home

Religion v. Drug Laws

by TChris

The Bush administration has taken a position that is hostile to the free exercise of religion in a case accepted for review today by the Supreme Court. The case asks whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- a federal statute enacted to protect religious practices that might otherwise transgress the law -- protects members of the New Mexico branch of a Brazilian church who want to ingest hoasca during religious ceremonies. Hoasca contains DMT, a mildly hallucinogenic substance regulated by federal law.

After the Supreme Court ruled that state drug laws trumped the free exercise of Native American religious practices that include the consumption of peyote, Congress enacted the RFRA. The law requires the government to show a compelling interest in criminalizing religious practices. The Court later struck down the Act as it applied to state laws. In the case now before the Court, the Tenth Circuit prohibited the federal government from enforcing its drug laws against individuals who use hoasca in religious ceremonies.

The case poses an interesting conflict for the Bush administration, which refuses to cede ground in its war against drugs even at the risk of alienating its religious supporters.

Religious groups say the Bush administration would trample spiritual freedom in its zeal to enforce federal drug laws. The Christian Legal Society, the National Association of Evangelicals and a top U.S. Presbyterian Church official opposed the government at the lower court level.

Update: More about the case here.

< Monday Open Thread | Supreme Court Tackles Consent to Search Issue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:49:32 AM EST
    That's funny, christians got exemptions for their sacrament, the evil demon wine, during prohibition. I guess the "lesser" religions don't get the same courtesy.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    “DMT, a mildly hallucinogenic substance regulated by federal law.” I guess that depends on what you consider mild. The effects aren’t much different than LSD or psilocybin, simply a shorter trip. “The law requires the government to show a compelling interest in criminalizing religious practices.” I thought that was the criteria the supremes considered in abridging 1st rights, am I wrong?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:06:37 AM EST
    You wing-nuts can fight it out over this one. It might be the last common ground between the evangelicals and the libertarian repubs.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    piggle, if you're so worried about these folks taking this stuff, why not hop on the alcohol prohibition bandwagon. booze is THE single most deadly and addictive drug in our society. ruins more lives that every other drug combined times ten, at least. be consistent or don't look for "logic" points when it's not backed up with consistent argument.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    C'mon pigwiggle. You want the government out of the tax and entitlement business but making sure that we aren't allowed access to "evil" hallucinogens? Perhaps I understand your position incorrectly?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#6)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    “if you're so worried about these folks taking this stuff” I’m not. Hell, I’ll fight for your right to eat rat poison if you want. I just thought it was an odd comment regarding DMT hallucinations as mild. That hasn’t been my experience. I find the compelling interest mandated by the RFRA odd in that I thought in order to abridge 1st rights the state needed to show at least a compelling interest. Seems redundant.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    Religion vs. Drug Laws, Mean's life in prison for all people, under god and much love for the young guys inside the wall, Oh Yes, God at work.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    et al - As long as my next door neighbor doesn't scarifice a goat in his front yard, he can smoke/chew/dip/ingest whatever he wants in church. Question is, who's going to be the designated non-worshipper for the drive home?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#9)
    by TomK on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    I don't think anyone who knows enough about hallucinogens to know between DMT and LSD is probably on the side of good. How is this religious persecution any different then the people who choose to use Psilocybin for non-organized spiritual purposes, or Rastas that smoke pot. I use psychedelics for spiritual growth. But because my system is not formalized and organized, I would not be given legal protection for this even if this case turns out good for the 'huasca church. To me, the big threat to freedom of religion is that the monotheistic organized religions will succed in making it so a personal system of spiritual beliefs does not qualify as a religion without an organization backing it up. So much of the psychedelic experience just is indistinguishable from other religious experience. If our country was serious about freedom of religion, it would allow people who want to use psychedelics for non-organized religious purposes to do so without legal threat. I don't mean that everyone who drops acid does so for religious purposes. I just mean that ethnogens have a long long history of being used in religion, and that history is pretty much ignored by everyone for no good reason. Look at, for example, the christian tradition of taking communion. So, here is the idea. You take your wafer, which is the body of God, and then you become one with God and he can forgive you your sins. That is what happens when you eat psilocybin in the proper setting. Soma, in ancient civilizations, was the flesh of the Gods. Again, you ate it and got some divine insights. This was amanita muscaria var muscaria. Psychedelics contain the origin of religious thought in man. There is a lot more to the issue of psychedelics and religion then whether a person who is a member of a certain church should be allowed to use them in a church sponsered ceremony. I'm not saying that psychedelics are the only way to have a religious awakening, but for us people who are sane and do not have problems with epilepsy, psychedelics are one way to find your own path and not follow someone else.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    Well, the "mild" effects of DMT are a matter of dosage and the route of administration. Taken in the diluted form of hoasca, at low dosages, (which is how the UDV does take DMT) the effects can fairly be described as mild. Taken as a pure, concentrated alkaloid, smoked or injected, aiiieeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#11)
    by TomK on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:56:04 AM EST
    Er...at the start of my comment, I meant to say what pig said, that pig was just pointing out that calling DMT a mild hallucinogen is like calling a rocket ship a slow method of transportation. I phrased it backwards.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#13)
    by TomK on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:13:18 AM EST
    sorry for messing up the urls...

