Monday, December 13, 2004
A Merry Christmas After All: Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Hallucinogenic Tea for Church's Christmas Celebration
CNN.com reports: "The U.S. Supreme Court sided Friday with a New Mexico church that wants to use hallucinogenic tea as part of its Christmas services, despite government objections that the tea is illegal and potentially dangerous. The high court lifted a
temporary stay issued last week against using the hoasca tea while it
decides whether the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao
do Vegetal is permitted to make it a permanent part of its services. The
legal battle began after federal agents seized 30 gallons of the tea in
a 1999 raid on the Santa Fe home of the church's U.S. president,
Jeffrey Bronfman. Bronfman sued the government for the right to
use the tea and the church won a preliminary injunction, which was
upheld by 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The Bush
administration then took the case to the Supreme Court." More . . . [Mark Godsey]
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/supreme_court_a.html
Comments
Is it any different from the Catholic Church giving alcohol to minors during mass? If alcohol laws bend to allow free exercise of religion, shouldn't narcotic laws bend as well? If this is a serious religion and not just an excuse to use drugs, I feel that they should be allowed to practice their religion in any way that they see fit.
Posted by: Shaggydave | Dec 14, 2004 10:21:07 AM
Shaggydave,
Can you define "serious religion" in a way we all can agree with? I sure can't. And I sure don't trust the government to do so.
I'm pretty strongly anti-drug. I've seen drugs kill family members. But this article shows one more reason why I think prohibiition is a really hard problem, perhaps an unsolvable one.
Posted by: UML Guy | Dec 14, 2004 10:29:15 AM
What I meant was if it is a religion at all, as opposed to a bunch a guys getting together in their buddy's basement to get high and using religion as a shield. If the use of a drug is central to a religion, then I think that freedom of religion is more important than anti-drug laws. However, making up a new "religion" just so you can get high is an insult to both religion and the rule of law. I hope that clarifies my opinion.
Posted by: Shaggydave | Dec 14, 2004 10:40:02 AM
The libertarian narcotic impasse:
You may do as you choose to your body
vs
Libertarian society (and many other forms of society) depend on the mental faculties of its citizens... which narcotics mess with (by definition).
There is no solution that satifies both sides. I hate problems like that.
Posted by: Deoxy | Dec 14, 2004 10:43:26 AM
UML Guy
I've seen how drugs can kill family members (son) too. Prohibition can't work, but a controlled environment akin to alcohol could. Until the profit motive is taken away from the pushers and pimps, we will always have both illegal prostitution and illegal drugs. They both need to be decriminalized.
Posted by: Abu Qa'Qa | Dec 14, 2004 12:27:30 PM
"If alcohol laws bend to allow free exercise of religion, shouldn't narcotic laws bend as well?"
I'm gonna ruffle some libertarian feathers, but this argument looses all logical basis if one accepts the premise that alchohol is not a controlled substance and narcotics (or in this case hallucinogenics) are due to the disparity in potential adverse effects from unregulated use. There is little cinical doubt that substances such as heroin and cocaine are much more likely to produce dependency (and much more quickly) than alchohol. Likewise, I challenge anyone to convincingly agrue that the long-term effects on brain function resulting from "occasional" LSD use is less severe than from moderate alchohol use. While I may not be a gung-ho drug warrior, it is tossed-off equivalences like this that cause many to look on the LP as a bunch of nuts.
Posted by: submandave | Dec 14, 2004 1:37:23 PM
My point was not to say we should legalize narcotics or to say that LSD and alcohol use are essentially the same, I am saying that freedom of religion is more important than drug control laws. It is not a question of what someone can do with their body as much as it is a question of whether the government will outlaw a certain religous practice. I don't like the thought of free expression of religion being conditional on any law Congress decides to enact.
Posted by: Shaggydave | Dec 14, 2004 2:07:36 PM
Is freedom of religion absolute? Should we allow human sacrifice in the name of religion? How about sexual mutilation? Where's the line?
Posted by: Scaramonga | Dec 14, 2004 5:41:34 PM
As long as they are not trying to put a Nativity scene in a local parade then of course it is going to be ok . . .
Posted by: David | Dec 14, 2004 4:42:06 AM