Campaign for Victorian Legalisation of Transcendent Compounds

[GregKasarik]

Hello all. As some of you might know, I have spent this year in lobbying for regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for religious purposes. I have deliberately been quiet about this, as I was wanting to engage in a conversation with the relevant people in a way which wouldn't spook the horses. Sadly, I have failed.

So, I'm now going to be more public in what I do and perhaps more outspoken than before with respect to ensuring that the religious freedoms of both myself and others are respected.

In Victoria, we have a wonderful thing known as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006), which grants full religious freedom to all (The ACT has a similar Act). Unfortunately, the Government in its wisdom refuses to acknowledge that this applies to the use of Transcendent Compounds, despite the fact that other jurisdictions such as the United States recognise the validity of these compounds in religious practice.

I have decided to put my correspondence online so that the arguments are accessible by all and so that others might also initiate contact with the Government so that this process might move forward. It, along with a bit of commentary can be found here:

http://kasarik.com/Government-Correspondence.php

Unfortunately, it seems that the Government will simply ignore any requests to move on this issue unless there is significant community backing. Given that we are a splinter thin minority, I don't see this sort of support arising without us doing something significant.

At the moment, I am seriously considering engaging in a hunger strike in Melbourne's Burke Street Mall during the Christmas season, so as to raise awareness of this issue during what is one of the peak Christian festivals. I know it is a drastic step, and it scares me that I am even considering it. But at the moment, I honestly don't know how else we can move this project forward.

Given that I don't think I have posted on these forums before, most won't be familiar with the term "Transcendent Compounds". These Entheogens which are non-toxic, non-addictive and psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting. I write more fully about the concept and my reasons for using it here: http://www.kasarik.com/Entheogens1.php

[Bretloth]

Awesome work bro!! Keep it up!! Maybe you could get onto the ega guys, they may be able to help you organise something. Come to the Peaceful Rally For Marijuana Law Reform sunday at flagstaff gardens Melbourne, might meet some folks there that can help you out too. I'd rethink the hunger strike personally, maybe organise a rally or the like? I'm sure everyone here would support such an event. Glad to see someone is taking this angle up. Kudos brother

[chnt]

i had a read of some parts of your site, i couldn't get through even all of single pages, you've certainly worked very hard on this issue and i commend you for it.

i found the divine principle to be very interesting, though i didnt read all of it, it is very long...

this is a very important issue and i hope that good things can come from all your hard work.

[Kee]

Great site, great info, great motive. It's educated rational approaches such as these that make me feel comfortable supporting a cause such as the one you're lobbying for. Your site actually makes me feel a little inspired

[GregKasarik]

Thanks all for the positive feedback!

@ chnt. I'm particularly proud of the Divine Principle. Its about as close as I get to killing "God". Much of the content is probably too long for a website, because the writings are simply the various chapters of my books that I put up when I'm finished writing them so that people can critique them.

@ Bretloth. I'll certainly be doing my best to get to the rally on Sunday, although I live in the bush on the outskirts of Melbourne, so transport may be an issue. I've been involved with EGA for a number of years now and will be giving a presentation based on my safe tripping guide. EGA, however don't seem to be as activist as I would like them to be. Hardly surprising though, given the current climate.

The hunger strike is a good way of getting my message across. I've fasted up to 11 days before (one day for each of the Principles), and don't think that I would suffer any real harm by taking that up to four weeks. All that would happen is that I would lose a bit of weight and be incredibly bored, unless people decided to talk to me.

But I do feel that doing something like this will shake things up a bit. If nothing else, it will demonstrate to others that the use of these compounds forms an integral part of a genuine and honest belief in the Divine. At the moment, most people think that it is all an excuse to take drugs and fail to appreciate the deeper spiritual significance involved.

@ Kee. Thanks. I have a background in both Philosophy and Psychology and sometimes fear that my writing is too highbrow and abstract to communicate my message effectively. It is uplifting for me that you found it to be inspiring.

[Bretloth]

Maybe a petition would be a good idea too bro, could gather plenty of signatures here and at ega etc, can set up online petitions with various activist sites, maybe even set up a facebook page to spread the word. Plenty are with you.

