To my mind, it's just not practical. More power to anyone willing to try, I just think you are going to have an incredibly hard time getting anyone to recognize what will no doubt be seen as a "new-age" religion with the goal of ingesting psychoactive plants. I think time/money/resources are better spent at attacking the prohibition of entheogens or drugs as a whole.

Finding a sympathetic ear is going to be damn-near impossible; look at how much trouble "legitimate" organized religions have getting their sacraments recognized/protected...and then even when that happens, the DEA still harasses them and people still find themselves operating in legal grey areas. Individuals within these religions are still persecuted and lose their jobs for drug tests, etc. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I just feel that this approach provides the least amount of protection for the same aount of effort as ending prohibition of these substances.

could anyone post the picture of the certificate and card of the jurema way

if i like the card and certificate , i'll think about it

It's attached on page 1 of this thread.

You are surely right, but a multi-pronged attack might add weight to the prong that winds up succeeding.

Different people resonate to different aspects of the anti-prohibition arguments. While the religious freedom argument tends to be hit or miss in practice, and you can surely point to Native Americans still being harrassed for peyote or whatnot, it has had some success where other prongs have come up with nada thusfar.

On the CEL thread, I put forward some ideas in line with what you are saying... I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on them.

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=266575#post266575

I agree. The religious use argument can be added to arguments why certain substances should be decriminalized. If you can get enough people together who sincerely believe in these substances as sacraments, how are they going to deny that forever?

Agree.

That new age thingy shall be as far as possible from the sacred.

Just out of curiosity, why would something being new or (new age) make it any less valuable. All religions were new-age when they started.

Christianity could be considered new-age Judaism, just like Buddhism could be considered new-age Hinduism.

Yes, but at such times, there were not courts ruling on the legality of sacramental plants, so no one was thought to be using "religion" as a cover to "do drugs." Nowadays with the CSA in place and prohibition forcing drug users underground, the court-system is all too aware of people wanting to make legal religious defenses for their drug use. As such, one of the barriers for acceptance is the legitimacy of the religion and unfortunately, one of the main determining factors for that is how long has it been around and how many people are practicing it.

The NAC is a perfect example, as you say they are still getting harassed for their ritual sacraments, despite making some progress and they have an undeniable historical religious practice...this is what makes me skeptical that any new religion with the main focus of imbibing hallucinogenic sacraments will be accepted by the courts. At the point where we are scrutinizing ancient and established practices because they deal with "drugs", fledgling religions haven't got a chance.

Hyperspace Fool, I'll be taking a look at your post in the other thread after lunch...I think I've seen it before and liked it, we just have to bridge where we are now to where those ideas come in...which takes some figuring.

To say their religions practice is undeniably historical is dubious.
Go back 200 years and it doesn't exist at all and the main tribes involved have no tradition of the use of peyote, just Datura.

By no means does that make their practice illegitimate, but it is not traditional or even historically authentic.

Compared to a religion founded today it has a rich and vibrant history...relativity is everything...besides, your statement only furthers my original point; a religion created today lacks even this "flimsy" history.

This is true of the US Native American Church... not the US & Mexican tribal practices though. Also, there were many tribes in the US, Canada & Mexico that had a long history of mushroom usage.

Still, I don't quite jibe with the whole "age of the religion" or "number of practitioners" ideas. The UDV & Santo Daime are both newish religions, and they have achieved protection for their huasca ceremonies... meanwhile the actual Amazonian Tribes that originated the practice have no such protection.

Perhaps it is because the Native American Church, UDV & Daime are all mixed with Christianity.

I hate to say it, but there does seem to be a rather strong bias toward people who at least pay lip service to JC & Christian saints. Authentic native religious practices are not acknowledged at all. They are lumped together with traditions stretching across to Asia & Africa and called Shamanism, and even then with hundreds of millions of practitioners, they are not afforded any measure of respect or recognition.

