While I agree with this practically and conceptually, it depends entirely on the argument used for entheogenic liberty.

If we choose to pursue the path outlined by precedents via the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), consider what it means to have a practice be vital to a religion. If exercising a (individually and socially beneficial) religion hinges on a certain practice, this practice cannot be "officially stopped" simply because of public image - it shows the practice to be non-essential to the religion and weakens the case.

Citing the recent, and successful, case for Santo Daime in Oregon (pdf on case findings), scroll down to "17 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" (it's at ~80%) and specifically read the last paragraph "II. Plaintiffs Have Met Their Burden of Proof":
The rest of the document is insightful, but this paragraph needed posting.

I am not advocating or condoning any illegal activity, merely suggesting we hold off discussing such matters until we crystallize central aspects of ELF (including the name).

It should also be said that many similar religious cases have been lost, even with the RFRA.

Great post kartikay.

If the ELF (*or whatever it ends up being called) gets off the ground I don't think I can offer much other than my support, and i'd be willing to donate if needed to get things done.

I honestly feel that with a name like ELF we will never be taken seriously. Is ELF finalized?

Nope, no one has decided on the name yet. We need a new name, many have acknowledged that. I personally agree, and doubt I will contribute to this organization if it will have the name ELF. I want to do this as open as possible, which include my real name, a name I don't want to be connected to the terrorist group ELF.

I love this idea, I am really excited, I do see the name issue as a problem, all we need is to be associated with radical terrorists....

So I thought about changing maybe one word, if you changed liberty to emancipation you get the Entheogenic Emancipation Foundation(EEF) or maybe the Entheogenic Birthright Foundation (EBF). With our part of our mission being to protect humanities birthright to explore various states of counciousness and protect the sacred plant teachers that aid us in this goal.

Sorry if someone already posted these ideas, I havent had time to read all the posts in this section I had to get my ideas down.

*edit* another synonym for liberty is sovereignty, Entheogenic Sovereignty Foundation (ESF)

I see a problem with the word Entheogenic in the group's name. Not everyone views these chemicals as religious, and in fact some do just to mask their abuse. This fight is about cognitive liberty, the right to modify or enhance our own consciousness just as we modify our bodies. Bringing religious terms into it will alienate people and distract from the real issue.

I'm afraid you are bit late with that. The name has been voted for and is set now. And even then, the word Entheogenic has quickly become a generic replacement for the word 'psychedelic', since psychedelic has that negative historic load with it. These days, only few take the meaning of the word Entheogen literal and see that as the only meaning of it.

I agree we should be careful with the religion part as a base for solutions but really, the term entheogen already moved far beyond that point and became a mainstream word for psychoactive substances.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Entheogen is NOT religious terminology. The term does mean "creates god within" but is used to refer to plants that were previously termed psychedelic. It has no origin in any religion or dogma and "was coined in 1979 by a group of ethnobotanists and scholars of mythology (Carl A. P. Ruck, Jeremy Bigwood, Danny Staples, Richard Evans Schultes, Jonathan Ott and R. Gordon Wasson)." This term is no more inherently religious than any sort of spirituality, which is present in religion, but also exists exclusively from religion. This is why you will hear many people proclaim that they are "spiritual but not religious". The two concepts are not mutually inclusive...

Yes, this fight is about cognitive liberty, no one has lost sight of that. The simple fact of the matter is that, the scholarly term for these plants is no longer psychedelic, but entheogenic. Again, this is not religious terminology, but academic terminology. I understand that the use of god in the definition can be confusing, but that term/concept in no way makes the term entheogen a religious term. I hope this helps to clarify your understanding of the term...there was a reason that every suggested name for this organization contained the term "entheogen" and that is because it is the appropriate and currently accepted term for the plants and substances whose use we are defending.

peace
SB

Let's all decide how ELF is going to impact the world. For example the Multidisiplinary Association for Psychedellic Studies(MAPS), is actually experimenting human test subjects and fighting the government on their own turf(court). We're without a doubt a voice, but what else can we bring to the table. Lets all find our best assets and work from there. i think that would be a good starting point for out blueprint.

