US Supremes may examine legality of ceremonial tea

[lawrocket 3]

The Feds (aka Bush Administration) is challenging the New Mexico group -- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal -- and its practice of drinking hoasca, a sacred herbal tea that members believe connects them to God. It turns out that hoasca tea contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act.

The Court will decide on Friday whether it will review a Tenth Circuit decision that prohibited federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances act and an international treaty, the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

For a little history, back in 1990, the Supreme Court decided in Employment Division v. Smith that the First Amendment did not protect Native American use of peyote. In response, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states that the gubment must show a "compelling interest" in restricting religious practice, and that such rextriction must be done in the least restrictive way. The Tenth Circuit ruled in the case that the gubment could show no harm from the tea.

My thoughts? Even during Prohibition, the Catholic Church was allowed to use sacramental wine. Here, though this Christian Sect was started in 1961, I believe that the use of hoasca is a religious event.

There are strong parallels with this case and other cases of religious freedom and practice not being tolerated. In this sense, it is a Christian sect being attacked by the government.

Would this allow Rastafarians to smoke out freely? What about some Yanamamo Indians in the US wishing to chant the hekura through use of ebene powder?

This, my friends, could get interesting, especially considering that part of the RFRA was struck down by the Court in 1997.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,175]

The gubmint needs to get out of the business of telling adults what they may or may not do with their own bodies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

Do these people have too much time on their hands and not enough proper work to do?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The gubmint needs to get out of the business of telling adults what they may or may not do with their own bodies.

So you have no problem walking down the street and stepping over heroin addicts who have overdosed? Do you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves? If someone was standing on top of a tall building saying they were going to jump, should the police just say "hold on a second while we clear a spot, we don't want you getting blood on anybody?"

[justinb138 0]

Quote

The gubmint needs to get out of the business of telling adults what they may or may not do with their own bodies.

I think this would be the only time I've agreed with you.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

The gubmint needs to get out of the business of telling adults what they may or may not do with their own bodies.

So you have no problem walking down the street and stepping over heroin addicts who have overdosed? Do you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves? If someone was standing on top of a tall building saying they were going to jump, should the police just say "hold on a second while we clear a spot, we don't want you getting blood on anybody?"

I'd have a problem with stuff like, only because it affects other peoples lives.

If someone wants to sit in their own home and smoke something, I think the gov't shouldn't be involved.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Do you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves?

none whatsoever... so long as the actual direct harm they cause is only to themselves...

off a building in a crowded city he should he stopped because of the larger afffect to everyone nearby.... off a remote bridge, cliff etc away from the general public where his act only really affects himself and feeds the local wildlife.... huck it...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

If someone wants to sit in their own home and smoke something, I think the gov't shouldn't be involved.

Does that include crack?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

If someone wants to sit in their own home and smoke something, I think the gov't shouldn't be involved.

Does that include crack?

I don't care what they smoke, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, let 'em do it.

[Casurf1978 0]

You cant compare herion addicts to the use of this tea for a religious ceremony. Like Lawrockets posted stated the 10th circuit court ruled that no direct harm is being caused from the tea. In this instance the current admin should STFU and F-off. Hell alcohol is a bigger problem among the Native American population than this tea.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If someone wants to sit in their own home and smoke something, I think the gov't shouldn't be involved.

Does that include crack?

I don't care what they smoke, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, let 'em do it.

Personally, I agree but therein lies the problem. There aren't too many crack heads who just toke up after work and do no further harm. Crack ain't weed.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If someone wants to sit in their own home and smoke something, I think the gov't shouldn't be involved.

Does that include crack?

I don't care what they smoke, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, let 'em do it.

Personally, I agree but therein lies the problem. There aren't too many crack heads who just toke up after work and do no further harm. Crack ain't weed.

Yep.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves?

you mean like gun control for instance?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves?

you mean like lawnmower control for instance?

Fixed it for ya.

[rehmwa 2]

Stupid gas guzzling homocidal lawnmowers

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,131]

>So you have no problem walking down the street and stepping over
>heroin addicts who have overdosed?

