the approach to psychedelics evidenced by the original
post. This dialogue exemplifies much of the discursive clash that exists
in relation to statements that what we suggest can be understood as a
recreational discourse related to psychedelics.
The therapeutic discourse
A large part of discussions in the forum concerns the potentials
of psychedelics to treat psychiatric or psychological disorders, resolve
trauma or aid self-development or discovery, and many forum users re-
port that they have used psychedelics because of their therapeutic value.
In our analysis, the therapeutic discourse encapsulates a spectrum of dif-
ferent therapeutic approaches to the use of psychedelics that often incor-
porates psychoanalytic theory. In the following illustrative quote from a
discussion on psilocybin mushrooms, a forum user with no psychedelic
4
International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945
experience is asking about what mushrooms are good for and receives
this explanation:
They can open hard-to-reach parts of the subconscious that require res-
olution, because repressed experiences can have a direct negative impact
on one’s behavior and perception. Thus, it is important to emphasize their
potential as an analytical tool for the psyche.
We identified a therapeutic discourse mostly in posts discussing the
use of LSD and psilocybin mushrooms. Within this discourse, following
certain guidelines is considered an essential part of using psychedelics
in a responsible way, and it is often assumed that the neglect of proper
context (setting) could render the psychedelic experience harmful. A
proper context is generally defined as a peaceful, homely setting with
minimum risk of being disturbed by “outsiders”. While some forum users
emphasize the importance of being guided by a trained therapist, oth-
ers argue that the psychedelic experience can have a therapeutic effect
by itself, without the “interference” of a therapist. While the definition
of ideal settings shares many characteristics with the current scientific
approach to clinical psychedelic therapy, we also saw many examples
of theoretical assumptions which did not have a clear link to supporting
scientific evidence. When drawing on a therapeutic framework, most fo-
rum users describe psychedelics as a powerful tool to facilitate the emer-
gence of subconscious material into consciousness. Negative experiences
(often called as bad trips) are usually described as something which is
best understood as a recollection of traumatic experiences, e.g. trauma
in early childhood, at birth or even in a previous life. In ‘therapeutic
discourse-posts’ a great deal of knowledge sharing and references to ex-
perts is present, and many conversations are constructed in opposition to
institutional discourses found within traditional psychiatric treatment.
The most common reference within these posts is the Czech psychiatrist
Stanislav Grof, who has worked with psychedelic therapy for over sixty
years, including the development of theories which are seen as contro-
versial or fringe by the broader academic community (Grof, 2000).
Negative experiences such as bad trips and even psychotic break-
downs are represented as something which should not necessarily be
avoided, as they can be a path to recovery. For example, certain rather
dominant users in the forum characterize bad trips as unresolved ses-
sions that are best dealt with by continuing to work through issues in
new psychedelic sessions. The following quotes show advice based on
such an approach. The original forum user is explicitly asking for alter-
native ways of dealing with suicidal thoughts and panic attacks, pre-
sumably brought on by a very powerful trip on psilocybin mushrooms.
In this, and similar exchanges, the tension between personal and social
cognition becomes visible.
Original post: I have had suicidal thoughts and panic attacks that have
been so intense, that I feel it is pure luck, that I’ve been able to endure
them. I sincerely hope that it is possible to process this without having to
take a psychoactive substance again.
Reply: It’s by accepting and letting go of control, that the work can be
completed and the process can continue… So, you have to take a new
trip, and try to let go.
Posts categorized as part of the therapeutic discourse often invoke
substantial “truth value” and emphasize the importance of psychological
factors over for example spiritual aspects or scientific research, some-
times exhibiting dominance and a rather confrontational approach to
other beliefs, norms and practices:
At the moment we see a new age Ayahuasca wave infecting Europe like
a plague… Filled with immaturity, ignorance and superstition leading to
sacred madness where Ayahuasca and other psychedelic and psychoac-
tive drugs are glorified into something they are not and put on a pedestal.
The European is so foolish that he beliefs everything just because it comes
from the Amazon. It is important to understand that it is not the substance
that heals. It is the METHOD!
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al.
We here see a clash that especially has to do with differences in be-
lief. This forum user places emphasis on the broader therapeutic method
and setting (aided by psychedelics), as opposed to believing that the sub-
stance itself and its spiritual status or connection has the solution to a
given problem. However, statements categorized under both the ther-
apeutic and the spiritual discourse sometimes also agree on some sort
of opposition to mainstream science, even though many of the perspec-
tives and practices within the therapeutic discourse resonate directly
with scientific approaches to clinical psychedelic therapy:
It is not my fault that science knows so little about our minds. But it is
a pity for it, and for all the rest of us who suffer from its shortcomings.
If I can do it myself right now, I don’t want to wait for science to pull
its finger out, and possibly in many years be able to help me with my
problems.
