U.S. Supreme Court OKs Hoasca!!!!

[wandjina]

Ruling Protects Sect's Use of Hallucinogenic Tea

By William Branigin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Page A06

The Supreme Court decided unanimously yesterday that the government cannot prohibit a small religious sect in New Mexico from using a hallucinogenic tea as part of its rites, ruling against the Bush administration in a case that pitted religious freedom against the nation's drug control laws.

The ruling upheld findings by lower courts that the government failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in barring the Brazil-based sect, O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal , known as UDV, from using hoasca, a sacramental tea that contains a banned hallucinogen.

The opinion in the case was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The court's newest justice, Samuel A. Alito Jr., did not participate in the decision, because he took his seat on the bench after the case was argued.

Roberts noted in his opinion that the government conceded that UDV's use of the sacramental tea was "a sincere exercise of religion." The government nevertheless had sought to prohibit it on grounds that the Controlled Substances Act bars all use of the tea's hallucinogen, dimethyltryptamine, or DMT.

UDV sued to block enforcement of the ban, relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion unless the action furthers "a compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means" of doing so.

The Bush administration argued that the religious freedom act was not violated because the ban on the sacramental tea was the least restrictive way to advance three compelling federal interests: protecting the health of UDV members, preventing diversion of the hallucinogen to recreational users and complying with the 1971 U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

In his opinion, Roberts wrote that everything the government said about the DMT in hoasca also applies to the mescaline in peyote, which Native Americans have been allowed to use in religious ceremonies for 35 years.

"If such use is permitted . . . for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans practicing their faith, it is difficult to see how those same findings alone can preclude any consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American members of the UDV who want to practice theirs," Roberts wrote.

[dqd]

OUTSTANDING!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Benzito]

I am amazed. I would never expect the U.S. government to Ok ayahuasca. Really, did anyone?

[apothecary]

Yeah I expected this case to pass honestly, after reading some of the court transcripts from various newssites I was fairly amused to see how much of a grilling the DEA and DoJ witnesses and lawyers got. It was great!

Both the DEA, DoJ and even the Bush administration got accused of being alarmist hypocrites for claiming the sky would fall on our heads if UDV got to use Ayahuasca, while they were already allowing peyote ceremonies to go ahead.

Also another major factor in the cases outcome is that Bushes new pet monkey had no say in the issue.

Looks like the DMT was playing its own game here

EDIT: Oh yeah, one thing that kind of miffed me was that the judges didn't base their end decision on the contradiction of all 3 of the Governments arguments. They accepted counters for both the "diversion to recreational users", the UN convention on drugs, but they didn't put anything in their opinions (what judges write after the court case) about the potential health benefits of Aya. I mean they pretty much disregarded it either way, which kind of irked me. Could have been some good publicity...

Edited February 23, 2006 by apothecary

[Machine Elf]

Note that this decision is only in regards to allowing the group to continue using ayahuasca until a final decision is made in their case (this decision only concerns an injunction to stop the DEA seizing the ayahuasca and arresting members):

"Although many news reports about the ruling seem to suggest that the decision is final, the case before the Supreme Court was simply a re-re-re-hearing on a "preliminary injunction" that the UDV requested to stop the DEA from seizing their psychoactive tea and arresting church members."

See Erowid for details.

Belf

[devance]

A halllucenogic vomiting person isn't a much threat.

[Torsten]

yeah, don't get too excited. the ruling is not a major victory.

although in these times even small victories are a substantial gain.

This ruling merely puts the case back into a lower court, where the real decision is yet to come.

[dqd]

outstanding?

[Pisgah]

Here is my concern about all of this.

Support for the UDV came from many conservative christian groups in the US. The Baptist League being one of them. Only a few short days later, it seems like Soth Dakota is going to try and make all non-life threatening abortions illegal with the hope that the resulting legal clusterfuck makes it's way to the supreme court.

I have this weird, gut feeling that what has happened in the UDV case is really just a manifestation of religious precedent for legal definition. I mean, the UDV case was decided unanimously. I think they (the UDV) are going to be able to do what they want in their religious practices, but the allowance will stand as a touchstone for religious exemption to federal law. IE, the majority of a people in a state (who happen to be right wing christian fuck-wads) can decide to govern themselves with restrictive reproductive laws so long as it is in concert with the expressed desire of the voting populace.