[Bretloth]

Try to make it to the rally on sunday bro, I'll introduce you to some cool activist peoples. Maybe we can work out something, get you some support! I'll be speaking 1st I think, about similar issues. Come up and see me after

Fuck it, if you can't get a lift let me know, i'll see if I can get someone to pick you up if you're keen, let me know? I'll be staying at king lake the night before so maybe able to myself depending on where you are.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Bretloth

[shruman]

Good on you for standing up for what you believe in, we each find our own way to fight this war.

Just wondering how important accurate information is to you?

eg you state transcendent compounds are non toxic yet you include MDMA which has a similiar level of compartive acute toxicity as alochol?, a compound you seem to demonize on your site.

You do not include THC because you claim it to be addictive, yet the controversy regarding such a claim is very similiar to the controversy surrounding the same claim for MDMA, why do you differentiate? & is it based on science?

Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? (re cannabis):

"Prolonged and intensive use can still mess you around quite a bit"

Personaly I feel you will go much farther if you stick to the science especialy when communicating with the government. Otherwise your distinctions come off as arbitrary & i feel would be easily ignored.

[Bretloth]

Especially considering this ~ ‘Sativex’ a newly approved cannibis based medicine, is now becoming widely available across Europe and the rest of the world. The latest stage of Sativex testing has involved over 1,500 patients across Europe. All feedback has been scrutinised by leading experts. The key findings confirm that cannabis is indeed highly effective as a medicine and is not addictive -unlike traditionally prescribed morphine derived painkillers and many other medicines.

The reason I am so excited about the gradual approval and introduction of Sativex is that it is allowing marijuana to get mainstream medical and government acceptance. Sativex approval will also overturn the claims that weed leads inevitably to mental health problems. There are no Government warnings on Sativex bottles telling you that Sativex is dangerous and will lead to psychosis.

Sativex is basically no different to the cannabis tinctures that they were making in the 1930’s by soaking weed in alcohol and filtering it. Each oral spray (or ‘dose’) delivers 2.7mg of THC and 2.5mg of CBD. ~ http://www.dutch-passion.nl/blog/2011/11/11/legal-cannabis-medicines-pass-tough-european-medical-tests-nothing-can-stop-them-now/ .

I feel your heart is in the right place and the freedom of spiritual use is a very important issue that needs our support, but it needs to back it with facts, hard science that can not be disputed. Like the Johns Hopkins study into the benefits magic mushrooms for example.

[shruman]

This is realy interesting & significant, hard to believe seemingly so many of us are just finding out about this now, specificaly the provisions for religous freedom in Vic & ACT.

Personaly I think the best way this could progress would be akin to what has happened elsewhere in the world. Well established Religions such as Santo Daime, UDV or the NAC being persecuted for their religious beliefs & taking it to court.

Maybe it is time for santo to step out of the shadows?

[SunChaser]

Personaly I think the best way this could progress would be akin to what has happened elsewhere in the world. Well established Religions such as Santo Daime, UDV or the NAC being persecuted for their religious beliefs & taking it to court.

 

I just don’t see how the religious use of peyote and ayahuasca by native people would have any significance to westerners tripping on LSD and popping MDMA and I’m for the cause.

Anyway, your site is a little to anti-islamic (for starters) for me to really believe your true purpose is a positive one.

I live in Warburton, theres a drug rehab center which is run by scientologists. Personally I think there using it as a way of brainwashing and then reruiting people. Just saying?

Peace

[Alice]

Just wondering how important accurate information is to you?

eg you state transcendent compounds are non toxic yet you include MDMA which has a similiar level of compartive acute toxicity as alochol?, a compound you seem to demonize on your site.

 

How so Shruman?

Ethanol causes more damage in general, and I realise that you are not exactly saying the same for MDMA. But by what measure does MDMA has a similiar level of compartive acute toxicity as alochol?

[shruman]

Active dose verse lethal dose is what I specify. Page 4-5:

http://web.cgu.edu/faculty/gabler/toxicity%20Addiction%20offprint.pdf

I actualy done it in my head & used a figure of 1.5g as a lethal dose & an average dose as 150mg of MDMA verse a lethal 10 time dose of alcohol, but those charts show I was a little off with a lethal dose of MDMA set at 2g & average dose of 125mg & the lethal dose of alcohol set at 10x. But still I contend similiar enough with alcohol being 1.5 x more acutely toxic than MDMA in that study. I do realise the subjectivity of "toxic" or for that matter "non toxic" though.