While this quote illustrates the point of view that science has lim-
itations (which is more present in discussions on the spiritual aspects
of psychedelics) it also alludes to a general impatience with science,
often exemplified through the value of personal experiences or experi-
ential anecdotes as enough grounds for self-treating or treating others
with psychedelics. that is very present in both therapeutic and spiritual
discussions in the forum.
The spiritual discourse
It’s been a week since the ceremony. I was comfortable and happy to
travel with a capable shaman. I sought the experience for healing and
clarification. I would not seek “Her” until I was ready to be resurrected
as a better version of myself. What "better" meant, I left to something other
than myself; the Ayahuasca. Nothing on an Ayahuasca journey happens
by chance. Ayahuasca shows you what you need to see, but she doesn’t
tell you what the visions mean.
Religious and spiritual elements play a significant role in discussions
of psychedelics in the studied forum. When the approach to psychedelics
was framed in spiritual or religious terms or norms were based on spir-
itual beliefs, the post was categorized as an example of expressing a
spiritual discourse. The quote above was entitled ‘sacred journey’ and
exemplifies a common belief that psychedelics and their spirits (and
knowledge) are greater than oneself, and one’s own ideas and inten-
tions.
The spiritual discourse is, according to our analysis, particularly
dominant in threads discussing the use of DMT, psychoactive plants and
fungi (e.g. ayahuasca, psilocybin mushrooms and mescaline cacti), and
emphasizes spiritual exploration as the primary motive for using such
drugs. In posts within this discourse, ceremonial settings are presented
as the optimal context for using psychedelics, and several forum users
report participating in traditional ceremonies and rituals with shamans
in or from the Amazonian rainforest. The term entheogen is often used
among forum users with a spiritual purpose to distinguish religious and
spiritual use from other kinds of use, especially the use of psychedelics
in recreational contexts. Within posts coded as part of the spiritual dis-
course, psychedelics are mainly characterized by their ability to gener-
ate a connection to the divine. Insights and other positive effects are
often interpreted as a transfer of sacred knowledge or mystical abilities
from a divine spirit or intelligent entity. As a result of this interpreta-
tion, the validity of obtained insights is usually perceived as very high
and statements often assume that correct uses of psychedelics will yield
exactly what the user needs regardless of whether he or she knows this
or not.
Mushrooms are the entheogen that I most often work with. It applies to
both mushrooms and Ayahuasca that what you bring into the trip, will
determine what you get back from them. If your intention is deep and
you allow the fungi to speak to you and through you, they will give you
exactly what you need.
5
International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945
Some forum users describe encounters with spirits or “other-than-
human entities” and perceive such spirits and entities as real. In the
following excerpt a forum user refers to “machine elves” which were
encountered under the influence of DMT.
I would describe Machine Elves as creatures you meet on your journey.
They are vibrant and full of love. It is impossible to explain what they
are, but I am sure that they are real where they are, and that they will
help us get better.
Knowledge and ideologies are openly shared within the spiritual dis-
course. A mysticism framework is often used to describe the effects of
psychedelics and psychedelic experiences are often framed within a reli-
gious ideology. Often psychedelics have challenged the personal mental
models of the forum users and they are trying to construct new ones to
categorize their experiences. This is most apparent when forum users
discuss the validity of encounters with ‘others’ on DMT or dialogs with
spirits on ayahuasca and psilocybin mushrooms. Forum users who do
not acknowledge the spiritual realm sometimes criticize other forum
users drawing on a spiritual discourse, for not having any connection to
reality, particularly those who are more prone to scientific thinking:
Fungi and other mind-expanding drugs have been used in shamanistic
and mystical/religious traditions, but I have not seen substantial evidence
or even heard that they have historically been used systematically for
medical treatment with demonstrable results. I would like to see reliable
sources on this (not [cannabis and New Age websites]).
As alluded to previously, there seems to be a strong preference
for natural, plant-based psychedelics, as opposed to synthetic or non-
psychedelic substances, which are deemed non-spiritual.
The scientific discourse
Psychedelic drugs work by lowering the blood supply to some specific
parts of the brain (primarily the prefrontal cortex). These are parts of the
brain that are usually associated with identity, linear thought and filtering
sensory impressions. The theory is that this results in a ’softening’ of our
previous identity and a completely new way of experiencing ourselves and
our surroundings. A new experience of being able to ’think’ and perceive
in ways one had not thought possible… And I can promise you that not
everything you experience during a trip is real. This is a dangerous and
harmful way of thinking. From beliefs in aliens, UFO encounters, con-
spiracy theories, paranoia, and messiah complexes. People have become
convinced of so much unrealistic stuff when tripping.
If posts in the online forum focused on neurobiological effects or
referred to evidence (or lack of evidence) from scientific studies of or
approaches to psychedelics, they have been categorized as belonging to
the scientific discourse. In these posts, the effects of psychedelics are typ-
ically discussed in general terms without identifying a specific purpose
for using them. Norms related to settings sometimes refer to clinical pro-
tocols in research studies with trip sitters, soft lights, and calming music.
