Choosing an experience that alters consciousness is part of the broader debate on personal freedom. The case of the ayahuasca retreats under investigation in Sagunto invites a political question: what rules do we need to protect that autonomy while addressing potential abuses, without casting suspicion on an entire practice?
Operation Chimera, made public on October 14, involves two facilitators represented by defense attorney Òscar Palet Santandreu. In an email sent to this editorial team on October 16, the lawyer maintained his clients’ innocence and emphasized: “they are not under arrest.”
This clarification describes their status as of that date. Reporting by El País on the operation, based on the police version of events, noted an arrest following a search on September 25 and another person under investigation for alleged crimes against public health, unauthorized medical practice, and fraud. These are distinct stages and allegations pending resolution, not a declaration of guilt.
Consciousness should not require cultural approval
People approach ayahuasca for spiritual, communal, or personal exploration reasons. Defending their freedom does not require sharing those motivations or attributing extraordinary powers to the experience. It requires recognizing the adult individual as someone capable of making decisions about their own life, provided they respect the rights of others.
The ideological and religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution offers a starting point for this debate. It does not constitute an automatic exemption from the law, nor does it allow anyone to impose an experience on others. It does, however, invite us to ensure that a minority belief, a ritual, or a way of exploring consciousness does not become an indicator of danger in and of itself.
This is why we advocate for a legal regulation of drugs that recognizes adult autonomy. It would be an incomplete policy if it only tolerated certain experiences when presented as treatments. The right to decide should not depend on someone promising to cure an illness. Personal use, ritual, and clinical research deserve distinct and understandable rules.
Listening to the defense without turning their thesis into a verdict
In his note from October 14, Palet stated that the case is under seal and that he has appealed the search and seizure. He argues that the public narrative jumps to conclusions and defends the lack of legal oversight regarding the ceremonial substances in question. This is the lawyer’s position, which deserves to be heard, but it does not replace an examination of the case file, to which this editorial team has not had access.
He also cites the dismissal of previous operations in Langreo, Berga, Olot, and Arenys de Mar. The document received lists these precedents without including the full texts of the resolutions. Their potential value to the debate does not allow us to anticipate the outcome of the current case. The presumption of innocence protects the accused from the start; it does not require that another proceeding have ended in a specific way.
What the documents say about ayahuasca
The paragraphs 284–287 of the 2010 INCB report distinguish between controlled active ingredients and certain plant-based preparations, including ayahuasca, which remain outside international control. This distinction reappears in paragraph 329 of the 2012 report. This provides documentary support for part of the defense’s argument.
It is important to keep the scope of that conclusion in perspective: it refers to international control. The reports do not prevent national measures, nor do they grant a license to provide services. DMT is listed in Schedule I of the 1971 Convention, so a responsible legal description must address the specific preparation and activity involved.
Judgment 316/2025 of the High Court of Justice of Madrid confirmed an acquittal in an ayahuasca case. The copy consulted, published by Francisco Azorín, the defense attorney in that proceeding, includes relevant arguments regarding oversight and evidence. It does not turn every retreat into an authorized activity, nor does it prove what happened in Sagunto. The value of that precedent lies in demanding rigorous analysis, not in promising impunity.
A freedom that includes the right to say no
A policy favorable to cognitive liberty must protect both the decision to participate and the decision to withdraw. Consent loses its value when there is group pressure, emotional dependency, misleading information, or an authority figure considered unquestionable. An intense experience does not make the facilitator the owner of another person’s subsequent decisions.
We propose rules that make consent verifiable, identify responsibilities, and offer accessible complaint channels. Respect for traditions and their communities of origin can coexist with limits against coercion and abuse. Neither tradition nor a purported therapeutic condition should serve to evade those responsibilities.
These proposals are criteria for future regulation, not statements about the proven conduct of the individuals under investigation in Sagunto. Precisely because we defend freedom, a specific accusation requires specific evidence.
Information about risks is also emancipatory
Autonomy requires information that is not propaganda, neither for nor against a substance. The Global Ayahuasca Survey, published in PLOS Global Public Health in 2022, documented adverse physical and psychological effects among participants. Its retrospective and self-selected design limits what can be concluded about frequency and causality outside that sample.
The safety information from ICEERS also warns of risks due to pharmacological interactions and psychological vulnerability. The possibility of a meaningful experience does not eliminate these problems or prove efficacy in treating an illness. Responsible regulation should favor honest information, prevention, support, and medical referral when necessary.
From precarious tolerance to effective rights
The horizon we advocate for is a framework in which the freedom to explore consciousness is accompanied by enforceable guarantees. Participants should know their rights; organizers should know their obligations; and institutions should distinguish between the voluntary use of substances and violence, fraud, or coercion.
The Sagunto case cannot be resolved in these pages. It does, however, allow us to call for a less stigmatizing public conversation and a regulation that stops treating autonomy as an exceptional concession. Defending personal freedom implies demanding evidence before condemning and building conditions so that deciding is more than just assuming risks in solitude.
Analysis and opinion based on information verified as of October 19, 2026. The defense’s version comes from their note of October 14 and their email of the 16th. The Sagunto case files have not been consulted, and no outcome is anticipated.
Editorial illustration generated with AI for Psiconáutica. Conceptual image; does not correspond to Sagunto.
