Over twenty years ago, when the Brazilian government wanted to criminalize ayahuasca, the lawyer of the UDV, Mr. Felipe Belmonte Dos Santos, had rightly pointed out that the prohibition of something genuinely beneficial and good for people goes against natural law. From my observations, national authorities are likely to become both responsible for the violation of the right to religious freedom of Santo Daime and the co-creation of more police actions, more criminal cases and – quite paradoxically – less guarantees for the safeguarding of public health. Ayahuasca will likely continue to be consumed without the possibility to establish and control compliance with ethical standards. This was also one of the major worries of Christophe Héroufosse, the legal advisor of the Belgian Information and Advice Centre on Harmful Sectarian Organizations. Furthermore, Santo Daime will be sent underground, thereby operating in the same legal limbo as commercialized ayahuasca activities. This will result in the creation of “drug routes”, used both by diverse “legitimate” and “illegitimate” ayahuasca importers, which the authorities will likely prosecute as a homogeneous group. The fact that over the past decade legal cases around the globe have skyrocketed to 1100% compared to the decade before, is indicative to the assumption that a new kind of drug war will be created (ADF, 2017). Also, it is possible that the legal cases stemming forth from total prohibition will backlash on, or pressure, the legal certainties established for the traditional use of ayahuasca in Brazil and other Latin American countries. Surely, the complete prohibition of ayahuasca doesn’t allow for mitigation and control of a situation that clearly requires so. What is also clear is that the current paradigm only further marginalizes religious (daimists) and ethnic (Indigenous Peoples) minorities. The story is still unfolding, and it befits a genuine democratic, pluralist and inclusive society to search for ways establish the necessary and sought after dialogue in a frank spirit of compromise and understanding. The creation of a legal framework around Santo Daime is imperative. In considering the entirety of my study, I would like to already recommend that western authorities take an example from Brazil and: • Study the use of ayahuasca from multidisciplinary perspectives and in cooperation with the churches, allowing for such information to become part of the evidence in decisionmaking processes and to be assessed objectively and impartially. • Recognize that the traditional and religious use of ayahuasca does not constitute a danger to public health within the context of Santo Daime and, to that regard: - Incentivize and sponsor future academic and scientific research - If possible, drink ayahuasca at least once before making a decision about it. - Help the Santo Daime churches achieve a mutually beneficial agreement with regard to ethical and legal standards for safeguarding the health of individuals and the noncommercialization of their sacrament. - Understand that Santo Daime is not the only legitimate context in which ayahuasca is used, and be prepared to enter in dialogue to establish rules on how to accommodate, among others, spiritual leaders of Brazilian indigenous tribes who have been invited to share their traditional knowledge within legally registered entities. Particularly in the Netherlands, it deserves recommendation that the courts in the Netherlands: • (Re)affirm the religious freedom of Santo Daime • Oblige the Public Ministry to stop confiscating ayahuasca of the Santo Daime church and respond to the letters of cooperation that have been sent by CdSM and CdV to the authorities over the past 15 years, by establishing a mutually beneficial agreement. • Over time, allows for the complete legal registration of genuine Santo Daime churches who are currently operating in a legal limbo, perhaps in cooperation with the new foundation CLAREIA. • Order the return of confiscated ayahuasca from genuine, yet non-recognized, Santo Daime churches and Indigenous leaders, perhaps in cooperation with an organization such as the ADF. Particularly for Belgian authorities, it deserves recommendation that: • The HSO-police recognizes that it had no authority in sending a Santo Daime church out of the country without legal precedent, and that this constituted a grave human rights violation. • Recognition is given that Belgian judges have acted in a manifestly biased and religiously prosecutorial way by accepting flawed, outdated and wrongly positioned evidence in their decisions. • Dialogue remains open as to discuss future recognition of Santo Daime as a legitimate religious manifestation, acting always in accordance with the general principles of article 9 ECHR.