No more so than I have a problem stepping over drunks. Both might well end up in jail for public intoxication - but that's a safety issue, not a personal protection issue.

>If someone was standing on top of a tall building saying they were going
> to jump, should the police just say "hold on a second while we clear a
> spot, we don't want you getting blood on anybody?"

Are you kidding? If he stood on the top of the US capitol (or even a nearby building) he'd be shot before his feet left the building.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves?

none whatsoever... so long as the actual direct harm they cause is only to themselves...

off a building in a crowded city he should he stopped because of the larger afffect to everyone nearby.... off a remote bridge, cliff etc away from the general public where his act only really affects himself and feeds the local wildlife.... huck it...

So you would support the govt. if it immediately shut off all funding for AIDs research, alchohol addiction treatment etc.? After all, the primary way someone gets AIDs is by unprotected sex and since the govt. shouldn't regulate what you do to yourself, by the same logic, they shouldn't intervene in the results of your activities either. Same thinking would apply to alchohol addiction.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In this instance the current admin should STFU and F-off.

It should be noted that every administration does this. Remember, the administration in 1997 faced this exact thing.

The President and the Solicitor General HAVE to take the government's side on this regardless of their personal feelings on the issue. You think Clinton wanted to go after those folks in 1997? Probably not, but he and his admin did their jobs.

I have no problem with that...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>So you have no problem walking down the street and stepping over
>heroin addicts who have overdosed?

Quote

No more so than I have a problem stepping over drunks. Both might well end up in jail for public intoxication - but that's a safety issue, not a personal protection issue.

Thats all fine and good until people start screaming for the govt. to create more programs to help addicts get off the street much in the same way people call for more homeless shelters.


>If someone was standing on top of a tall building saying they were going
> to jump, should the police just say "hold on a second while we clear a
> spot, we don't want you getting blood on anybody?"

Quote

Are you kidding? If he stood on the top of the US capitol (or even a nearby building) he'd be shot before his feet left the building.

I think possibly, you might have missed the point.

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So you have no problem walking down the street and stepping over heroin addicts who have overdosed? Do you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves? If someone was standing on top of a tall building saying they were going to jump, should the police just say "hold on a second while we clear a spot, we don't want you getting blood on anybody?"

When did you join the Democratic Party?

[billvon 3,131]

>Thats all fine and good until people start screaming for the govt. to
>create more programs to help addicts get off the street much in the
>same way people call for more homeless shelters.

"Treatment for addicts" - a good use of government money if the treatment is effective.
"Getting addicts off the streets" - a good use of police. Money comes from the same place, of course.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

So you have no problem walking down the street and stepping over heroin addicts who have overdosed?

No more than I do stepping over a dead four-legged animal which presents a similar health threat. No more than I do going arround an unconcious drunk who's an unavoidable side effect from combining personal freedom with human psychology and biology. Laws against public drunkeness do a fine job adressing that when it causes safety problems. It would bother me a bit less than my neighbor's dog pooping on my lawn because fatal over-doses are a once-in-a-lifetime thing while my neighbor's golden retriever will be back some other day.

I don't want to be run down by some one under the influence whether alcohol or other drugs. Driving under the influence of either is and should be illegal. Simply being under the influence is a different issue which is only legal for some drugs but should be for all others for moral and practical reasons. Outlawing drugs causes more problems for non-users than legalization does. With legal crystal meth a clandestine labs won't contaminate my rental property or poison people in national forests. Without the huge profits created by the current legal climate I won't get caught in the cross-fire between criminal organizations. Without the high costs drug addicts could satisfy their habit without turning to theft. With legal drugs the police will be less likely to kick down my door serving a warrant granted on a bad tip.

Quote

Do you believe the govt. has any responsibility to protect someone from causing injury to themselves?

Nope.

Quote

If someone was standing on top of a tall building saying they were going to jump, should the police just say "hold on a second while we clear a spot, we don't want you getting blood on anybody?"

Yes. The government has no business deciding which reasons are acceptable for suicide. Many of us would support people wishing to end a painful terminal illness early. Some would include chronic depression in that category. Suicide is a personal decision the government should stay out of.