When specific drugs are mentioned, it is primarily LSD or psilocybin. De-
scriptions of positive and negative effects characteristically concentrate
on the neurochemical properties of certain molecules, and phenomena
such as spiritual insights or recovery of repressed memories are typi-
cally explained as uncertain inferences caused by neuropharmacological
changes in the nervous system.
Sharing knowledge in the form of scientific research is a key feature
of the scientific discourse, highlighting the scientific method as the best
or only way to render truth about the world. Thus, a scientific frame-
work is used to describe the effects of psychedelics, and psychedelic ex-
periences are framed or explained by scientific theories. An often-cited
theory is that psychedelics relax confidence in prior beliefs encoded in
the brain by disrupting the compressive function of the so-called default-
mode network, an effect that can result in heightened suggestibility and
delusional thinking, as the quote above illustrates. There is an obvious
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al.
clash between posts in the scientific discourse and posts in the spiri-
tual discourse, as forum users with a more spiritual inclination typi-
cally consider the scientific approach a simplistic reduction. Those who
place greater emphasis on scientific explanations often do not find the
distinction between plant-based and synthetic psychedelics important,
which sometimes leads to disagreements in the discussions between fo-
rum users:
Forum user 1: Shamans speak about “the spirit of the plant”. I know that
science has studied which chemicals affect our brain. Two contradictions
one might say. I do not hold the belief that one is right, and the other is
wrong. It is more complex than that.
Forum user 2: Whether it is the substance or the spirit that has an effect
should be self-evident because the pure substance has an effect, but the
rest of the plant doesn’t.
Forum user 3: Oh okay, I didn’t think that I was on [engineering web-
site]. I thought I was in a forum with people who have had psychedelic
experiences and insights. People who are open to other connections in the
world than those you can read on measuring equipment in a laboratory.
Forum user 4: Relax. There are lots of people in here who believe in this
kind of thing and the spiritual.
These four statements show a diversity in how users of this forum de-
limit their beliefs and values. Clearly forum user 3 has a derogatory view
of ‘science’ or at least alludes to the fact that much of what a psychedelic
experience is or does, is not measurable in ‘conventional’ ways. But some
of the other statements show that forum users can believe in both the
scientific and the spiritual realms at once. While there is some over-
lap, one of the ways in which values and beliefs characterizing posts
within the scientific discourse tend to differ from those in the therapeu-
tic discourse, is that those with an explicit scientific belief often have
a more critical approach to the alleged universally beneficial effects of
psychedelics.
Forum user 1: You should not trip if you have schizophrenic traits!
Forum user 2: As a matter of fact, you are very welcome to trip, but you
need to have a skilled therapeutic sitter to guide you in such a case.
Forum user 3: I don’t think you fully comprehend the risk of what you
are proposing.
Forum user 1: There is not enough research on the subject for any ther-
apists in Denmark to have evidence for their method… This is a harm
reduction forum. Therefore, we must be based on evidence!
While most forum users pronounce specific purposes regarding the
use of psychedelics, the beliefs and practices connected to the scientific
discourse primarily highlight safety, evidence, and scientific inquiry. As
the above quotes suggest, there is sometimes a contradictory belief be-
tween those who value therapy and the skills of the therapist, and those
who place more emphasis on the scientific evidence and knowledge of
a given situation or practice related to the use of psychedelics.
The performance discourse
Some had energy drinks, many drank coffee, and others were on Ritalin.
Then I came on LSD. The others in my class just thought it was funny,
but my grades were the same as the others’. After a year, a third of the
class was microdosing LSD, as they quickly found out that the side effects
are far less than with all the other substances.
The performance discourse encapsulates expressions of the use of
psychedelics to improve creativity, work effectiveness, and social or
academic performance. Several threads begin with forum users seek-
ing advice related to micro-dosing. In this type of thread, psychedelics
are typically described as tools to enhance performance in work, study
6
International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945
or social settings. Although inconsistencies are found in relation to sub-
stances and frequency, those with most experience report taking LSD
or psilocybin mushrooms approximately every third day for the dura-
tion of several months. Within the performance discourse, the effects of
psychedelics are evaluated from a pragmatic approach, assessing use-
fulness rather than referring to pleasure. Knowledge based on own ex-
periences are frequently shared and ideologies value performance and
productivity. Positive and negative effects are usually assessed based on
the ability to focus, and loss of focus is considered a negative effect that
might occur if the dose is too high.
The difference between 12 micrograms and 18 micrograms is certainly
not insignificant, if you use micro-dosing for work, like I do. I already
think 12.5 micrograms is at the high end, and I can easily space out a
little too much and lose focus.
