Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religious Use of Psychedelic Tea Is on Supreme Court's Front Burner
LA Times/AP ^ | 11/2/2005

Posted on 11/02/2005 4:50:59 AM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether to let a small congregation in New Mexico worship with hallucinogenic tea, the first religious freedom dispute under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor seemed skeptical of the Bush administration's claim that the tea can be banned, but she may not be around to vote in the case.

About 130 members of a Brazil-based church have been in a long-running dispute with federal agents who seized their tea in 1999. The hoasca tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: drugs; supremecourt; warondrugs; wod; wodlist

1 posted on 11/02/2005 4:50:59 AM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget; traviskicks
There is more information on this at Reason magazine:

The Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration say ayahuasca is illegal because it contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is banned by the Controlled Substances Act. Uniao do Vegetal members say their use of ayahuasca is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government from imposing a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion unless it is "the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest."

In 2002 a federal judge, concluding that Uniao do Vegetal was likely to win this argument, issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from interfering with the church's rites. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the injunction in 2003, and last year the full appeals court concurred.

...

Congress passed RFRA with the intent of restoring the "compelling interest" test the Court had applied before the peyote case. Although the Court ruled in 1997 that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states, it still binds the federal government.

You'll notice that when the federal government passed a law allowing drug use the Court managed to rediscover the Interstate Commerce Clause.
2 posted on 11/02/2005 5:29:43 AM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

I pinged traviskicks because I did not know that he was not the original "Keeper of the List". So here's yours.


3 posted on 11/02/2005 5:55:37 AM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson