We've got to stand up!

I don't think this argument should be based entirely on religious rights. What if someone doesn't want to use the substances for religious purposes but medical or recreational? While religious rights do play a role in the argument for legalization or at least decrimanilization I think a more fundamental right is being violated by the government in regards to its current drug laws.

Well we could bring that up as well... but thats not really the point right now!

I see what you mean and I an all for supporting such initiatives. But I find too often especially in the U.S. people hide behind the guise of religious freedom on too many issues without tackling the real issue, which is fundamental human rights that may not have been directly given to people constitutionally but were most certainly implied in the spirit of liberty and freedom.

I find it unfair that some group of lets say native Americans get to use some kind of medicinal plant in this case peyote while some stupid white guy doesn't have the right just because of some religious argument.

recreational use is a bad point to make being thats why they want it illegal, well not really, but thats why they claim it is illegal. Because its, by there words, supose to mess up your life(Bullshit), but thats there angle. What needs to happen is the supreme courts to realize this is a new age, and spiritual without religion is a growing thing, and spiritual people deserve rights just as religous poeple. As in its not my religion, but my spiritual belief that weed better connects me with all that is as well as keeps me peacefull and creative.

Yes I see the point in terms of making good publicity but still again this argument does not need religion to make its point. While if someone is claiming to have rights because of religion fine that can be their argument but again it skips over the real issues. Also one can claim that certain societies who have been using these substances for thousands of years obviously know how to do it in a safe manner and have many rituals set up for proper use.

I don't mean to bring this up to create some kind of disagreement but I have thought about this point a lot because I think it avoids taking on the real arguments. I also think it has some analogous examples especially when talking about the right to use medicine (such as with medical marijuana etc).

I guess the point I am trying to make is that why do we let them get away with saying that:



The DEA always claims "Marijuana needs to be illegal even for medicine or food or fiber because it will harm our children". And everyone backs down. No! We need to stop backing down and stop trying to make small arguments like "Well its my religion" or "Its my medicine" and say "Its my life and its my right!". And then take them on. Take on their arguments face to face and be direct. There is enough scientific evidence to show that many of the plants we are talking about and many of the substances we are talking about are safer then some of the drugs currently on the market! Not even just the science though, the fact that the government does not have the right to tell people what they do to their bodies. At all! Look at the argument for abortion. Your allowed to kill a child before its born because its your body but you can't smoke pot or take ayahuasca?

Basically I think these arguments while I agree with them 100% are avoiding the major issue. Let me bring up an example. Medical marijuana in a number of states is a hot issue and I will use California as an example. Basically state law sais now its legal for someone to buy medical marijuana if they have a doctors prescription. So now just look at the news and the arguments about why this law is bad. Its because so many people are abusing this! People are going to doctors giving them $100 or whatever and saying "I have headaches" and bam they get medical marijuana. Now personally I think anyone has the right to use marijuana but clearly people both citizens and those in law and enforcement know this "medical" law is being clearly abused. Now they are using this case as an example of why medical marijuana is a bad thing and everyone is avoiding the real issue. The DEA will say "Look at those medical pot users they just have head aches, they are using it recreationally". Everyone backs down and sais "Well its their medicine". But the public sais "Just use asprin and stop making drugs legal in my city". And it creates this whole bullshit cycle of stupid arguments. What people should be saying is "So what if someone wants pot for any reason, medical, spiritual, recreational". It should not matter.

Now the same thing applies to the religion argument. Now the NAC and UDV got the right to use their substances for religious reaons. We are already seeing discussion for and even seeing attempts to get new religions started to use these substances. Now I don't discount that people genuinly feel that they are using these substances for religious or spiritual reasons but the DEA and law enforcement are going to do the same thing as they are doing to so called medical marijuana. If people just start popping up churches for this kind of thing everywhere there going to be like "See they are just using this as a mask to use their drugs". They will use basically the same argument unless we tackle the real issue head on.

I do agree that we need to be sneaky and try to slip through the fingers of the government and DEA because times are tough and they are not budging. But we should not be afraid to take this issue for what it is. Its not just a spiritual right or a medical right but a personal right. Basically all I am saying is that its fine for people to try and use these angles especially if thats their sole reason for using these substances but for me personally I don't think I should need to belong to any church or need any prescription from any doctor to smoke pot or take some hallucinogenic plant.

Yes I see the point in terms of making good publicity but still again this argument does not need religion to make its point.

But why not? I tell people this all the time! We have A MUCH BETTER CHANCE if you say- "I like to get high and see God because it's my religion" instead of "Fuck you christians (thats what the government is) I don't believe in God and I like to get high"...

See my point?

Lets worry about getting our foot in the door, so to speak, first...

If you could smoke and extract all the DMT you wanted, and all you had to say was "I use it for my religion" would you not do it? Even if that statement was bullshit?