I do agree Alcohol causes more damage in general but I think this only highlights the arbitrary nature of simply cataloguing something as toxic, toxic culture surrounding alcohol I think contributes to the far greater damage done by it than just a sheer measure of toxicity.

Yes sorry Jabez, I could have been a little clearer by progression I meant of our drug laws & personal freedoms not specificaly Gregs intentions.

I do'nt understand your distinction of westerners though, laws protecting peoples religous freedom to use otherwise illicit substances have been used to protect westerners in western courts.

Personaly I still think legalisation & regulation of all drugs should be the goal.

[GregKasarik]

@ Shruman.

Accurate information is very important to me.

I'd suggest that your information with respect to MDMA is wrong. The LD50 of alcohol is only 10, which means that ten times the active dose is enough to kill fifty percent of the people consuming it. With MDMA, the LD50 is over fifty.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/79027-MDMA-Essential-Guide-v1.00

With respect to its potential for dependence, I am under the impression that it isn't that great. However, I am willing to entertain that it is worse than I have been led to believe.

Mind you, it is hard to get good information about MDMA. I should probably touch base with Rick Doblin to verify this.

In any case, I have not been lobbying for MDMA in my campaign, as I am not certain about its use as an Entheogen. It does't help that it has no effect on me, so I can't actually experiment with how it might be used within a mystical framework. But you raise good points, so to be on the safe side, and to prevent needless controversy, I've removed MDMA from that section.

With respect to THC, I'd suggest talking to someone who works within the AOD sector. While people dispute whether it is "addictive" in the physical sense, (like an opioid), I have yet to meet anyone who works in the sector who would say that it doesn't cause dependency. The reality is that it does and many people each year attend treatment programs designed to help them reduce their dependence on the drug. I've also got a reasonable number of journal articles (not to hand unfortunately) that provide evidence that it can be problematic. In addition, the DSM-IV-TR has a specific entry for cannabis related disorders, including dependency. (While it has a similar entry for hallucinogens, there are a number, such as PCP and Ketamine for which this applies).

There is no doubt that cannabis is way safer than alcohol. Apart from anything it won't kill you. There is also little doubt that cannabis dependency is much easier to treat than just about any other compound. But the evidence is robust enough to indicate that a small, but significant proportion of people who use it can experience difficulties and as you say, we can't afford to ignore the science.

While it is not my reference source of choice, the Wikipedia entry on cannabis discusses its potential for dependence.

One problem is that "addiction" is a slippery concept. It isn't actually mentioned in the DSM-IV, where the word "dependency" was used instead and I don't know which way they are going to jump in the DSM-V, which isn't due for release until 2013.

I use the word "addiction", because I am aiming to create a specific impact and targeting a lay audience, for whom "dependency" might not really mean much.

Part of this project is to be as conservative as possible, so that there can be no debate regarding the substances that I've identified as being "Transcendent Compounds". Hence my willingness to remove MDMA from the list.

I fully support the legalisation of marijuana, and was actually invited up to speak at the "Mind Candy" panels at the this year's Mardi Grass, but my immediate goals require that I am very definite and focused on the outcomes that I am hoping to achieve.

In any case, I believe that marijuana is on a very definite roll and doesn't need my help for legalisation. Having said this, if I am successful, it will create a more accepting environment for the legalisation of cannabis (and visa versa).

Greg.

[GregKasarik]

I have been asked on a number of occasions why I don't simply join UDV, or another religion that has been successful in being able to use Transcendent Compounds in other jurisdictions. This always surprises me, as it indicates that people's use of the compound is the important thing, rather than the underlying belief and philosophy that surrounds that use. I could never profess adherence to a religious tradition that I didn't believe in, which is probably why I have worked so hard to develop my own.

One problem with each of these traditions is that they focus on a specific traditional compound, be it mescaline, DMT, or Psilocybin, whereas Community of Infinite Colour recognises that they all (including LSD) have their place within the repertoire of the mystic.