Hinduism is one of the oldest religions still in existence with about a billion followers. The vast majority of Hindus are Shivites (worshipping Shiva), and this branch of Hinduism uses a number of psychoactive plants in religious context. Despite this, sadhus are not protected in their use of hashish, bhang, or any number of their other sacred plants.

Safety does not seem to be a concern either, as Datura (the most dangerous of all psychoactives IMO) is legal in every country that I know of, and has even been grown as an ornamental around the White House! It is extremely common nearly everywhere I have travelled, and often grown where children play. The likelihood that a child might ingest this plant to toxic effect is infinitely more likely than it is with any of the controlled plants.

In fact, LOGIC itself doesn't seem to be a factor. DMT being the classic case in point. How could one even attempt to rationalize illegalizing an endogenous chemical? Technically, every human being on Earth is in possession of it. Perhaps someone should attempt to have a high ranking politician or law enforcement chieftan arrested for its possession just to make this point. Arrest their children...

I suppose my point is, trying to understand and work within the rationality of the current laws and judicial approach to prohibition is pointless... there is no consistent rationality there.

In fact, the whole idea that the government can determine what is and what is not a religion violates the Constitution. The original pilgrims to the US were people who came because their relgions were not accepted as valid back where they came from. Interestingly enough, the big sin in those days for the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, Quakers, Puritans et. al. was PACIFISM. That, and conspiring to steal power from the monarchies & church (in the case of the Freemasons who were the primary architects of the Revolution).

Acknowledging the arcane and ridiculous rules of governments vis a vis entheogens is tantamount to accepting that they have a legitimate authority over these things. Perhaps a better approach would be calling for a public vote on the issue. Seeing that the populace never got a say in this, it might be worthwhile to use initiatives or propositions to put this before the people. It might fail the first couple of times, but as our PR efforts took root, it could eventually pass somewhere like Hawaii, Vermont or even California.

This is known though...this is nothing new. The Drug War rationale is baseless...that extends to the application of religious protection for the use of entheogens. We can say that it's unconstitutional (which doesn't matter much as the constitution is pretty much worthless thanks to numerous Supreme Court decisions and congressional bills) we can say that this isn't the government's domain...but ultimately they own the police, the courts and the jails.

A public vote is all fine and good, but this would arguably have no bearing on the Federal state of things. Even if the American populace as a whole showed across the board that they were in favor of regulation, what then? This isn't how American democracy functions...it would be great to see but it would have zero political impact, imo. Look at American opinion on the recent debates on healthcare and the debt; in both cases a clear majority opinion was expressed by the American populace and ignored by congress.

Also, while the NAC, UDV and Santo Daime may be relatively "new" organizations, they can show their roots in the indigenous practices making at least an understandable argument (as seen in their respective supreme court cases)...the point with the Sadhus is well taken, but Rasta's can't get sacramental herb either...this has to do with weed's position as far as the drug war goes. None of it is based on scientific evidence or logical precepts...it's designed to control the populace and generate absurd cash flows through the Prison Industrial Complex.

I refer to the "new age movement". Not something that is "new".

I don't think buddhism could be considered that what you said.

I don't think the general populace knows these things at all. I do believe things would change if the population were educated. Unfortunately, people in general don't seem to care about this subject, don't care to be educated on it. They don't even want to know. The religious use arguments are, I think, a way to get people listening a little bit. Santo Daime has been around since the 20's, I think. It was around long before new age.

I agree the laws on drugs make no sense at all, and are in violation of what America claims to hold as its highest principle, freedom. I don't believe the general population knows this, or understands the argument, and don't want to even try. It's like it would hurt their heads to consider this.




You see to be arguing that nothing ever has, nor ever could change in response to public opinion. Don't you think things start happening when enough people change their minds? Revolutions don't take place unless their are enough people on board. Without people, the greatest arguments imaginable will continue to fall on deaf ears. The masses can change anything they want. This is a bit sad because if the masses believe something that is bullshit, then much needless suffering results. However, it is an inescapable reality that there is strength in numbers. You can say that sometimes one, or a few people do make a difference, but don't you think the changes of success are a lot better with greater numbers of people having the same outlook?

