Supreme Court Defends Hallucinogenic Sacrament

Great Debates
1

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/11/herbal_tea_case.html

In this article it talks about individual exceptions for religious practice and how the justices argue that it might cause a proliferation of Hoasca(Ayahuasca).

Now, I am of the opinion that the government shouldn’t control anything at all that is sacramental. I have taken hallucinogenics sacramentally for years and it irks me that the court even has an opinion on it at all. I am glad that this case seems to be, being won.

However, I know a lot of people not involved with O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, that use Ayahuasca as a healing agent, and I have seen it’s beneficial effects work far more than any other drug I have ever seen or heard of. It is a very difficult drug to abuse, as those who abuse it end up getting way more than they bargained for. It is not like LSD where it can be construed as a party drug. When it is taken one enters a semi-torpid state where they are immersed in an other worldly realm. It is renowned as a healing potion by the people who take it. If I were really sick, I would rather take it than go to a Doctor who would want to cut a hole in me.

However, I would also make LSD a legal sacrament, as it truly is not the business of the government. Which is why I continue to do so unimpeded as it is not difficult for me to aquire, and I can do so at any time, but it bothers me that in a so-called “free” country that I cannot do this.

They are arguing that it’s bad that this might end up being argued district by district, something I think is a good thing personally, better than the FDA just being able to arbitrarily schedule something, like they did with LSD so that Nixon could strike out at protesting hippies, giving it one of the harshest sentencing policies of any drug.

I believe that limiting any religious use of any sacramental is favoring a religious “type” over others. What about Hindus that smoke Hashish? What about Rastafarians who smoke marijuana? What if I want to take part in either of these rituals? I have smoked DMT, the active ingredient in Ayahuasca, a substance that is produced in the pineal gland that affects dreaming, and is released most potently at birth and at death, as a sacrament, and every time I have taken it, it has been more illuminating than a thousand days in church standing up and sitting down singing boring hymns. Why do I need an international church hierarchy to defend MY religious freedoms?

Erek

2

The issue was settled as a matter of pure constitutional law in 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith. The federal government has the power to completely ban “sacramental” drugs.

Since then, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which permitted religious use of these substances.

Now the government is being squeezed: they can, constitutionally, completely prohibit it… but they cannot, most likely, make their own determination on what constitutes a legitimate religion and religious use and what doesn’t.

3

I’ve always felt the law permitting the Native American Church to use peyote was unconstitutional. Why can’t other churches use peyote to worship their god?

4

Legal Affairs has a debate posted on this topic.

5

So you actually feel that the law forbidding OTHERS to use it is unconstitutuional?

In other words, you agree that as long as everyone is forbidden, the situation passes constitutional muster, right?

6

The constitutional problem, I assume, is that by letting the state decide which churches get to use illegal drugs and which don’t, we’re effectively making a gov’t list of “approved” churches, which breaks the establishment clause. Am I right? the blog wasn’t too clear.

7

Bricker: How about the change the stupid fucking law? They’re the government, so right now they seem to be pushing it in the right direction, and I am glad.

Erek

8

Wine and styrofoam wafers are legal. They are sacraments, one is even mind altering.

Erek

9

but…but… Drugs Are Bad! :wink:

10

Which stupid fucking law?

11

I suppose as a practical matter, anybody caught taking dope would claim to be using it sacramentally. And every two-bit defense attorney in America will have a dozen sects at his or her fingertips, and tell the client to pick one. They’d all of them sound dodgy, but more dodgy than “O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal”? (What does that mean, anyway – the Center for the Beneficent United Spirit of the Vegetable? Maybe you get in by tithing a radish.)

12

The law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) still means they have to prove to a court that they’re using it for religious purposes, though. If I start the “Holy Church of Gettin’ High” and our temple is my dorm room, I’m likely to meet with a pretty skeptical judge.

13

The one where they think apply across the board means “Make everything illegal except what the Christians and Jews are into.” (wine as a sacrament)

Erek

14

The 21st amendment!?

15

My point is that a defense attorney would say, “Look, claim to be a member of this religion. Here’s a pamphlet, read up on it.” Or more to the point, people would get baptized in the Beneficent Vegetable Union, or whatever it is, ahead of time – probably via the Internet. Just in case, you know. For every drug trial, you’d need to sort out the seriousness of these claims. It’d be a hell of a drag on the system.

16

No, i’d be happy with relegating drug issues to the state level and then fighting it there.

Erek

17

Exactly.

18

There is indeed some alchohol content in sacramental wine, but it’s pretty small in most churches. Just a nitpicking factual correction.

19

Yeah, but have you ever had Manischewitz?

20

So we make it universally illegal rather than universally legal? Yeah that makes sense, oppress everybody, rather than play favorites.