home

Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case

by TChris

Last year, TalkLeft highlighted a conflict between the administration's desire to appease religious groups and its refusal to cede ground in its unyielding war against drugs. Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect certain religious practices, including the ingestion of controlled substances, which would otherwise be illegal. The Supreme Court held that the Act can't trump state drug laws, but the administration argued that Congress also lacks the authority to enact a religious exception to federal laws that punish the possession of hoasca (which contains the hallucinogenic substance DMT).

The Court was asked to decide whether the Act protects members of the New Mexico branch of a Brazilian church who want to ingest hoasca "as part of a four-hour ritual intended to connect with God." In a unanimous decision (Alito did not participate), the Court sided with the church.

In their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices moved decisively to keep the government out of a church's religious practice. In the decision, Roberts wrote that federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church and that the Bush administration had failed to meet its burden under a federal religious freedom law to show that it should be allowed to ban "the sect's sincere religious practice."

The administration's position is consistent with the simple-minded view advanced by the student counselor on South Park: "Drugs are bad, mmm-kay?" That approach allows for no exceptions. The Court was looking for a more nuanced analysis.

Chief Justice Roberts was skeptical of the government's position in the case last fall, suggesting that the administration was demanding too much, a "zero tolerance approach."

Zero tolerance isn't good enough to satisfy the demands of the RFRA, according to the decision authored by the Chief Justice.

Before this Court, the Government's central submission is that it has a compelling interest in the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act, such that no exception to the ban on use of the hallucinogen can be made to accommodate the sect's sincere religious practice. We conclude that the Government has not carried the burden expressly placed on it by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and affirm the grant of the preliminary injunction.

The decision is here (pdf).

< Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case | Lawsuit Against EPA Proceeds >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#1)
    by Johnny on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:50:03 AM EST
    This is encouraging. Peyote time!

    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:48:37 AM EST
    I wish the same courtesy was offered to those who aren't a member of an organized religion.

    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#3)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    Damn, well, the terrorists just won. Collapse of civilization in 4... 3... 2...

    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    OMIGOD...what's next? The DNC and Sen. Biden must be soiling their pants. There goes the Commerce Clause, the New Deal, the 40 hour workweek and the minimum wage act!

    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#5)
    by aw on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    This is some weird theater.

    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:50:16 PM EST
    By this time next year that church will have "branches" in all fifty states. ALLELUIA !!!!!!

    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#7)
    by TomK on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:22:26 AM EST
    What about my definately spiritual, but not affiliated with any organized religion, ingestion of psilocybin mushrooms 4-6 times a year? If those aren't religious experiences, I don't know what is. The big irony here is that Jesus himself was a gnostic street preacher who used these sorts of substances himself, and who gave them to his disciples as his 'body' to induce mystical experiences which lead them to believe he was divine (and was also a gay black man). I think this is a great oppritunity to open up some dialogue on the potential of psychedelic substances. For example, DNA was discovered when one of the co-discoverers had an LSD induced vision of a double helix structure. The researcher had intentionally ingested a smallish dose of LSD to catalyze an insight into the problem he was working on. Another example is the success at using psilocyban to treat anxiety about death in terminal hospice patients. A very high percentage of test subjects reported drastic improvement in quality of life during their last bit of time on this planet after an experience, with reduced anxiety, depression, and greater levels of happiness and satisfaction and acceptence of their impending death. MDMA also shows promise in this way. Another example is the early success in treating alcoholism with LSD. Alcholics anonymous was founded after Carl Jung told an alcoholic that the only thing left for him to try to overcome his addiction was a genuine spiritual experience. This person went on to have one by attending tent revivals. Then, he later developed AA based on this experience. However, AA is not very effective at treating alcoholics. LSD, when used by an experienced psychologist, can induce a life changing spiritual experience that is more successful then AA at treating alcoholism, and faster and cheaper to boot. MDMA could treat obsessive complusive disorder, and also post tramautic stress disorder. These substances also have the possibility to greatly enhance creativity. Ohh, all rock music. There were some prison experiments with psilocyban where prisoners given psilocyban were less likely to reoffend and more likely to break free of the cops and robbers game then prisoners who did not receive this. I'm not saying that psychedelics should be used by everyone every single day. They aren't for everyone. But they can catalyze change and insight into the world and the users sense of self, including technological change (DNA, computer technology, for example) personal psychological growth, spiritual growth, treatment of psychological problems, and creativity. This is a great development. Why doesn't everyone interested go look at some ayahuasca art, or read some trip reports on erowid.com and take the oppritunity to inform yourself about this issue? These people are not crackheads and meth addicts. They are very together. The larger population of responsible psychedelic users makes up the cutting edge of the cultural creative class. This is a group of people whose development we should be encouraging, not stalling. And lets legalize pot while we are at it. Marijuana laws are racist in their intent and enforcement and the world would be a much better place if more people would use marijuana as a substitute for alcohol.

    Re: Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:33:23 AM EST
    What about my definately spiritual, but not affiliated with any organized religion, ingestion of psilocybin mushrooms 4-6 times a year? If those aren't religious experiences, I don't know what is.
    I'm guessing last night was one of those times of the year, right?