But claiming adherence to an official religious belief isn't really required. The Victorian Law specifically allows "the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private." Because of this, an individual has the right to practice their belief, just as much as a community.

Given this, it makes just as much sense to join Community of Infinite Colour, where the Principles teach that each person must find their own understanding of the Divine and belief in a particular realisation of the Divine is not even encouraged. That way you can believe what makes sense to you and not have to worry about mouthing platitudes to strange, meaningless dogmas.

I would caution against jumping on a particular religious bandwagon and riding it to the courts. For example, claiming to be a Rastafarian won't help you in court unless you can satisfy the court that the belief isn't simply something that you have claimed on account of wanting to smoke weed. You'd need to demonstrate that you were a genuine Rastafarian, which considering its origins, beliefs and practices is going to be fairly difficult to do. It is altogether far too much hard work.

In my case, I have spent a lifetime working towards an understanding of the Divine and I have a previous history (such as the Near Death Experiment: www.ndexp.com) that predates my use of these compounds that can back this up. I have developed a systematic religious philosophy in which the use of Transcendent Compounds is justified on the grounds that they allow one to understand the Principles from an experiential, rather than simply theoretical perspective (http://kasarik.com/TCs-and-Community.php). All told, it will be very easy for me to convince a court that my religious beliefs are genuine and strongly held.

But the fact is that I would rather not go to court. Not only is it prohibitively expensive, but doing so merely risks having the Government change the law, so that our religious freedoms are no longer protected. Unlike the US, there are NO constitutional protections for religious freedom in Australia (although Tasmania's constitution contains something that might do), so a pissed off Government can simply pass a law to revoke the very protections that we thought we had won. This is why I want to force the Government to come to the table and to change the law on their own account.

It will be harder that way, but the gains will be more durable.

[GregKasarik]

@ Bretloth

Savitex certainly is an exciting development, which should do wonders for the cause of cannabis legalisation. My fear is that it will take things in exactly the opposite direction, as companies realise they can charge billions for something that costs a couple of pennies. Their profits may be the next hurdle that campaigners need to overcome.

Even more remarkable is the simple fact that California is conducting the largest "phase IV" clinical trials of cannabis in recorded history. Hundreds of thousands of people have been using the compound under medical prescriptions for more than a decade and there have been no major adverse medical outcomes reported. The wheels certainly haven't fallen off and the mental health system certainly hasn't been swamped by psychotic stoners.

Surprisingly, I haven't seen any journal articles address this issue, which is a surprise. I'm sure there is a PhD thesis for someone in that.

With any luck the 2012 ballot will get the tick and once that happens, the way will be open for the rest of the US and then the world to follow.

[shruman]

"@ Shruman.

Accurate information is very important to me.

I'd suggest that your information with respect to MDMA is wrong. The LD50 of alcohol is only 10, which means that ten times the active dose is enough to kill fifty percent of the people consuming it. With MDMA, the LD50 is over fifty."

You may suggest it but I back it up with a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction_%28journal%29), while your source is an uncited speil at bluelight claiming to have an LD50 in humans , which even includes the asertion that 93-112mg/MDMA pill is a good pill (maybe these days thats what qualifies as a good pill)

You may want to look at what passes academicaly as acurate information. I feel you could only benefit.

[GregKasarik]

I just don’t see how the religious use of peyote and ayahuasca by native people would have any significance to westerners tripping on LSD and popping MDMA and I’m for the cause.

Anyway, your site is a little to anti-islamic (for starters) for me to really believe your true purpose is a positive one.

I live in Warburton, theres a drug rehab center which is run by scientologists. Personally I think there using it as a way of brainwashing and then reruiting people. Just saying?

Peace

 

Strange post indeed. Lets unpack the issues.

1. The religious use of compounds by traditional societies is the foundation on which our use of those very same compounds is based. While we may not believe the same things as these societies, we still use them for the same purpose, namely exploration of the Divine. As such, the use in these societies is highly relevant as it provides a wealth of anthropological, historical and archaeological evidence to support the claim that these compounds are an integral part of the religious practice of people who use them. That other compounds have similar properties should come as no surprise and as such the traditional use remains relevant even when discussing them.