Unlike taking larger doses of psychedelics, micro-dosing is often not
considered a psychedelic experience, and this type of use is sometimes
compared to the use of prescription stimulants such as Adderall and Ri-
talin, as the beginning quote shows. Because of this, posts categorized as
part of the performance discourse sometimes appears to be disconnected
from the broader psychedelic paradigm, and assumptions related to this
framing of psychedelics are seldomly discussed at any length. However,
some forum users with other beliefs and values, question both assump-
tions behind (apparent) effects and motives for micro-dosing. The first
statement uses concepts such as ‘placebo’ and ‘medical evidence’ and
refers to research or rather the lack thereof, and thus relies on a scien-
tific approach to psychedelics, whereas the second statement alludes to
a more therapeutic understanding, framing the micro-doses as a coping
strategy to deal with life:
I just think that placebo must play a huge role in all this micro-dosing
stuff… There’s no medical evidence that taking LSD every day should
cure anything. There’s no research suggesting any benefits.
In general, I think that if you need a “security blanket” in the form of
substances to cope with your life, then you need to change something
more fundamentally.
According to our analysis, the performance discourse seems to be
the least dominant way of framing psychedelics in this forum. Although
the pro-cognitive effects of micro-dosing are usually interpreted as a
subtle step towards liberating brain and mind function, micro-dosing
does not induce altered states of consciousness, which is considered the
key feature of psychedelics among most of the forum users.
Discussion
Our analysis argues that users of the studied online forum commu-
nicate about and draw upon, produce, and reproduce understandings,
beliefs and practices about psychedelics that can be meaningfully di-
vided into five distinct discourses. The discourses we propose are rel-
atively consistent with other studies. In the forum, we found the spir-
itual and therapeutic understandings to be the most dominant, which
is in accordance with a recent Danish online survey, where researchers
found a high prevalence of therapeutic and spiritual intentions among
people who use psychedelics (Søgaard et al., 2022). Further, psilocy-
bin mushrooms have been connected to discourses that focus on the
recreational and psychological aspects, as well as on various forms of
divinity and animism (Letcher, 2007). Several scholars have found that
motives for micro-dosing primarily focus on either self-treatment or self-
optimization (Andersson & Kjellgren, 2019) or both at the same time
(Petersen et al., 2022, Johnstad, 2018). While our categorization sug-
gests a broader spiritual discourse, as well as a distinction between self-
treatment and performance-enhancement, we do acknowledge that even
within what we suggest can be seen as a distinct discourse, there is diver-
sity and thereby varying beliefs and practices. Interestingly, in a study
from 2010, Riley and colleagues did not seem to refer much to therapy
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al.
or healing of mental health problems in connection with psychedelics
(Riley, 2010). While methodological differences may account for some
of these differences, we suggest that it is also very possible that public
perceptions of psychedelics have changed significantly since.
Following Van Dijk, forum users cognitively mediate their knowl-
edge and understandings of psychedelics and negotiate these in or
through the social context of the internet forum. One aspect of this is
that there seems to be competing discourses reflecting certain power
structures in the forum. The recreational discourse is the most often crit-
icized. In several posts, forum users expressing norms that characterize
the recreational discourse are denounced for either lack of legitimate
purpose, adequate respect, or sufficient knowledge. Bøhling (2017) ar-
gues that although pleasure is one of the key reasons for using LSD and
psilocybin mushrooms, recreational use in “real life” settings is often
considered purposeless by more dominating perspectives focusing on
the scientific, spiritual or therapeutic value of psychedelics. Our find-
ings indicate that this also takes place in online discussions among peo-
ple who use psychedelics. Recreational use is most often judged based on
certain definitions of what constitutes a legitimate purpose mediated by
the therapeutic or the scientific discourse. Similarly, Letcher (2007) has
argued that the belief that mushrooms occasion encounters with spiri-
tual entities, transgresses a fundamental societal boundary and therefore
this phenomenon is largely ignored. While spiritual beliefs and practices
are among the most widespread and one of the most frequently drawn
upon discourses in the online discussions in this study, it was quite com-
mon that forum users who drew upon scientific or therapeutic discourses
would reject certain spiritual beliefs.
Despite these and other discursive oppositions, it is important to
point out that the five discourses we suggest are not distinct in the
sense that any given individual can always be classified as communi-
cating only based on one discourse. Expressions connected to beliefs,
norms and practices often depend on the situation in which psychedelics
are used and the conceptual framework suggested by the surroundings.
Thus, a forum user may refer to the therapeutic discourse when inter-
preting psilocybin use in a clinical setting and contribute to the spiritual
discourse when interpreting and sharing experiences from an ayahuasca
trip in an Amazonian retreat. Even so, each of the five discourses that we
suggest represents a relatively coherent set of norms, beliefs and types
of knowledge and practices, and while some aspects of these are shared,
others seem to represent competing or incompatible views.