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    Excellent post Tom, good points.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    Medical marijuana?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    Can you say "Ayahuasca"?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    Oh boy I think I'm begining to see the light Praise be to whoever has the best product. First I'm buying a copy of "Chemistry for dummies" then I'm going to Google "getting high on god"

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    Lol, Ed. Actually, LOL at PPJ for your designated non-worshipper... there may be hope for you yet ;)

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    "Hoasca contains DMT, a mildly hallucinogenic substance regulated by federal law." Mildly hallucinogenic, my ass! I took hoasca (ayahuasca) prepared by a shaman in the Peruvian Amazon in 1996, and it was one of the most incredible trips of my life. Don't undersell it! The church should win this case, of course. It's about the right to control one's own consciousness. What's more fundamental than that? How can anyone possibly argue that there is a constitutional right to rip apart a baby in your womb, but not a constitutional right to do as you please with your own mind? Asshats!

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    "The case poses an interesting conflict for the Bush administration, which refuses to cede ground in its war against drugs even at the risk of alienating its religious supporters." The attitude of most christians of the bush ilk is "Damn darkies are using drugs to pervert my closed minded version of white jesus christianity." This isn't what the talking heads say, but it's what actual conservatives say if you talk to them like a friend.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    Oh wow man

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:24:56 PM EST
    If our country was serious about freedom of religion, it would allow people who want to use psychedelics for non-organized religious purposes to do so without legal threat. I don't mean that everyone who drops acid does so for religious purposes.
    Isn't this really the crux? Wouldn't anyone who dropped acid say they did it for religious purposes? To make this not a simple legalization wouldn't you have to go through some process like Concientious Objectors went through under the draft: a government agency to see whether you were truly religious in your drug use. Just argue we all have the right to do whatever you want to your own body ("It doesn't hurt anyone else") and be done with it under the right of privacy (worked for abortion which does hurt somebody else - or a potential someone else at least). But then, has our experience with drugs (I'll include alcohol) been that it doesn't hurt anyone else?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    "As long as my next door neighbor doesn't scarifice a goat" What are you? Anti-Old Testament?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    Sorry, in the old testament they could sacrifice animals in one place - at the temple in Jerusalem; and will not again until its rebuilt.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:36:46 PM EST
    Just argue we all have the right to do whatever you want to your own body
    Works for me. I use an illegal drug to simply pursue happiness. No one else is affected. Why isn't this constitutionally protected?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    Hey, make it part of the Democratic Party platform - that should do it for the party. Frankly, I vacillate on legalizing drugs simply to take the black market out of it. For sure, we should apply all our military and police force to blocking them - or legalize, tax and regulate to kill the black market. As to the personal choice thing - looking at the effects on the culture I wish Prohibition of alcohol had stuck. Do I want one more (or more) drugs screwing up the culture? Marijuana is better than alcohol; but not harmless to the culture. Got me which way to go.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    Kdog says: That's funny, christians got exemptions for their sacrament, the evil demon wine, during prohibition. I guess the "lesser" religions don't get the same courtesy. And: I use an illegal drug to simply pursue happiness. No one else is affected. Why isn't this constitutionally protected? This brings up a question that has been bothering me. Why did prohibition require a Constitutional Amendment to be, well, Constitutional, while prohibition of drugs is not a Constitutional problem? Can anyone help me out in understanding this inconsistency?