2. How on earth you would think me anti-Islamic is beyond me. Apart from an analysis of Sura 4:34 (http://kasarik.com/Sura-4%3A34-and-Domestic-Violence-in-Islam.php), I make only occasional mention of Islam or the Quran in my writings. If you think worse of me because I object to institutionalised domestic violence and the ongoing oppression of women within religious communities, then I think very much worse of you (for starters). I have worked for quite a number of years in the community service sector and am far too familiar with DV to treat it lightly. Ironically, because I'm third on the list for a Google search of "Sura 4:34, this is actually one of the most frequently accessed pages on my website and I have never once been accused of being anti-Islamic, even by the Muslims who have read what I have to say.

I have read both the Bible and the Quran and am quite familiar with their associated traditions. Not only does my target audience consist largely of people who are familiar with the monotheistic religions, but I grew up within one. I'd be rather silly if I didn't mention them. I'll freely admit to not being particularly impressed with either document, but if I were, then I wouldn't have bothered to find my own path. It makes sense that I am not going to go into raptures when I mention either, but this hardly makes me "anti-Islamic", or "anti-Christian".

3. Scientology? WTF? Are you seriously trying to say that I'm a Scientologist? Do you actually think before you post?

[Bretloth]

I'm sorry, I just read the government correspondance part. It seems you are starting a new age cult with drugs as the sacrements, which maybe fine for you, hey whatever. But I have no interest in that, no offense. Thankyou for the information though, got me all excited!

[GregKasarik]

Thanks for the reference. It should prove useful.

"@ Shruman.

Accurate information is very important to me.

I'd suggest that your information with respect to MDMA is wrong. The LD50 of alcohol is only 10, which means that ten times the active dose is enough to kill fifty percent of the people consuming it. With MDMA, the LD50 is over fifty."

You may suggest it but I back it up with a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction_%28journal%29), while your source is an uncited speil at bluelight claiming to have an LD50 in humans , which even includes the asertion that 93-112mg/MDMA pill is a good pill (maybe these days thats what qualifies as a good pill)

You may want to look at what passes academicaly as acurate information. I feel you could only benefit.

 

[GregKasarik]

I'm sorry, I just read the government correspondance part. It seems you are starting a new age cult with drugs as the sacrements, which maybe fine for you, hey whatever. But I have no interest in that, no offense. Thankyou for the information though, got me all excited!

 

Glad to get you excited, even if it was only for a brief while. I'm certainly not offended. We each have our own paths to tread and my journey cannot be yours.

I'm only starting a "cult" in the sociological, rather than popular sense of the word. Using the latter sense, it would hard to have a cult in which I tell people they can't ever believe exactly what I believe about the Divine and are idiots to even try! :-)

But yes, in the traditional meaning of the word (which basically has the same meaning as the modern usage of "religion"), I am seeking to found a Mystical (not New Age) cult based on Principles that will hopefully ensure that people can engage with the Divine on their own terms, rather than being bullied into acquiescence by an unforgiving religious hierarchy and an even more unforgiving deity.

Ultimately, I'm selling a product that few will want to buy. Uncertainty is never popular and far too many people simply want to be told what to believe and reassured that everything will be all OK in the end, while not being made to think too hard. Its sad, but if it were easy, it wouldn't need to be done.

If I get to the rally on Sunday, I'll be sure to look you up. For my part, I'll come fully equipped with a Golden Retriever, so should be easy to spot.

[chnt]

I'm sorry, I just read the government correspondance part. It seems you are starting a new age cult with drugs as the sacrements, which maybe fine for you, hey whatever. But I have no interest in that, no offense. Thankyou for the information though, got me all excited!