As described earlier, online communities are often characterized as
technologies of resistance where experiential discourses challenge hege-
monic narratives, but in our data many forum users regard recreational
use for pleasure as immoral and certain forms of spirituality as mad-
ness. Thus, even in what can be seen as an online counter-public health
community (Barratt et al., 2014) forum users may become marginalized
if they do not adapt to powerful and well-established mainstream dis-
courses, such as the therapeutic and scientific. This may be particular
to specific psychedelic online communities, as other drug-related online
communities might be more lenient and tolerant when it comes to the
more hedonistic modes of intoxication. It is common for different com-
munities to adopt different drug ethe, and thus the broader community
can become fragmented across different forums and sites with differ-
ing predominant discourses (Boothroyd & Lewis, 2016). For example,
during data collection in our study, we identified groups on Facebook
and Discord with more heterogeneous approaches to psychedelics and
a generally more tolerant attitude towards spiritual beliefs or pleasure-
seeking consumption. These distinct online contexts all facilitate differ-
ing discourses, which have implications for both the narratives forum
users can articulate and the impact of these narratives on the forum
users.
Our analysis should be contextualized within the limits of our ap-
proach. First of all, our study consisted of a limited keyword-based sam-
ple of discussion threads. We are thus not able to provide a complete
picture of discussions from the forum, including posts which are rele-
vant to psychedelic discourse without explicitly mentioning psychedelic
7
International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945
substances. We also did not track individual forum users across threads,
limiting our ability to observe discursive shifts at the individual level,
except for a few cases. Our analytical strategy focused theoretically on
beliefs, interpretations, knowledges, ideologies, and norms, and reduced
the complexity of the data into a limited number of such categories.
While this is a subjective classification, three authors have coded 20
of the same threads individually to ensure some level of consistency
in the analysis of the empirical data. Despite these limitations, our
study builds on and contributes to the current interest in psychedelic
research, by showing how and what is discussed in an online forum,
comparing and contrasting views of psychedelics and how these views
compete.
People who use psychedelics, policy and harm reduction
In the analyzed data, we saw many examples of people, new to
psychedelics, who were asking for advice about how to use them safely,
having become motivated to try one or more substances after read-
ing about pleasurable experiences, therapeutic benefits, spiritual explo-
rations, or cognitive enhancement. As described in Table 1, our analysis
shows that the specific kinds of advice and recommendations given in
the forum vary significantly between the five discourses, particularly re-
garding suggested dosages, harm reduction measures and management
of ‘bad trips’. While posts referring to the scientific discourse tend to
focus more on risk, safety and harm reduction, those in the therapeutic
and spiritual discourses often make certain “truth claims” invoking blind
trust in theoretical assumptions or spiritual guides. As we have seen in
some of the selected quotes, this unequivocal approach to psychedelics
includes advice and recommendations that are considered irresponsible
within other beliefs. While the forum has announced its overall focus on
harm reduction, it is clear that the suggested five discourses represent
different views on what constitutes harm reduction, and which measures
and practices follow these views. As we have shown, knowledge, beliefs
and norms are often socially acquired, shared and communicated and
each of the five discourses may govern the ways in which forum users
believe that psychedelics should be used and understood. This means
that individuals encountering such diverse online content must rely on
their own judgment and pre-existing knowledge, when navigating the
varying recommendations and opinions – not just across different con-
texts, but also within a single online context such as the forum ana-
lyzed here. Thus, from a harm-reduction perspective, it might be bene-
ficial to educate young people, supporting them in critically examining
and navigating such different understandings of and practices related to
psychedelics.
The nuanced picture of user perceptions of psychedelics emerging
from the analyzed posts, has significant relevance for the field of emer-
gent drug policy and practice. Previous studies have highlighted the
impact of online user-generated content on drug trends, as well as the
value of such content as a source of user perspectives, which can and
should inform the work of individuals or organizations working (directly
or indirectly) with people who use drugs. While the typical and most
obvious implication of taking such user perspectives into consideration
is to challenge pathological and deterministic understandings of drug
use (Walsh, 2011), our study also examines the heterogeneity and con-
trasts that exist within user perceptions of the use of psychedelics as a
non-pathological endeavor. Our analysis has shown that individuals and
organizations working within this area not only have to account for the
general schism between institutional and user perspectives (Engel et al.,
2021), but must also account for significant variation in the motives and
modalities of the use of psychedelics. Motivations for using psychedelics
may differ significantly from other drugs that are more well-known to
for example youth workers – as evidenced by the presence of therapeutic
and spiritual motives, as well as the frequent criticism of purely recre-
ational or social motives. The same applies to patterns of use, such as
frequency and setting, with some people partaking only a few times in
their life and strictly in ceremonial settings.
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al. International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945

Table 1
Dominant discourses in a Danish online discussion forum.

