"Ooooga Bugga! Drugs!!!!":
A federal district court has just upheld another religious exemption claim for the use of hoasca, this one in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey. The case naturally relies heavily on the Supreme Court's Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) decision, but has some interesting factual discussion specific to this particular case, and the government's reasons for the challenge.
My UCLA School of Public Affairs colleague Mark Kleiman (Reality-Based Community) — a leading drug policy scholar — was an expert witness for the claimants in the O Centro case. His post on this case provides the quote that I use in the title of my post.
What part of 9-0 don't you understand?
Does DMT give you the munchies like THC?
On the other hand, I have never understood why a claim of religious belief entitles anyone to engage in conduct others are not entitled to engage it. That is not to say religious claims should be disregarded -- but if one person can drink sacramental wine during Prohibition, or wear religious headware in school, or the like, I see no reason to deny that right to another. Anyone can claim a religious belief at any time; and there is no way to prove or disprove the claim (at least not rationally, for reason has nothing to do with it); and an asserted belief in the supernatural should provide no special rights, other than the right to believe in the supernatural and, within reason, the right to practice the claimed religion.
In other words, hoasca for everyone!
because congress chose to exempt it frrom the laws the wrote.
because congress chose to exempt it from the laws it wrote.
The other side of the coin is why religious believers but not others should get exemptions from laws. The legal answer, of course, is that the First Amendment protects religious belief but not other kinds of belief. But, putting the law aside, the differing treatment is not right. During the Vietnam war, a person who blindly opposed all wars was entitled to conscientious objector status, but a person who thoughtfully opposed the Vietnam war was not.
Another way to look at it is: if religious belief is enough to allow an exemption, how essential can the law be?
Sure, but it puts the government in the awkward place of deciding which religions are legitimate. Take the decision in this case and change the name of the religion to 'Rastafarianism' and it doesn't look all that different. It seems obvious to say Catholics are sincere, and Pastafarians or the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn are yukking it up, but in between those there is a lot of gray area.
The problems associated with the first point are enormous; how to distinguish "legitimate" or "real" religions from others (particularly when nearly all religious arguments rely in part on the supernatural and consequently are naturally impervious to reason)? Every religion started with a few people sharing a system of belief most of their contemporaries would not share and most of the unconverted would find peculiar or worse. Today's handful of people with strange ideas -- likely to be ridiculed by fellow citizens or dismissed by a judge or at odds with current law -- are a past century's Mormons or Scientologists, an earlier century's Quakers or Shakers, or a past millennium's Muslims or Christians or Jews.
The problems associate with the first point are similarly severe? Who is a believer? What about a guy who never attends church but is on the membership roster and periodically sends a check? What if he regularly lands the church's construction work? What if someone plainly and daily flouts the religion's teachings but attends services? What about a woman who never attends, never contributes, but claims that she studies and prays privately? The prickly points in this thicket seem endless.
I have not thought or studied this problem through to reliable conclusion, but I find it hard to justify allowing one person to wear a yarmulke while denying another that privilege, or allowing one inmate a meatless Friday menu while refusing another person that privilege, or enabling one person to drink a particular tea while banning its use by others. I also do not believe it appropriate to distinguish heartfelt points of conscience on the basis of whether one claimant can point to elaborate robes or similar trappings. Perhaps this point will be illustrated more vividly when gays, marijuana advocates, antiwar groups and others recognize and claim the legal and tax benefits associated with an assertion that their beliefs constitute a religion.
Does anyone know how the "use" of "sacramental wine" during Prohibition -- which, I have been told by reliable sources, was a booming business for vintners and certain churches -- was handled from a legal perspective?
Does anybody know if Rastafarians are growing their own ganga since Guam v. Guerrero?
The IRS has granted the Church of Reality tax-exempt status. They recognize religious rights to, e.g., experimental drug treatments. Have we stooped so low as to delegating our recognition of religions to the tax collectors?
Of course that antique belief has since become superceded, but the quality of the person elected to Congress has not visibly improved.
Larry "Toetap" Craig, William "Coldcash" Jefferson, Chris "Copirate" Dodd, Nancy "Tuna" Pelosi, call your office.
For the person who asked about the munchies, ayahuasca actually causes you to vomit and have diarrhea so that is quite the opposite of cannabis. Smoked DMT is said to be one of the most intense psychedelic experiences, with complete open-eye hallucinations.
Terence McKenna or Alex Gray + Youtube
Be sure to listen to the Joe Rogan one in the sidebar to the right.
DMT is made in all of our bodies every day.
You are all carrying a schedule 1 controlled substance in your heads right now. How does it feel to be a criminal?
Dr Rick Strassman's book DMT: The Spirit Molecule is probably the best source for more info. Admittedly biased in favor of DMT- but still very informative.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.