I can think of a few:

experience- we all know the effects of entheogens and their capability of impacting the world.

motivation- we all know how big it would be if psychedellics we're accepted my the majority.

1st amendment- no one can silent us.

diversity- members from all over to help spread information

Excellent. This lines up perfectly with my idea of a free, self-providing, entheogenic community.
I've been able to interrest quite a number of people for it and I've come across more and more people with similair ideas that are very serious about it just like myself.

My general idea was to build a selfsustaining human community in a natural enviroment with farms and cattle for food. It could probably use solar power, solar heated water, seatide power, wind energy or even methane(derrived from sewage) combustion energy to generate electricity. We'll need to filter water into drinkable water.

I was planning to make life in this community completely devoid of money and free of absurd laws.
This in the light of Entheogenic freedom. I intend to build a temple in this community that is meant for entheogenic rituals(for healing, for community bonding, for developping spiritually) and around it a garden of entheogenic and medicinal plants.( Cannabis, Mimosa Hostilis, Banisteriopsis Caapi, Psychotria Viridis, Acacia Podalyriifolia, San Pedro, Peyote, Psilocybin Mushrooms, Morning Glory, Iboga, Salvia Divinorum...etc etc )

In this spiritual/therapuitical/social entheogenic practice I do not wish to be bound, opressed or harrassed by backwards international druglaws. So for this to become possible I figured a large number of people need to unite to buy/settle land to live on, to use legal knowledge (to be able to make a stand against immoral drug abolition laws the way Santo Daime did) as well as people with medical knowledge/skills (nurses, doctors, dentists), people with farming knowledge/skills and people with building knowledge/skills need to work together tightly.

Any news from CEL?

Is it an official, recognised organisation yet?
If not what still needs to be done to make CEL official?

I intend to found a self-sustaining, entheogenic eco-community in a natural enviroment.
CEL would seem like a possibly good platform from which to launch this community plan.

Living in nature, self-sustaining and as a community have and practice the freedom of communal and individual entheogenesis seems to be the perfect example of the Entheogenic Liberty CEL strives for.

So did CEL ever make it past being a mere good idea?

Umm, that would be why those who coined it said that entheos means "the god within". Three of the authors of the paper coining the term then went on to write a book subtitled "Entheogens and the Origins of Religion" and Wasson (1980) wrote in the support of the new word "As we undertake to explore their rele in the early history of religions, we should call them by a name unvulgarized by hippy abuse."

The word is clearly intended to relate to religious usage, and to devalue nonreligious use of these substances. Even if you argue that "religion" includes spirituality, the same complaint applies. People who don't identify as religious or spiritual are just vulgar hippies.

To me, arguing for special privileges for religious groups means arguing for discrimination against non-religious persons, and is the exact opposite of the direction in which I would like to see our society headed.

I would posit that the closest argument you can make for "entheogen" being a religious term is to state that it is an academic term that deals with spiritual phenomena, some of which may be in a religious context, but that's about it. That's a far cry from, say, Eucharist, or d'var torah or karma, which are actual religious terms.

The views of the originators of the term are all good and well, but language has its own life and meanings/contexts/applications change as societies/cultures appropriate and assign linguistic terms.



If you read through CEL, you will see that there is no special argument for religious use being presented here.

Do you take similar issue with the Nexus being an "Entheogenic University"?

Yes. But I think it's worse when the word is used to try to justify the availability of these substances, because this more directly de-legitimises non-religious uses of them.

Basically the term, to me, reeks of "holier-than-thou". I think the Summer of Love is now far enough in the past that we can safely use the word psychedelic.

Maybe instead of semantics we can actually talk about things we should do with our organization?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Here's my 2 cents

Seems like it might be helpful to formulate some models for psychedelic legalization..
Marijuana has the medical thing, but that plan won't fly for more potent psychedelics.