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#28)
    by wishful on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    Sorry--me at 3:18.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:43:50 PM EST
    "As long as my next door neighbor doesn't scarifice a goat" See, however, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Your next door neighbor may well have a constitutional right to sacrifice a goat.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:45:59 PM EST
    "Posted by Jim: "Well, the "mild" effects of DMT are a matter of dosage and the route of administration." Sorry, Jim, that's SCIENCE. You should know better than that. It's MUCH more important that people talk about church use of sacred plants as if it was heroin addiction, than to note that there are no problems from this kind of use, and in fact this kind of community ritual reduces other problems, like alcoholism. The Native American Church has saved many, many thousands of natives from personal destruction, through the ritual consumption of Grandfather, after purification through sweat lodge, and in the company of others. This is socially-healthy spirituality, but even the Crossfire christianized form is lumped together with Prohibition, when it's really more akin to the effects of monastic fasting and long prayer, than not being able to get a drink for sore muscles after long hours of work.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#31)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    I had something to say about this... but now I forgot.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:07:04 PM EST
    KDOG, We have no rights, rea, bush did do a scarifice its called 9/11 and the goat.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#33)
    by TomK on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    "Isn't this really the crux? Wouldn't anyone who dropped acid say they did it for religious purposes? To make this not a simple legalization wouldn't you have to go through some process like Concientious Objectors went through under the draft: a government agency to see whether you were truly religious in your drug use." No, not at all. The problem with the draft board system would be that people who are religious but not part of a religious organization would not have access. What you do is say "Anyone can take an ethnogen, we can let go of trying to control it", and then have people who's job it is to create safe environments where people can use them in productive ways, including recreational, religious, spiritual, psychological, and psychonautical . So, you want to use psilocybin mushrooms? Alright, well, I set up a park where people can come, get lab grade psilocybin or organically grown mushrooms, and trip in a safe environment where there is no one they can hurt, and where help is available for people who start to have a bad trip. This help would be from people who have studied the psychedelic experience and know the sorts of ego problems that lead to bad trips. Why would you want to stop people from doing LSD if they were just doing it for fun? LSD is great. Psilocybin mushrooms are great. Psychedelics are the polar opposite of drugs like alcohol and herion. They enhance sensory perception rather then numb it. They are non-addictive. You trip once, you don't want to trip the next day. They cause inspiration, they cure addictions. They let us see the world from new ways. Look at, say, all of music in the last 60 years. I wouldn't claim all the creativity is from drug use, but acid is at the root of a lot of groundbreaking new musical forms. It's healthy to use psychedelics in a good setting with a good mindset. The way it works in the real world is that a person in a creative profession will often choose to trip once or twice a year, and then spend the rest of the time applying the insights from the trip to artistic or creative work.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    Well if they do get to do their DMT, who’s it going to hurt the most? sooner or later it will lead to other controversy…

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 04:06:06 PM EST
    I always thought it was funny that people younger than 21 could drink wine at church. Next time I get carded I'll just claim religious persecution.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    “The law requires the government to show a compelling interest in criminalizing religious practices.” I thought that was the criteria the supremes considered in abridging 1st rights, am I wrong?
    IANAL, but as I understand it, that was the standard until a few years back, when in a case, IIRC, involving ritual peyote use, the SC decided that it didn't matter. Congress passed the RFRA in order re-estblish that protection for religious practice.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#37)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    Edith, they've had their DMT for many times longer than the entire existence of the United States. They're not dead.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:20:05 PM EST
    tomk you seem to "know" what you're talkling about.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:38:08 PM EST
    TomK, thanks for contributing, all I had was anecdotal evidence for DMT, (and at the time I wish it had been antidotal;-) Delivery systems are crucial WRT dosages. ppj, why would you object to what someone does on their own property? I've had neighbors slaughter goats or sheep, (kinda hard to tell which once their draining;-), and I've dressed deer in front of my house, (the only tree big enuf for my big bucks;-) Now if you want to talk about bizarre religious practices, I know these folks, who, in public, drink blood and eat flesh. And the blood and flesh are from someone they worship. Eeeew!

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    Rocker, good point, I guess I shouldn't, just hope that they wash the blood and stuff down the storm drain so it doesn't smell too bad. Of course those goats scream and cry so, sounds almost human, the kids may find it distracting. As for dressing a deer. You mean you killed Bambi? You dirty dog! ;-)

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:11:12 PM EST
    I should have known the only time I'd ever see Lefties defending Religion was when hard drugs were involved.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#42)
    by aw on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    Isn't this really the crux? Wouldn't anyone who dropped acid say they did it for religious purposes? To make this not a simple legalization wouldn't you have to go through some process like Concientious Objectors went through under the draft: a government agency to see whether you were truly religious in your drug use. Perhaps the drugs came first. Perhaps they are the gateway to religion. Perhaps some prefer to block that gateway because they don't lead to where they want.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#43)
    by Johnny on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 10:55:06 PM EST
    Horse: No, we are defending everyones right to practice religion as they see fit, not as the gov't sees fit.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:30:39 AM EST
    Given that some of Mr. Bush's more virulently religious supporters are known to ritually handle venomous snakes and drink known poisons such as strychnine as part of their religious practices, I find it just another example of the degree of hypocrisy endemic in this country that peaceful imbibers of a psychoactive tea are the subjects of a de facto pogrom while those who risk death from their practicing an article of their faith are left alone.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:59:28 AM EST
    nemo - I have it on good authority that these folks are practicing going through the committee nomination hearings of the US Senate for Bush administration positions. I understand the snake handling is reserved for UN positions.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    Yeah, Jim, but first you have to chase analysts down the hallways throwing things at them, trying to get them fired if they oppose the LIES you are trying to foist, and withholding intel from the Secretary if it doesn't agree with a pre-conceived bias. Snake handling is reserved for Oval Office visits. Being cut and a fake Marine helps.

    Re: Religion v. Drug Laws (none / 0) (#12)
    by TomK on Tue May 31, 2005 at 08:15:13 AM EST
    Jim - You might know this, but the huasca teas have two active ingredients. Normally, DMT is not active orally, in order for it to become active orally, you have to take it with a MAOI, which is usually in the form of a vine added to the mix called Harmine if I remember correctly. Here is some information on the Santo Daime Church's rituals: [rest of links deleted, not in html format, they skewed the site.]