Intentionality has nearly no bearing on illegality. Possession of stolen property for example, even if you had no reasonable way to know that it was stolen (i.e. buying a used car from a dealership)... is STILL illegal.

It can be taken into consideration by the Judge or Jury in sentencing, but will have absolutely no bearing on your being arrested, arraigned, and charged. Otherwise, the old "Geee officer, I had no idea that there was an eight of weed in my backpack." speech would work.

Furthermore, as it applies to DMT... I have no knowledge that the Schedule I status of the molecule in the US has any minimum amount associated with it.

I don't disagree with you Snozz.

I will say, though, that whenever public support for something reaches a tipping point in American politics, it becomes untenable for politicians to ignore it further. Majority may not rule... and the US may not even be a Democracy... but if public opinion (and more importantly, public perception of public opinion) reaches a crescendo, people do sit up and take notice.

Cases in US history include ending Alcohol Prohibition, the Women's Sufferage Movement, the ERA, Civil Rights, Nixon Resigning etc. Also, statewide movements might not change Federal Law, but they do change the situation on the ground for people within the state and have an effect on the perception of the issue in other states and at the Federal level. The obvious example here being medical marijuana ... SWIM having circulated 215 personally and gotten over 1,000 signatures. Sure, buyer's clubs get closed. Sure, people get busted and raided by the DEA. But, and this is a big but, there are thousands of examples of people's closet cultivations being found by police and LEFT ALONE. There are entire cities and counties where getting busted for possession of weed is nigh impossible. There are even cities where when the Feds came in to crack down, the mayor and municipal government started dealing weed from the City Hall!

As I have said in other threads, Weed is far more threatening to the powers that be than Ayahuasca. All of the entheogens combined amount to a blip on the DEA radar if you leave out LSD. The odds are that an Entheogen movement would succeed faster and more thoroughly than the Cannabis movement simply because it doesn't threaten corporate interests.

@tele

Think what you want. (Not as snide as it might sound... really.)

Buddha was a Hindu preaching new ideas that threatened the caste system and challenged the rituals and focus on gods that were prevelant in his day. He was a Hindu for a new age... thus, a new-age Hindu.

Jesus was a Jew preaching new ideas that threatened the status quo of his Roman dominated Palestine and challenged the rituals and focus on hierarchy that was prevelant in his day. He was a Jew for a new age... thus, a new-age Jew.

The modern "new-age" movement is also rooted in old spiritual traditions and tends to pick and choose the bits that individuals resonate with and toss out the rest. It also tends to not respect hierarchies and rituals the way that the people the borrow from do. It also tends to infuse new ideas, technologies and techniques into its updating of spirituality. New Agers tend to get a bad rap from people adverse to aging hippies, boring music, crystals and incense. This is largely unfair. The new-age people represent the largest group of progressive and non-denominational spirtual innovation on the planet. For better or worse, it is because of them that you can take Yoga classes at your gym, that you see Tai Chi practitioners in your parks, that anyone knows about Sensory Deprivation Floatation Tanks or Mind Machines. I won't go on and on, but the odds are that without the New Age, no insurance companies would be covering accupuncture, shiatsu, feldenkreis, cranio-sacral or any other "alternative" medicine. Without the New Age, people wouldn't be doing sweat lodges or burning sage (in any large numbers). In fact, none of the old age techniques for spiritual growth would have broken out of their traditions or accepted people outside of the faith as students.

The fact that your kids can take Kung Fu classes without being Buddhist or Taoists is an example of the New Age changing culture.