Discourse Recreational discourse Therapeutic discourse Spiritual discourse Scientific discourse Performance discourse

Description Psychedelics are framed This discourse describes This discourse is The discourse focuses on Psychedelics are framed
much like other drugs. psychedelics as characterized by the neurobiological effects as tools to improve
Use is not guided by any powerful tools to assess belief that psychedelics and refers to scientific creativity, work
rationalized or subconscious material are able to facilitate a evidence. effectiveness, and social
predefined aims. and resolve connection to a divine performance.
psychological issues. or spiritual dimension.
Main substances A wide variety of LSD and psilocybin Ayahuasca, DMT, LSD and psilocybin. LSD and psilocybin
used psychedelics, often mushrooms. psilocybin mushrooms mushrooms.
mixed with and mescaline cacti.
non-psychedelic drugs.
Purpose Pleasure, altered Treating psychiatric Spiritual exploration, No specific purpose was Improving performance
sensory perception, disorders, resolving obtaining sacred defined. in work, study, or social
curiosity, and fun. trauma, or aiding knowledge and gaining settings.
self-discovery. mystical insights.
Ideal setting No norms regarding A peaceful setting A ceremonial or ritual A standardized setting Psychedelics are taken
where or how guided by a trained setting guided by a with two therapists several times a week
psychedelics should be therapist with own shaman. (male and female) within everyday life
used. experience from quietly observing. settings.
psychedelic trips.
Positive effects Positive effects are Positive effects are Insights, enlightenment, Psychedelics relax prior Psychedelics can
pleasurable effects. obtained by confronting and other positive beliefs encoded in the liberate brain and mind
These effects are cool and resolving repressed effects are achieved by brain thereby enabling function from habitual
and fun but typically not subconscious material. connecting with a the potential revision of and unproductive
explained or analyzed. spiritual or divine habitual thinking thought patterns.
dimension. patterns.
Negative effects Negative effects (bad Negative effects occur Negative experiences Negative effects are best No serious negative
trips) are strange and because of unresolved can be a “test” on the explained as a effects were reported.
scary but are typically and repressed material pathways to psychological response
not explained or in the subconscious enlightenment. to the ontological shock.
analyzed. psyche.
Dose Around 100-200 Moderate doses of 200 High to extremely high Moderate doses. Low sub-perceptual
micrograms LSD or 2 g micrograms of LSD. doses. “Heroic dose” of Generally, in the range doses in the range of
dry mushrooms (≈ 16 Occasionally high-dose 5 g dry mushrooms (≈ of 10-25 mg psilocybin 5-20 micrograms LSD or
mg psilocybin) for first sessions of >400 40-50 mg psilocybin). or 100-200 micrograms 100-400 mg dry
time users. micrograms of LSD (>30 of LSD. mushrooms (≈ 2-4 mg
mg psilocybin). psilocybin).
Perceived risk and There is a risk, but it is The risk is minimal if Sacred use entails There is a risk, but it is Possible long-term risks
harm reduction worth taking. The best you have a trained safeguards that prevent minimal in a clinical were considered, but in
strategy harm reduction strategy therapist to guide you. injury to mental health. setting. One harm general microdosing was
is to obtain reliable The best harm reduction The best harm reduction reduction strategy is to perceived as risk-free.
information about strategy is to deal with strategy is to establish a exclude individuals with
proper dose. basic psychological respectful relationship a predisposition of
issues. with the divine. psychotic disorders.

Conclusion Acknowledgements

In this study, we have analyzed and categorized publicly available
online discussions of beliefs, norms and practices related to the use of
psychedelics. We have found that the analyzed discussions and ways of
understanding psychedelics can be divided into five distinct yet overlap-
ping discourses: the recreational, the therapeutic, the spiritual, the sci-
entific and the performance discourse. The discourses, we argue, are the
results of a dialectical relationship between users’ individual and shared
socio-cognitive perspectives, which govern the ways in which users of
this online Danish forum describe and discuss psychedelics. We suggest,
that the five discourses provide a useful framework for understanding
diverse user perceptions of psychedelics and this study, thus, nuances
current understandings of what has been termed the psychedelic renais-
sance, outside clinical settings.
Ethics approval
The authors declare that they have obtained ethics approval from an
appropriately constituted ethics committee/institutional review board
where the research entailed animal or human participation.
Declarations of interest
None.
This work was supported by Helsefonden (The Health Foundation).
Grant number 21-B-0453.
References
Andersson, M., & Kjellgren, A. (2019). Twenty percent better with 20 micrograms? A qual-
itative study of psychedelic microdosing self-rapports and discussions on YouTube.
Harm Reduction Journal, 16(1), 63. 10.1186/s12954- 019- 0333- 3.
Askew, R., & Williams, L. (2021). Rethinking enhancement substance use: A
critical discourse studies approach. International Journal of Drug Policy, 95, Article
102994.
Bacchi, C. (2018). Drug problematizations and politics: Deploying a poststructural analytic
strategy. Contemporary Drug Problems, 45(1), 3–14.