I do see your point burnt. Personally I love marijuana but I don't find it to be critical to my "religious" or spiritual beliefs. On the other hand I do find psychedelics to be a critical part of my religious or spiritual beliefs. The government has successfully deprived me from my greatest ally for learning about the world, specifically lsd. It has been wonderful to find plants and fungi that I can fairly well fill that missing spot in my life. I do have to practice my belief system secretly for fear of persecution from my government. Even if I do not necessarily subscribe to belief in deities etc. I don't have a problem using the term religion to describe my personal belief system. One of the Oxford dictionary's definitions of the word religion is "thing that one is devoted to [Latin religio = bond]". I am very devoted to my belief system and also to the tools necessary to exercising that belief system, namely psychedelics. There is a difference between my love of marijuana and my use of psychedelics. The US constitution says that the government shall make no laws that prohibits the free exercise of religion. I agree that it is bullshit that they find the need to protect me from my entertainment with marijuana but it is intolerable and unconstitutional for them to take away the sacrament of my religion. I agree that we have to call them on their bullshit repression and to use whatever tools we can to secure our rights again. If that entails claiming religious freedom then that works. I think that the argument for the medicinal value of marijuana is valid also. I honestly believe that the state has pushed me toward using alcohol because of it's legality where I would be a lot healthier if I could just smoke a joint to relieve the stress at the end of the day. When I am allowed to do that I don't find the need to turn to alcohol. The problem is that the United States is an uptight repressive society and it sure would be wonderful for it to grow up and lose some of it's intolerance. Another big problem is that it is Big Business busting people and incarcerating people. When something becomes a billion dollar industry it doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, the people whose livelihood depends on it and those who are just getting wealthy by it will defend it desperately.

there arent only these two options. there's also what people are talking about here which is more to do with the basic human rights.

I just don't think people are going to go for the legalize everything and do whatever you want as long as it harms nobody esle... People aren't ready for that!

Your right that it is a mechanism to get the foot in the door first. So is the medical argument (which can also be a life or death situation if one is sick). I guess my main point is that I am worried they will do the same kind of thing they are doing in California which is saying "Look they are abusing our medical marijuana laws to get high" (because not so sick people are using it) and that one day if another non native entheogenic religion was ever started they would say "Look they are abusing our freedom of religion to get high". (because not so religious people according to the mainstream religion I mean are using it) etc etc..

They tolerated it with native american church and UDV but will they tolerate more of these kinds of things and if so what strings will they attach? They restrict entry into native american churches by saying you need some native blood, I think correct me if I am wrong. I don't know the restricions on UDV but personally I don't agree with virtually any of the major beliefs of the UDV for my own reasons but whatever they can do what they want.

But I do agree with all of you that this is also a religious right. But no I am not willing to lie about my own beliefs to be part of some group which will by definition have to adopt some "devote" practices to be considered a religion. As someone who is not religious I think thats a fair statement. Personally SWIM uses psychedelics for psychological, research into SWIMs mind, recreational, and to get closer to nature purposes. None of those things SWIM considers religious reasons (some people might but SWIM doesn't).



Sad but true.



Yes and its amazing that even people who use drugs aren't ready for such ideas! But if you ever get into this discussion with someone while pursuing your goals please bring up the reason abortion is legal. Its the same exact argument except it involves murder not drugs.

[quote=burnt]

It's not finalized last I heard, but it's sounding like the UDV is going to have to have all their branches' leaders file an application with the DEA as a licensed handler of the relevent drug (DMT). All importation of DMT-containing plants will have to be thoroughly documented, handled, and stored within the guidelines set forth by the DEA for handlers of schedule I materials (the same sort of hoops Dr. Strassman had to jump through for his dmt studies). They would be subject to DEA auditing, so if the guidelines are not being satisfactorily met, there would be fines and/or loss of licensing.

Sounds like a lot of bullshit hassle to me. Plus, if the DEA starts overseeing the importation of P viridis to these institutions, they might also start enforcing laws prohibiting the importation of other DMT-containing plants. As it stands, it is explicitly illegal under current US law to import MHRB (or bananas, as they contain detectable traces of DMT), the law is simply not enforced. If enforcement of this law is forced on the DEA by the UDV decision, who knows if they might start enforcing it on a broad scale?

The problem with preventing importation of DMT is a huge one. If DMT importation was completely implemented based on the current US laws, US customs officers would need to know how to identify thousands of plants and animals that are known to contain traces of DMT. The list is ever growing and already too large to realistically enforce. Traces of DMT are found in many normal edible mushrooms, some fruit, most meat, lots of herbs, vegetables, etc. It’s impossible to enforce.

Now if the laws were adjusted to exclude things with traces of DMT, then enforcement would become somewhat possible. But even then, it would require that US customs officers be able to distinguish between leaves of psychoactive Psychotria versus non psychoactive ones, leaves of psychoactive Diplopterys versus non psychoactive ones, etc. It would be very hard to do. These leaves are not very distinctive. It’s not like marijuana where you’re looking for a few varieties of the same plant, with DMT you need to be a trained botanist to be able to identify all of the plants that contain it. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect customs officers to have such skills.

