We Never Replaced the 2008 Safety Guidelines. We Built Onto Them.
The 2008 Johnson safety guidelines were never superseded. The field layered harm-reduction integration, better adverse-effect science, and regulator guidance on top of them. What actually changed, and what to screen for now.
Sep 3
/
Dr. Peter H. Addy
The short version: The 2008 Johnson guidelines for psychedelic safety were never replaced. What happened instead is that harm-reduction integration models, more precise adverse-effect data, FDA study-design guidance, and the first professional practice guidelines were layered on top. Current psychedelic safety screening uses that foundation and its additions. Screening now means a risk conversation, not a simple fit-or-unfit verdict. The real contraindications remain.
An Oregon facilitator asked me recently which screening checklist was the current one. She assumed there was a 2024 form that had quietly replaced the old version, and she wanted to be sure she was using it. That is a reasonable assumption. It is also wrong, and the reason matters. There is no form that replaced the old one. The foundational safety guidance is still the 2008 paper. Everything since has been built on top of it, not in place of it.
What Johnson 2008 established
The 2008 safety guidelines from Johnson, Richards, and Griffiths remain the central document. They set out the core of what responsible screening looks like: exclude or proceed cautiously with personal or family histories of psychosis and bipolar I, attend to cardiovascular risk given the physiological effects of these substances, prepare the participant thoroughly, structure the setting, and provide trained interpersonal support throughout. Most of what a careful clinician does today traces directly back to that paper.
What got built on top
- Harm-reduction integration. The psychedelic harm reduction and integration framework developed by Gorman, Nielson, and colleagues extended safety past the session itself into preparation and integration as ongoing clinical work. Screening stopped being a one-time gate and became part of a longer arc of care.
- Better adverse-effect science. We now have a more accurate sense of risk. The literature on adverse effects gives clinicians a more specific map of what is worth screening for. It is no longer just a vague sense that bad outcomes are rare.
- Regulatory study-design guidance. The FDA’s June 2023 draft guidance on clinical investigations with psychedelic drugs formalized expectations for safety monitoring, the role of psychotherapy, and trial design. It is written for investigators. It signals where regulations may be heading.
- Professional practice guidelines. In August 2023, the American Psychedelic Practitioners Association and BrainFutures published the first professional practice guidelines for psychedelic-assisted therapy. These twelve consensus guidelines aim to set minimum standards of care. This is the closest the field has to a formal practice standard built on the 2008 foundation.
From a fit/unfit verdict to a real risk conversation
The most important shift is not any single document. It is a change in what screening is for. The checkbox model treats screening as a binary. The client is either cleared or excluded. Once cleared, the safety question is closed.
A first-degree psychosis history is the classic example. A pure fit-or-unfit form either reflexively excludes or, worse, lets the disclosure pass because the rest of the checkboxes look fine. A real risk conversation does something else. It asks about the specifics. It weighs them with the client. It names what cannot be known. It decides, together, how much risk is acceptable and under what conditions. Screening becomes a shared clinical judgment, not a gate the client passes or fails.
A first-degree psychosis history is the classic example. A pure fit-or-unfit form either reflexively excludes or, worse, lets the disclosure pass because the rest of the checkboxes look fine. A real risk conversation does something else. It asks about the specifics. It weighs them with the client. It names what cannot be known. It decides, together, how much risk is acceptable and under what conditions. Screening becomes a shared clinical judgment, not a gate the client passes or fails.
A current screening frame
If you want a practical shape for it, there are four layers. Start with the Johnson 2008 core: psychosis and bipolar history, cardiovascular risk, medication interactions. Then add the harm-reduction arc. Preparation and integration are part of safety, not extras. Bring the adverse-effect literature to bear on the specific client in front of you, not the average participant. Practice it as a conversation. Document not just a verdict but the reasoning and the client’s own understanding of the risk. That is what current screening is. It is more demanding than any checklist because it asks for judgment.
Common questions
Have the psychedelic safety guidelines been updated since 2008?
Not replaced, but built upon. The 2008 Johnson guidelines remain the foundation. Since then, harm-reduction integration models, more detailed adverse-effect research, FDA draft guidance on clinical investigations, and the 2023 APPA and BrainFutures professional practice guidelines have been added. Current screening uses the 2008 core together with these later additions.
What are the main contraindications for psychedelic therapy?
The core cautions from the 2008 guidelines still stand. Personal or family history of psychosis or bipolar I disorder, significant cardiovascular disease, and certain medication interactions. These are reasons for careful evaluation and often exclusion. They are weighed as part of a risk conversation with the client, not applied as an automatic pass-or-fail gate.
Is a screening checklist enough?
No. A checklist can organize the questions. It cannot make the judgment. Current practice treats screening as a shared risk conversation. Gather specifics. Weigh them with the client. Name what cannot be known. Document the reasoning. A disclosure like a family psychosis history needs a discussion, not just a checked box, to be handled responsibly.
Screening is a facilitator clinical skill, not a form. The assessment and safety judgment are what matter. A checklist cannot encode that for you.
Peter H. Addy, PhD, LPC, LMHC, is a Portland-based licensed therapist and the founder of Psychedelic Affirming Education, an NBCC-approved continuing education provider for licensed mental health professionals and Oregon Psilocybin Services facilitators. His research background includes work at Yale School of Medicine on psychedelic substances.
This post is part of a series on psychedelic harm reduction and integration, where safety is treated as ongoing clinical work and screening as a continuing judgment, not a one-time form.
This post is part of a series on psychedelic harm reduction and integration, where safety is treated as ongoing clinical work and screening as a continuing judgment, not a one-time form.
Pages
Created with