Yea, I just don't like the new age -movement and that's it.

well hyperspacefool you've made you're point , i agree with a lot you say , however even if enthogens were legal and you could consume tons of it without any harrasment from the government ,

what would it change ? would the world become a better place just because enthogens are legal ?, would humanity stop fighting wars ? , would corporations die ?

the truth as i see it is , entheogens very soon maybe in 5-15 years are going to be totally legal , everyone woud be allowed to consume entheogens legally , since the population is growing the corporations have already planned to give better salaries and posts to the non-entheogenic people and reserved positions of low salary to entheogen users

this will only create a new sort of classism between entheogenic users and non-entheogenic users , cheap jobs at MCdonalds will be reserved for the entheogenic users while the non-entheogenic users will be treated to offices at microsoft , isn't it already happenin ??

luckyly today many entheogenic users are at top positions in life , those who work in the corporate culture have to hide their practices to remain there , only authors , artists and musicans have been able to do what they want and still be accepted for all their madness

with the populations growing at the pace its growing at , government will sooon need to sedate half or more of its controlling populace and what better than get them all stoned ?? soon the government is going to take advantage of this wonderful oppertunity and make entheogens totally legal , thus creating a new class of underpaid workers and slaves , who will not mind working for low salaries as long as they have their entheogenic freedom

tommorow when the government screams --- entheogens are legal , believe me its the beginning of a new era of bias , unequality and misused freedom ,

if you want you're freedom from the government be ready to pay tax on it for everything the government gives comes at a price and tax

i myself am not dependent on any government or religion for my freedom , my freedom is mine only i can give it to myself or take it away , i am responsible for my own freedom

if you want to give your freedom away to the government , like we have forever in the past than we will always be depending on government , today the government has gained so much power and dictate what we should do ..... this is the result of billions of people already giving the responsiblity of their freedom to the government , if people had to courage to take responsiblity of their own freedom , they would not be asking the government to allow them to do anything !!!!!

do you want freedom to eat your food ? or is it until the government does not allow you to eat food you'll wait , do you want freedom to stretch you legs ? or if the government makes strething you legs punishable then it will feel bad to stretch you legs

thank God for the authors , artists and muscians , who never care about the government or even go lending their freedoms to the government ,

Jesus never cared
buddha never cared

to preach new relegions was not allowed in those times but buddha and jesus did not go asking for freedom , they did what they want

morrison never cared
hendrix never cared
mckenna did'nt care , neither did timothy

they truth is all those who have been accepted as drug users today without any suffering attached like many artists and musicans ........don't give a heck about the government or starting new relegions , they simply don't care ....... it does feel good

also its absurd to ask the government for freedom when the government itself is a slave , its a slave to the politicians and further the people who those politicians represent ,

if anyone wants freedom he should ask it from those who are free
how can the government provide freedom to anyone when the government itself is not free

Oh, I totally agree...the issue is that people who know of/use/understand what entheogens are are a tiny fraction of the population. Look how much trouble weed is having and that's with a lot more support. My opinion has always been that weed is the lynchpin in the drug war. Regulate cannabis and everything else will follow soon enough as the drug war is unsustainable without the funding for cannabis interdiction.


As I said above...this has more to do with the infinitesimal percentage of people who understand anything about entheogens. Most people are either unaware or don't care. What revolution are you citing? Revolutions throughout history have swung on incredibly small percentages of the population that decided to get mobilized. The masses hardly get up in arms on any grand scale, we saw it in the 60s to some degree, but that stands out specifically because of the number of large, sweeping populist movements. I really don't disagree with much of what you say, but you can't both acknowledge that we are a tiny percentage of people and say, "we need to have the masses at our back." Imo, we don't need the masses, we need US to take action.

All that needs to be done is information dissemination ultimately...everything else hinges on cannabis anyway. Once people have re-thought the drug war as it applies to weed, they will be more open to hearing the logical arguments on the nature of entheogens. Most of these people aren't going to care, most of these people aren't affected one way or another (unlike with weed) so the issue is essentially to follow a populist movement that overturns cannabis prohibition and ride the coat-tails of that movement into legalization/regulation. That way you don't have to depend so much on an unwieldy and uninformed populace to do anything more than see the similarity between this argument and the cannabis argument. The best way to attack the drug war is to start with the least tenable position, cannabis prohibition.