The research is increasingly clear and consistent: Psilocybin induces life changing mystical experiences, often rated by people as one of the most important and profound in their lives. The drug is neither addictive nor toxic, and the worst side-effects seem to be occasional anxiety and fear, which if a person is in a safe stable environment do not seem to lead to any particular harm.
It’s already quite a stretch at this point for the government to claim to have a rational basis for banning this drug. But increasingly, proponents of decriminalization are pushing another angle: that it’s ability to induce profound mystical/spiritual experiences means that it is a sort of “religious aid”: a pill that allows one to better commune with their spiritual beliefs, a shortcut to God. As such, momentum seems to be building to widen the cracks opened by some already decided free exercise clause rulings, allowing various religions to continue using certain restricted substances.
Do you think this movement will be able to succeed? Is their constitutional argument compelling (i.e. if they can establish that psilocybin is inherently a relatively safe enhancer of ANY religious or spiritual practice, that it’s use should be protected under the 1st amendment)?
The constitutional argument is disposed of by Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), a Supreme COurt case that weighed the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause against the ability of the state of Oregon to forbid peyote use (native Americans fired for peyote use contended that they should be permitted to use peyote as part of their long-standing religious practice). The Supreme Court held that Oregon could ban peyote and that there was no “compelling interest” test required before they could.
Congress attempted to reverse the effects of that decision with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that tried to create a “compelling interest” rule. It held that a state law, neutral on its face to religion, that nonetheless placed a substantial burden on a person’s ability to practice his religion must contain a religious exemption unless the state could demonstrate a compelling reason for overriding religious freedom.
The Supreme Court struck down the RFRA in 1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores.
The constitutional argument is unfortunately shot down. However, there is a statutory argument for religious psilocybin use being allowable under federal law. GONZALES v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTEUNIAO DO VEGETAL (2006).
I don’t think the US should ban any psychedelic drugs.
With that said, it’s not like widespread use of them is going to make everyone better or more “spiritual.” I’ve run into plenty of ill-mannered, criminally-leaning idiots who do mushrooms, and they’re not exactly spiritual disciples. They just like being fucked up, and that’s all the experience is to them.
I tripped on that stuff once. I was still high school age, sitting on my bed at night, watching the purple things outside my window. I took off all my clothes and wrapped a towel around my waist. I took the shade off my lamp, inverted it, and put it on my head. In the mirror, I saw Pharaoh Ramses. My people needed me, and so I went outside.
I walked up and down the street, telling my people that I loved them as I raised and lowered my staff (the rod from our shower curtain). I gave them blessings and they sang to me (blew their horns). I blew them kisses and they blew them back (shot me middle fingers). But I didn’t get very far before my high priest (my neighbor) carried me in his arms (dragged me by my hair) to a beautiful foreign land (back to my house).
The only other thing I could recall later about my friend was that he stayed with me for a while. When the wind came over me, I could hear the voice of God booming from the clouds. I breathlessly summoned my friend to write down for me the words I was about to speak. And then I spoke them — God’s own message to mankind.
The next afternoon when I finally woke up, with a clammy sweat and general stink all over me, I struggled to recall some of the details of what now seemed like a dream. Suddenly, I remembered the message. I jumped out of bed, grabbing the scrap of paper on which my friend had transcribed God’s words.
That case addresses burdens of proof at various stages.
It arose after U. S. Customs inspectors seized a hoasca shipment bound for the Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal church. Members of that church practice communion by drinking hoasca, a tea brewed from Amazon rainforest plants that contains DMT, a hallucinogen which is forbidden by Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
The church members sued for a preliminary injunction. The government argued that it had a compelling interest even though it conceded that its regulation burdened a sincere expression of religious practice. The court found that the government’s evidence and the church’s evidence were equally balanced, and therefore the preliminary injunction should be granted. The government appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed.
That case doesn’t say that when the trial comes around, the church will prevail – it just says that for the purposes of stopping the practice without a trial, the government’s proof was insufficient.
That depends on whether or not you consider a “life changing mystical experience” a good or bad side effect. I’ve heard about this and similar religion inducing drugs for years, and have always been surprised that the religious community hasn’t gone for it in a big way. If it does catch on, I wouldn’t be surprised to see millions of parents giving it to their children to save them from the scourge of atheism.
I don’t think I’ve heard that before. I have, however, seen people complain that real LSD is hard to find nowadays, and that much of what is sold as LSD is actually a DOx chemical such as DOB, DOC, DOI, etc., which apparently have similar effects but a longer duration (sometimes lasting two or three days).
How would one disguise a piece of blotter paper as a mushroom, anyway?
Yes, on the grounds that Congress didn’t have the power to limit the ability of states (or agencies created by the states, such as municipalities) to legislate in this regard. The case used a separation of powers analysis.
But it should be noted that a significant number of states responded by passing their own laws to, in effect, overrule Flores.
Another response to Flores was the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Person Act (“RLUIPA”) , passed by Congress in 2000. RLUIPA also sought to impose the “compelling interest” standard, but differs from RFRA in two ways. It is limited to laws that impair land uses and the activities of prisoners, and it uses the Commerce Clause as an additional basis for Congress’ authority to act. Court challenges to RLUIPA’s constitutionality have had mixed results.
Hmm… My reference to “mixed results” implies some rough equivalence in the numbers of successful and unsuccessful challenges. That’s not accurate. To date, most such challenges have been unsuccessful.
See, for example, this very recent case from the Fourth Circuit:
I think we did have a thread on this once before. I think it should be legal, and te findings are interesting, but I don’t find this argument very compelling.
You’re talking about the same group of people (or there’s a big overlap) who think that a single puff of anything will drive you to heroin use and death.
I’m not sure I can speak in any meaningful way to the last part of your post. The first amendment angle has, to me, always seemed like a back door, loophole type approach. IMO there is very little hope of that dodge working out very well.
And while I do not agree with the criminalization of psilocybin, I’ve had similar discussions to this with advocates of the “pathway to spiritual awakening” tack and I can’t say I have ever been convinced. The research does very little to change my position. I do not see a single “spiritual” experience as a “shortcut” to G-d. ( I Don’t believe in any shortcut to spirituality.) I also think that, with more experience using the drug, people would soon find that their rating of the significance of their experience would drop significantly.