 

perhaps you're reading the word cult and attaching negative connotations, where there shouldn't be any.

there are cults like scientology and a whole bunch of others, these types of cults have "leaders" and these leaders are worshiped and the other members within the cults are basically blind followers.

i do not think this is what the OP is trying to create at all, it seems to me that he is seeking to create a religion or what ever you wanna call it, in which there are no strict rules to follow rather there are guidelines, and the whole point of it is to come up with your own meaning and form of spiritualism, rather then being told what to believe.

someone let me know if i have the wrong impression here, but i think that this sort of idea should be encouraged over many others, ie the most prominent religions (i have a strong bias against religion though, but can you really blame me)

Edited November 17, 2011 by chnt

[Bretloth]

I'm glad you are not offended bro, was not my intent, and I hope to see you at the rally I'd love to have a chat with you . I agree with alot of what you have to say on your site and that's all fine, saying think for yourself is great. But for me that just doesn't need to be an organised religeon, it's the organised part in general that irks me, they all start with great guidelines like even christianity, but they are far too tempting a power and control mechanism to ever stay that way I believe history has shown. Just my opinion, nothing personal and for the last few months I've been helping a friend leave a destructive cult, so I'm double wary. I don't see why the individuals right to religeous practice is any less significant than a groups. It's the principle of the matter I'm interested in. I would love to hear the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which specifically grants all Victorians freedom of religious practice. Section 7 of that Act requires that the Government does not unduly encroach on the rights of individuals to freely practice their religion, particularily the religeon part clearly defined. What constitutes a religeon in this country? Does it need to be officially recognised to count? Can anyone just say they worship the great and holy Bob who commands that peyote be eaten by all his followers? What are the standards? Has any precedent been set that applies? Surely someone has tried freedom of religeon when caught bringing caapi into the country or something?

Edited November 17, 2011 by Bretloth

[GregKasarik]

@ chnt. You are spot on. I know that I can never explain my mystical insights to another in anything but the broadest terms, so I see little point in trying to go down that path.

This tells me that the whole "dogma" thing is a pointless and futile exercise. Much better to create the conditions where tolerance of others' beliefs is mandated by the basic structure of the Religious Philosophy itself.

@ Breloth. You are wise to be wary of anyone claiming to have the keys to reality. Although I can safely say that the best that I could ever manage would be disorganised religion. It would never know where it had put its keys...

There aren't any legal definitions for religion, which is hardly surprising, given that not even comparative theologians, or sociologists can agree. Unlike the US, it hasn't really come up that often in legal cases, as section 116 of our constitution (which prevents the Commonwealth from making laws "for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion") is much more narrow than the American 1st Ammendment. The The closest that we've come is when the The High Court of Australia, in its 1983 decision, “Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-Roll Tax (Vic)”, determined that for a religion to be valid it needs two essential ingredients:

“First, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief”.

That's it. There is no indication about particular numbers required and they explicitly rejected any sort of "truth" test for such beliefs.

A big problem with going to court is that you have to be able to convince them that your claims to a particular religious belief are genuine. In the case of Entheogens this is not as easy as it sounds, as most people will automatically assume that you are merely making the claim so you can use drugs. The judges won't have tried them and they won't understand their spiritual importance, so for them it will be like claiming that beer, or heroin are religious compounds. "Holy Bob" is going to need a lot more than just an injunction to eat peyote, or otherwise it is going to get thrown out of court.

There have been no court cases under Section 14 of Victorian Charter, which is unsurprising as it only came into effect in 2008, however, the finding of the High Court would be considered a relevant part of the case law if the Victorian Supreme Court was to make its own attempt to define religion.

With respect to Australian drug laws it is important to realise that the States are the ones who actually determine what is legal, or illegal, while the Commonwealth can only enforce its drugs laws with respect to its customs powers and in Federal jurisdictions, such as military bases.

Article 116 does grant limited freedom from persecution of religious practice, and over the years there have been a couple of EGA presentations regarding Section 116 and how this supposedly gives us full freedom of religion. Unfortunately, this is not the case and I believe that the issue often arises because people get confused by situation in the USA and the broad freedoms that have been decided there.

Section 116 doesn't guarantee freedom of religion in the American sense, but rather prevents the Commonwealth (and only the Commonwealth) from passing laws "for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". The word "for" is very significant, especially as it is not found within the US first amendment on which it is based. This word totally changes the scope for constitutional freedoms of religion, and only means that the government is not allowed to pass a law specifically aimed at the free exercise of religion, but can pass freely pass laws for any other purpose, even if an "unintended" consequence is that they do in fact prohibit it.