One thing I’d like to bring up, the DEA in the US is not that interested in controlling hallucinogens. If you look at a lot of their papers on LSD, you’ll find the DEA is actually quite fascinated by hallucinogens, especially LSD. Their own internal paper, Microdot, is named after a form of LSD. They even cataloged all the LSD artwork they found over the years. In all the information I’ve read from the DEA, they appear to be excited about LSD. I was surprised by this. I expected the DEA would see LSD as some sort of demon drug, but it’s quite the opposite.

The DEA doesn’t really see LSD as a threat, but because of its legal status they are required to close down all known LSD production labs found. If they don’t they get pressure from other organizations.

The DEA is unfortunately pushed around by other organizations all the time. They have very little power in reality.

The fact that the DEA is getting involved with the UDV is because they are being forced to. The popularity of this case is forcing their arms. If they loosen up, they will face criticism beyond belief. So they have to do what is expected of them. The fact that the DEA is even thinking about working out a special deal with the UDV shows that they really don’t see DMT as a threat, otherwise they’d be playing hardball with the UDV. If it was cocaine at question here, believe me, the DEA would come down really hard on the UDV and possibly many of it’s members would be in prison.

Yea, i see your point, as long as your not bothering anybody else then it should really matter what your doing, as long as you respect the people and properties around you. Thats why i wanted Ron Paul to get elected, but he got cheated instead. Thats why i believe conspiracy theories are possible, you can easily see the corruption is spreed pretty thick. You can see some really corrupt shit going on in many states. Look on you tube, 3 people in florida where told they would be charged $1000 a day to have Ron Paul advertizement, Signs on private property, bumper stickers on car. They even had on FOX news these exposed electronic voting systems that could easily be manipulated without a trace and i ended up voting on one. Many corrupt shit is all over you tube, news clips.

One of them i watched, i can't remember where it was, but it was these last republic pre election. Some lady was recording them putting the boxes of votes up in a vault for the TV Crews, she hung around and poped in on them latter and found that they took the boxes back out of the vault and moved them to a room down the hall, which also contained boxes of new seals. She also went up to the boxes and saw that the seals that are supose to insure the boxes havent beent opened can be easily removed and replaced.

That is a very unfair situation that the judge but that man in. Unfair trial anyone? Regardless being a member of some church does not give someone special status that no one else has to use drugs. At least that's a concept I cannot agree with. I can't as someone who was born christian (but by no means is christian) say the Bible talks about weed and its my sacrement so piss off. Rasta's try to pull that nonsense all the time and it fails.

Karsten "Brave Heart" Davis may have been treated unfairly. He may have been found guilty by a judge, who refused to listen. But Karsten did dwell on any of this. He did not get defensive. He did not get distracted by the injustices that were being cast upon him.

Karsten stayed on purpose. He stayed respectful and mindful of courtroom protocol. He stated his case simply and intelligently. Surrounded by negativity on all four corners, he did not get reactive. Furthermore, he did not slough it off on someone else ~ he certainly could have done that. His friend was dead. Karsten could have blamed it all on his friend ~ his friend would not be testifying against him. He could have brought the demise of his friend to light. He could have easily played the sympathy card.

Karsten remain on point. He took responsibility for his actions as stated his case. Hopefully, Karsten will be acquitted on appeal. But whether he does or not, Karsten made a lasting impression on everyone who witnessed his trial. It is this lasting impression that changes people's point of view. A calm purposeful statement, that will provoke thought and inspire the same courage from others. These are all just tiny baby steps when presented on their own. No drama ~ no shock & awe. Just the patient purposeful confidence of knowing that enough baby steps can change the world.

Karsten needs to talk to a lawyer, he's going about his defense all wrong.

The courts have already held that religious freedom is irrelavent in the case of cannabis because the drug has too high a likelihood of being diverted from religous practice to ludibund use, disqualifying it from recieving the same accepted religious status as ayahuasca and peyotl.

Further, the article said that Karsten claims the cannabis was not his, but his companion's. This should be the focus of the case. Unless the prosecution can show otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, Karsten would be rightfully found not guilty.

At this point our only chance is to ask that botanicals and not extracted chemicals be made legal for religous use.

It needs to be our positions that they cannot restrict our holy botanicals in ANY WAY SHAP OR FORM.

Once all Ayahuasca, Mushroom, Cannabis, Peyote and Salvia users can legally grow and use their holy sacrements... then perhap argue for the legalization of extracted chemicals.

But see heres my thing... I don't think you should sell prepared and brewed ayahuasca, or little packets of DMT or some shit like... if the botanicals only are legal the people must possess some knowledge and respect to use them... not every one can brew aya' but everybody can pop a pill!