So actually the spiritual psychedelic usage model is a good model IMO, if you don't agree with spiritual use of psychedelics that is fine, but not everyone with a marijuana license uses pot for pain either, yet they enjoy the benifits of medical marijuana....

So while everyone may not be down with reigious or spiritual psychedelic use that does not mean that they could not enjoy using legal psychedelics in a "religiously" sactioned way anyhow...

I just don't see a model of legalization based on non spiritual self realization holding up to public scrutiny. I mean freedom of religion is in the constitution but freedom to take chemicals in order to explore your subconcious is not and would even possibly fall under the catagory of medical practice instead of a simple church type idea. Plus religious organizations enjoy tax exemption..

So while not everyone agrees in religious use of psychedelics every one should agree that it might be our best shot at any real model leading to legalization. I'm sure many people belong to the peyote way church and have taken sprit walks...not because they are "spiritual and religious" but becaue they want legal peyote...catch my drift??

I mean the USA especially is all about religion.(christian as it may be)...may as well use that to our advantage.

I agree with Eliyahu. The religion spin is the best legal chance we've got at keeping these things as accessable to all peoples as possible. The fact that the UDV is aready recognized by the Supreme Court, and the Diame church in Oregon has "regional" judicial permission drink their sacrament.

I have quoted this before, but Terence said in his "Unfolding the Stone" talk that the mushroom once told him that "Nature loves Courage." There's a great interview with Jonathan Goldman of the Santo Diame church in Ashland OR.

Part 1 HERE

Part 2 HERE

Part 3 HERE

Part 3 is most concerned with the issues addressed on this thread, as he talks about his own struggle to get Santo Diame recognized as a legitimate religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Courage to stand up to "the Man" is of paramount importance here. Courage to face the fact that once you decide to walk down this road, you're likely going to go to jail before it's all sorted out. In fact, the only way you CAN get it all sorted out under this plan is to go to jail first and then fight it in court.

The person willing to walk this path would have to be brave enough to keep clean, other than the use of their chosen sacrament. One of the things covered by Mr. Goldman is that the courts are much less receptive to group that have more than one sacrament... Never mind that the Catholic Church has BOTH bread an wine. The logic used by the courts is that in order to sanction the use of an "illegal drug," it must be impossible to separate the use of this substance from the practice of the religion, and it must be "required" for the proper practice of said faith. The argument used by prosecutions in the past is that if there are multiple sacraments, that neither one alone is "required" for the practice of the faith, so none of them should be legally sanctioned.

The other issue at work here is the modern american idea of what a "religion" actually is. I think it would be very difficult, nay impossible, for a solitary Shaman to gain the right to practice his trade under the RFRA, nor would a group of people ascribing to a generalized shamanic worldview which incorporates the use of plant teachers. The practice of the religion has to conform in some significant way to the "form" of religion as it is practiced by mainstream religious groups, namely a group of people gathering, taking the sacrament in a ritualistic setting with recognized leaders... Therefore, if we were, for example, to create a "mushroom cult" and begin practicing it in order to challenge the RFRA, to create a weekly or monthly ritual wherein the sacrament is consumed in a group setting (all this, btw, violates my preferred method of consumption, which is alone in silent darkness) with recognized leaders, we would face the legal challenge that the group isn't "Really" religious because of the very fact that this forum exists and all our conversations are out in the open, that we have members who are not only not religious, but may be atheists, and that we don't want a religion, just an excuse to "abuse drugs." The fact that the religion is essentially brand new (doesn't have a few generations of practitioners, never mind the history of mushroom use back into antiquity which may not conform to the requirements of religious form essentially needed to fit into the RFRA framework) may doom its chances. Even IF we were able to prevail, we wouldn't be make it OK for EVERYONE to use these substances, only those who are recognized members of our religion. Any other group using the same plant teachers would have to go through the process all over again. True, we'd be a prescident for them at their trial, but they'd have to start from scratch just like us, with leaders getting arrested and imprisoned. The only way would be to make our definition of membership as flexable as possible (a route that Holy Light of the Queen in Ashland has been working with), although this very thing may lead to challenges to the legitimacy of our cause by prosecutors. The ruling in favor of the Native American Church actually stipulates that it DOES NOT protect gringos, even if they eat payote in the context of the NAC ritual.

