# Supreme Court Defends Hallucinogenic Sacrament **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508 "2005-11-04T17:47:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508/21 "2005-11-04T20:26:41Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > 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. That’s sorta the problem with anti-drug legistlation. If there was a religious sacrament that involved killing people, then we wouldn’t be having a debate about whether or not it should be illegal. Regardless of whether or not making murder illegal interferes with practice of religion, it’s still a good idea. Our drug laws, on the other hand, suggest that drugs are harmful outside a church but OK inside. It’s hard to blame people then, for joining a church just to do drugs. As for it being a burden on the system, it would be a pretty small added burden compared to the large weight of the “War on Drugs” as a total. Keeping people from using drugs in general is increadably expensive and difficult for the legal system. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508/22 "2005-11-04T21:05:31Z")
I maintain that regulation of drugs should be geared toward managing inebriated idiots rather than making it into this epic religious crusade. I can get Ayahuasca fairly easily as it is, but it just shouldn’t be illegal. The cops are never going to arrest me for Ayahuasca cuz they wouldn’t know what to look for, it looks kind of like a thick dark coffee. We go out into the woods and do it where no one is observing as it is, or in our homes. It’s really silly that it’s banned at all. Making unenforceable laws has a negative impact on the rule of law as a whole. So they wouldn’t be keeping ayahuasca out of the culture, only ensuring that a responsible religious hierarchy won’t perfect a safety net culture that works with society, because it has to be underground. Erek ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508/23 "2005-11-04T21:20:29Z")
**mswas** , check your (listed) email. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508/24 "2005-11-04T21:50:41Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > So we make it universally illegal rather than universally legal? Yeah that makes sense, oppress everybody, rather than play favorites. Either approach is constitutionally sound, and that’s the only question the courts should be answering. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508/25 "2005-11-04T22:05:20Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > That’s sorta the problem with anti-drug legistlation. If there was a religious sacrament that involved killing people, then we wouldn’t be having a debate about whether or not it should be illegal. Regardless of whether or not making murder illegal interferes with practice of religion, it’s still a good idea. Our drug laws, on the other hand, suggest that drugs are harmful outside a church but OK inside. It’s hard to blame people then, for joining a church just to do drugs. > > As for it being a burden on the system, it would be a pretty small added burden compared to the large weight of the “War on Drugs” as a total. Keeping people from using drugs in general is increadably expensive and difficult for the legal system. I don’t really disagree with you. I’m just saying that if the government is going to maintain a prohibition on drugs, they more or less have to keep the religious-exemption loophole closed – or if not closed, at least pretty tight. Otherwise you open the floodgates. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508/26 "2005-11-04T23:15:50Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > **mswas** , check your (listed) email. Send it back to me, that old e-mail was out of date, i updated it. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508/27 "2005-11-04T23:16:52Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I don’t really disagree with you. I’m just saying that if the government is going to maintain a prohibition on drugs, they more or less have to keep the religious-exemption loophole closed – or if not closed, at least pretty tight. Otherwise you open the floodgates. Let there be flooding. Erek [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-defends-hallucinogenic-sacrament/329508.md?page=1)