Barratt, M. J., Allen, M., & Lenton, S. (2014). PMA Sounds Fun”: Negotiating drug dis-
courses online. Substance Use & Misuse, 49(8), 987–998. 10.3109/10826084.2013.
852584.
Barratt, M. J., Lenton, S., & Allen, M. (2013). Internet content regulation, public drug
websites and the growth in hidden Internet services. Drugs: Education, Prevention and
Policy, 20(3), 195–202. 10.3109/09687637.2012.745828.
Barratt, M. J., & Maddox, A. (2016). Active engagement with stigmatised communi-
ties through digital ethnography. Qualitative Research, 16(6), 701–719. 10.1177/
1468794116648766.
Bilgrei, O. R. (2017). Broscience: Creating trust in online drug communities. New Media
& Society, 20(8), 2712–2727. 10.1177/1461444817730331.
Bird, C. I. V., Modlin, N. L., & Rucker, J. J. H. (2021). Psilocybin and MDMA for the treat-
ment of trauma-related psychopathology. International Review of Psychiatry, 33(3),
229–249. 10.1080/09540261.2021.1919062.
Bogenschutz, M. P., Forcehimes, A. A., Pommy, J. A., Wilcox, C. E., Barbosa, P. C. R.,
& Strassman, R. J. (2015). Psilocybin-assisted treatment for alcohol dependence: A

8
S. Holm, M.A. Petersen, O. Enghoff et al.
proof-of-concept study. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 29(3), 289–
299. 10.1177/0269881114565144.
Bøhling, F. (2017). Psychedelic pleasures: An affective understanding of the joys of trip-
ping. International Journal of Drug Policy, 49, 133–143. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.07.
017.
Boothroyd, D., & Lewis, S. (2016). Online drug scenes and harm reduction from
below as phronesis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 43(3), 293–307. 10.1177/
0091450916654266.
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Leech, R., Hellyer, P., Shanahan, M., Feilding, A., Tagliazuc-
chi, E., Chialvo, D., & Nutt, D. (2014). The entropic brain: A theory of con-
scious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 8. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.
00020.
D’Agostino, A. R., Optican, A. R., Sowles, S. J., Krauss, M. J., Escobar Lee, K., & Cavazos-
Rehg, P. A. (2017). Social networking online to recover from opioid use disorder: A
study of community interactions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 181, 5–10. 10.1016/
j.drugalcdep.2017.09.010.
Danforth, A. L., Struble, C. M., Yazar-Klosinski, B., & Grob, C. S. (2016). MDMA-assisted
therapy: A new treatment model for social anxiety in autistic adults. Progress in Neuro-
Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 64, 237–249. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2015.03.
011.
DiVito, A. J., & Leger, R. F. (2020). Psychedelics as an emerging novel intervention in
the treatment of substance use disorder: A review. Molecular Biology Reports, 47(12),
9791–9799. 10.1007/s11033- 020- 06009- x.
Duxbury, S. W. (2018). Information creation on online drug forums: How drug use be-
comes moral on the margins of science. Current Sociology, 66(3), 431–448. 10.1177/
0011392115596055.
Engel, L. B., Bright, S. J., Barratt, M. J., & Allen, M. M. (2021). Positive drug stories: Pos-
sibilities for agency and positive subjectivity for harm reduction. Addiction Research
& Theory, 29(5), 363–371. 10.1080/16066359.2020.1837781.
Enghoff, O., & Aldridge, J. (2019). The value of unsolicited online data in drug policy
research. International Journal of Drug Policy, 73, 210–218. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.
01.023.
Falck, R. S., Carlson, R. G., Wang, J., & Siegal, H. A. (2004). Sources of informa-
tion about MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine): Perceived accuracy, im-
portance, and implications for prevention among young adult users. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 74(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.11.
009.
Grof, S. (2000). Psychology of the future: Lessons from modern consciousness research. SUNY
Press.
Hearne, E., & Van Hout, M. C. (2016). Trip-Sitting” in the Black Hole: A netnographic
study of dissociation and indigenous harm reduction. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs,
48(4), 233–242.
Houborg, E., Bjerge, B., Lancaster, K., & Berends, L. (2020). Problematisations in drug
use policy, practice and research. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 80, Article
102779.
Jackson, K. M., Janssen, T., & Gabrielli, J. (2018). Media/Marketing influences on ado-
lescent and young adult substance abuse. Current Addiction Reports, 5(2), 146–157.
10.1007/s40429- 018- 0199- 6.
Johnstad, P. G. (2018). Powerful substances in tiny amounts: An interview study of
psychedelic microdosing. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 35(1), 39–51.
Kjellgren, A., & Soussan, C. (2011). Heaven and Hell—A phenomenological study of recre-
ational use of 4-HO-MET in Sweden. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43(3), 211–219.
10.1080/02791072.2011.605699.
