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 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.
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.