Most obiviously, irrespective of the truth, governments can always claim that drugs legislation is always about "public safety", not issues of religious freedom. The Australian High Court has determined section 116 very narrowly and the cases of Krygger v Williams (1912)and Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth (1943) don't bode well for any attempt to obtain the right to use Transcendent Compounds (let any of the potentially toxic, or addictive Entheogens) under the bounds of religious practice. So anyone claiming religious use for a customs violation has very little hope of succeeding.

State governments are bound by their own constitutions and the issue of their legality of drugs is a state, rather than federal issue. The only state to have any religious protections in its constitution is Tasmania. In my discussions with the Ballieu government, the only legislation that is relevant is the Victiorian Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006), which is an unequivocal declaration of religious freedom (seriously, I couldn't have written it better myself), in this state and as such, very hard for the Government to get around.

The ACT has similar legislation (http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2004-5/current/pdf/2004-5.pdf) and I am looking to pursue similar action in that territory, but given my current location it is a little bit difficult. One major problem with pushing this issue within the ACT, prior to the issue being resolved in Victoria, is that the ACT isn't an independent Government, with its own constitution. Rather, it is only a provisional legislative body and any legislation that it passes can be overturned by the Federal Parliament, (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/acta1988482/s35.html) just as ocurred with respect to euthanasia.

This means that even if successful in the ACT (which is perhaps more likely, given its demographics and the make up of its assembly), the federal parliament could then come in and pass a law to overturn the decision of the ACT assembly. Now, if the Federal parliament did do this, they would have a very difficult time with section 116, as any law passed this way, could only be interpreted as being "for" the prohibition of religious practice, but it wouldn't be anything like a sure thing.

I hope this helps explain some of the legal complexities of religious freedom and the use of Transcendent Compounds in Australia. I should probably put all of this on my website somewhere!

[SunChaser]

1. The religious use of compounds by traditional societies is the foundation on which our use of those very same compounds is based. While we may not believe the same things as these societies, we still use them for the same purpose, namely exploration of the Divine. As such, the use in these societies is highly relevant as it provides a wealth of anthropological, historical and archaeological evidence to support the claim that these compounds are an integral part of the religious practice of people who use them. That other compounds have similar properties should come as no surprise and as such the traditional use remains relevant even when discussing them.

 

‘Your’ “use of those very same compounds” may well be based on the religious use of those compounds by traditional societies. But my use is not! I truly do only follow my own path. The word “our” in your first sentence, perfectly illustrates how the whole paragraph is simply a ideological preconcieved (and probably slightly egotistic) opinion. I still don’t see how it could be used as a way of proving these psychedelics have a true religious significance to western culture.

2. How on earth you would think me anti-Islamic is beyond me. Apart from an analysis of Sura 4:34 (http://kasarik.com/S...ce-in-Islam.php), I make only occasional mention of Islam or the Quran in my writings. If you think worse of me because I object to institutionalised domestic violence and the ongoing oppression of women within religious communities, then I think very much worse of you (for starters). I have worked for quite a number of years in the community service sector and am far too familiar with DV to treat it lightly. Ironically, because I'm third on the list for a Google search of "Sura 4:34, this is actually one of the most frequently accessed pages on my website and I have never once been accused of being anti-Islamic, even by the Muslims who have read what I have to say.

How would convincing people of the ‘accusation’ that the Islamic faith condones domestic violence against women be of any benefit to your apparent cause? I mean, theres plenty of worse injustices going on in the world because of ideological and religious beliefs.

I just feel there’s a less benign purpose for trying to demonize an individual religion which just happens to be unpopular within western society at the moment.

3. Scientology? WTF? Are you seriously trying to say that I'm a Scientologist? Do you actually think before you post?

Well I think I was more or less inquiring, rather than accussing. But I can be more specific if you want. Are you affiliated with any religious group/s? Or is this whole thing completely your own personal journey for meaning?

Honestly, to me your general intelligence seems to surpass your life philosohies, which makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway the question probably wasn’t as “silly” as it first seemed. I mean what would I know about the techniques these cults use to brainwash vulnerable people and lets face it, what the fuck else is there in EAST warburton except for a scientologist recruiting center? lol.

Either way, you do sound like an interesting bloke to say the least. But your whole belief system seems to contradict it’s self more than even the mainstream religions do. It just feels incrediblly backwards when it comes to developing a better understanding of the benefits psychedelics have on the human mind.

Peace