Lamerichs, J., & te Molder, H. F. M. (2003). Computer-mediated communication. From a
cognitive to a discursive model. New Media and Society, 5(4), 451–473.
Letcher, A. (2007). Mad thoughts on Mushrooms: Discourse and power in the study of
psychedelic consciousness. Anthropology of Consciousness, 18(2), 74–98. 10.1525/ac.
2007.18.2.74.
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Rec-
ommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Association of
Internet Researchers https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
International Journal of Drug Policy 112 (2023) 103945
Martin, A., & Stenner, P. (2004). Talking about drug use: What are we (and our partici-
pants) doing in qualitative research? International Journal of Drug Policy, 15, 395–405.
Massanari, A. (2015). Participatory culture, community, and play. Peter Lang.
Meredith, J., & Potter, J. (2014). Conversation analysis and electronic interactions:
Methodological, analytic and technical considerations. In Innovative methods and tech-
nologies for electronic discourse analysis (pp. 370–393).
van Mierlo, T. (2014). The 1% rule in four digital health social networks: An observational
study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(2), Article 2. 10.2196/jmir.2966.
Morton, C. M., Hoefinger, H., Linn-Walton, R., Aikins, R., & Falkin, G. P. (2015). What
are youth asking about drugs? A report of NIDA drug facts chat day. Journal of Drug
Education, 45(3–4), 195–210. 10.1177/0047237915622084.
Nichols, D. E. (2020). Psilocybin: From ancient magic to modern medicine. The Journal of
Antibiotics, 73(10), 679–686. 10.1038/s41429- 020- 0311- 8.
O’Brien, K., Chatwin, C., Jenkins, C., & Measham, F. (2014). New psychoactive substances
and British drug policy: A view from the cyber-psychonauts. Drugs: Education, Preven-
tion and Policy, 22(3), 217–223. 10.3109/09687637.2014.989959.
Petersen, M. A., Petersen, I. L., Poulsen, C., & Nørgaard, L. S. (2021). #studydrugs–
Persuasive posting on Instagram. International Journal of Drug Policy, 95, Article
103100. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103100.
Petersen, M. A., Smith, A., & Hoeyer, K. (2022). Subjects in the making: Technologies of the
self and aspirations for a good life in contemporary Denmark. Medical Anthropology,
41(4), 431–445. 10.1080/01459740.2022.2054716.
Riley, S., Thompson, J., & Griffin, C. (2010). Turn on, tune in, but don’t drop out: The
impact of neo-liberalism on magic mushroom users’ (in)ability to imagine collectivist
social worlds. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(6), 445–451.
Reiff, C. M., Richman, E. E., Nemeroff, C. B., Carpenter, L. L., Widge, A. S., Rodriguez, C. I.,
Kalin, N. H., & McDonald, W. M.the Work Group on Biomarkers and Novel Treat-
ments, a Division of the American Psychiatric Association Council of Research. (2020).
Psychedelics and psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. The American Journal of Psychi-
atry, 177(5), 391–410. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010035.
Roulston, K., & Choi, M. (2018). Qualitative interviews. In The SAGE handbook of qualita-
tive data collection (pp. 233–249). SAGE Publications Ltd. 10.4135/9781526416070.
Sessa, B. (2012). The psychedelic renaissance: Reassessing the role of psychedelic drugs in 21st
century psychiatry and society. Muswell Hill Press.
Soussan, C., & Kjellgren, A. (2014). Harm reduction and knowledge exchange—A qual-
itative analysis of drug-related Internet discussion forums. Harm Reduction Journal,
11(1), 25. 10.1186/1477- 7517- 11- 25.
Søgaard Juul, T., Ebbesen Jensen, M., & Fink-Jensen, A. (2022). The use of classic
psychedelics among adults: A Danish online survey study. Nordic Journal of Psychi-
atry, 0(0), 1–12. 10.1080/08039488.2022.2125069.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2014a). Discourse and knowledge: A Sociocognitive approach. Cambridge:
CUP.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2014b). Discourse-cognition-society: Current state and prospects of the
socio-cognitive approach to discourse. In C. Hart, & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical
discourse studies (pp. 121–146). London: Bloomsbury.
Vannucci, A., Simpson, E. G., Gagnon, S., & Ohannessian, C. M. (2020). Social media use
and risky behaviors in adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 79(1),
258–274. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.014.
Walsh, C. (2011). Drugs, the Internet and change. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43(1),
55–63. 10.1080/02791072.2011.566501.
Wilkinson, D., & Thelwall, M. (2010). Researching personal information on the public
web. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 387–401. 10.1177/0894439310378979.
Wodak, R. (2011). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Discursive Pragmatics,
8, 50–70.
Yaden, D. B., Yaden, M. E., & Griffiths, R. R. (2021). Psychedelics in psychiatry-keeping
the renaissance from going off the rails. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(5), 469–470. 10.1001/
jamapsychiatry.2020.3672.