THe last thing that I'm sure everyone has considered, even if all these hurtles are overcome, a favorable ruling under the RFRA does not protect our practitioners from getting fired for failing a drug test at work. Luckily, almost no preemployment drug screenings look for tryptamines, and DMT is impossible to test for due to being endogenous and pretty much present in everyone's urine at some level. Because my employer is a government contractor and is required to drug test its employees, as soon as I came out publicly as a "drug user," I'd loose my job. The probably wouldn't even wait for the formality of a drug test or consider the fact that I am using something they don't test for. If I publicly admitted to DMT or mushroom use, I'd walk into work to a "meeting" with a member of Loss Prevention, who'd ask me for my keys and passwords, and that would be the end of it.

Meh. I, for one, am not interested in "spin", i.e. lies. For me the whole point of the exercise is to have the legitimacy of the use of psychedelic drugs legally recognized. It's the recognition that's important to me, not the legality per se. After all, people will do it anyway, whether it is legal or not. Having it legalized based on a mistruth - what is the point of that?

I know it's not a lie for everyone, but if fellow psychonauts can't even respect our internal differences and have the solidarity to stand together and proclaim the legitimacy of our practices, what hope do we have?

I think that one of the biggest parts of legitimizing DMT is standardizing how we vaporize it. If we're all vaping with lighters from pipes or homemade devices, we look like a bunch of crackheads getting high in the alleyway. I know that's not what we are, but a bigot wont see it any other way. Presentation is key. It will be much much easier to legitimize the use of DMT when we've put some distance between the devices we use to smoke it and those used to smoke other, more dangerous drugs. I know that's an extremely superficial angle, but presenting DMT use in a way that separates it from other, more dangerous drugs will greatly aid in it's positive perception. And I know I've only talked about DMT thus far and that we seek to legitimize all psychedelics, but I think it will be much easier to pick a poster child from the bunch and aim at its legalization, because I think that if you could get one psychedelic drug legalized, the others would soon follow. I choose DMT for the example proposition below.

So, what type of presentation do I propose? When I told my dad about salvia, the first thing he did was bring up Youtube and watch a video of some kid rolling around on the floor. "That doesn't look like fun to me" is what he said. People will never understand what the psychedelic experience is if it is offered as a drug experience, because they just can't imagine how fragile and experience-dependent their worldview actually is. So instead of telling people that "We smoke DMT and the effects are...", we should say "We have communicated with interdimensional aliens" and then let them ask questions. The factor that is working in our favor is that many aspects of the DMT experience (though at a much simpler level) are already familiar to society: Aliens, Elves, Interdimensional travel, God, etc. Ask any person in the world if they want to communicate with god or aliens and, if they believe that you can deliver, they'll say "Heck Yeah!!!". Ask them if they want to use a drug that will make them experience god or aliens and the reaction will range anywhere from enthusiasm to disgust. We can reinvent DMT as a tool if we can convince people that the things we've experienced are real (which they are to us). Being true believers, we can assure them that it will deliver the secret of life (which I believe it can...sometimes...for some people).

My proposal is that we piggy-back on one of the many methods of experiencing alternate realities that society already has in place. For example, if DMT vapors were integrated into some sort of virtual reality helmet that you put on to "Visit Interdimensional Alien Worlds!", it would be seen more so as part of a ride experience (such as skydiving) rather than as a drug. I know that marketing DMT as anything other than a life-shattering psychedelic drug would seem pretty irresponsible to most people here, but I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility for how DMT could be effectively integrated into society as we know it. We could at least develop a commercial-quality system for DMT administration: Something sleek and shiny. A fancy yet affordable piece of machinery that a politician or even a snobby aristocrat wouldn't mind having in the corner of his or her living room.