I need a beer.

[apothecary]

This ruling merely puts the case back into a lower court, where the real decision is yet to come.

The lower court judges are sure to have been keeping tabs on the SC progress and have probably gained some insight into the whole issue themselves.

I'm sure the SC has set a good precedent here, and will hopefully be followed by the lower courts. If not the UDV can always appeal and take it back up to the SC with probably good results.

[Torsten]

The SC ruled on a very narrow issue. To extrapolate from that as far as you are going apoth is a little too optimistic I think. However, even if you are right, then at the same time what is gained for the UDV will also be a precedent for other religious freedom cases as Pisgah has outlined. Either way we lose.

[apothecary]

Maybe I am just being optimistic...

I think I'd only agree with Pisgahs gut feeling that this is a matter of religious freedoms becoming legal precedent if it seemed like the unanimous decision was based on religious freedom issues at all or the UDV was a majority in any US state.

Rather, from my small reading on the issue (which admittedly might not be 100%) I don't really feel the SC judges rebuffed the DoJ & DEA on anything but "you're making a mountain out of a molehill" (i.e. no diversion to recreational users, no health risks and so on). They simply pointed out the hypocritical nature of the hysterical seizure of premade Aya when they don't do the same to NAC members and let it drop there.

I really didn't see much debate on the constitutional religious right of things.

I think the abortion debate has far too wide a scope (too many interested different lobbies), that even if far right Christians did cite it as precedent, it wouldn't amount to a lot in the much louder discussion coming from all sides.

If the far right wanted to rest their whole case on the constitutional right of hallucinogenic tea use, wouldn't they be citing Peyote already? And if they don't want to rest their case on it, I'm not sure it'll amount to much in the end debate.

[Torsten]

I think I'd only agree with Pisgahs gut feeling that this is a matter of religious freedoms becoming legal precedent if it seemed like the unanimous decision was based on religious freedom issues at all or the UDV was a majority in any US state.

I don't understand your point here. The SC decision was based on the former as far as I can tell.

Rather, from my small reading on the issue (which admittedly might not be 100%) I don't really feel the SC judges rebuffed the DoJ & DEA on anything but "you're making a mountain out of a molehill" (i.e. no diversion to recreational users, no health risks and so on). They simply pointed out the hypocritical nature of the hysterical seizure of premade Aya when they don't do the same to NAC members and let it drop there.

Yes, but the underlying argument for both is religious freedom.

I really didn't see much debate on the constitutional religious right of things.

The debate was about how the drug laws infringe on religious practices. The govvy claimed that the enforcement was more important than religious freedom, while the UDV claimed the opposite. However the limitation was that the ruling only applies to the injunction, not to the case itself. The DoJ may well come up with better arguments for the actual trial, making the win over the injunction kinda pointless.

If the far right wanted to rest their whole case on the constitutional right of hallucinogenic tea use, wouldn't they be citing Peyote already?

No, as NAC business is not just addressed in religious freedom laws, but also in native tribe autonomy laws. I don't think you can draw consuions from one to the other.

[Pisgah]

I think the abortion debate has far too wide a scope (too many interested different lobbies), that even if far right Christians did cite it as precedent, it wouldn't amount to a lot in the much louder discussion coming from all sides.

The UDV case won't be cited in any reproductive rights case, but what is important here is gleaning from this case the way this court philosophically interprets constitutional law. There was no dissent in the court, and this case was ALL about religious exemption to existing federal law. Extrapolate what you will.

Don't get me wrong, as a social and religious libertarian myself I am encouraged by this ruling. I use psychoactive substance in a manner that facilitates spiritual growth. I feel a LITTLE less threatened by my government in this regard.

My pessimism stems from my fear that SC rulings will come that weaken federal laws that protect secularism and the rights of those who have been historically disenfranchised. Those people in states that seek to foster religious provincialism, like South Dakota is doing right now, will do great harm to the disenfranchised in said states.