data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9be16/9be168346153bd387a2c599de874fb42ef484c0e" alt="" DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 2229 Joined: 22-Jul-2011 Last visit: 02-May-2024 Location: in the underbelly of the cosmic womb
|
could the religious freedom restoration act come into play with issues like these? after all many of us here use the sacrament for religious purposes, and should be within our rights to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/08fee/08fee5f90b452fa1a3ea5bb0d82e2601f2b5366c" alt="" DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 177 Joined: 14-Apr-2011 Last visit: 22-Jul-2016
|
bricklaya wrote:could the religious freedom restoration act come into play with issues like these? after all many of us here use the sacrament for religious purposes, and should be within our rights to do so. I dont see why not. I use spice religiously. "The constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the federal government was confirmed on February 21, 2006, as the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the government in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), which involved the use of an otherwise illegal substance in a religious ceremony, decisively stating that the federal government must show a compelling state interest in restricting religious freedom." If you are an adult, just using it for yourself, and using it religiously, what compelling state interest is there to restrict that freedom?
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e57f3/e57f3d75b5c2c709bd49cda980e9df0003d5bcb6" alt="" DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 57 Joined: 13-Nov-2011 Last visit: 06-Jul-2018 Location: Pedestria
|
But there is a religious test. You must show that this is actually a part of some religion and the judge must agree that the circumstances in which it is used is, in fact, a "religion." Kind of slippery, that is.
Also, if I remember correctly, the churches that do use ayahuasca in their ceremonies are required to notify the DEA of everything they do, account for every bit of brew, and file paperwork. None of that, I hope, is being done by anyone in this community (unless they are in that church), because they wouldn't be freely practicing anything, let alone religion, in short order if they did.
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/08fee/08fee5f90b452fa1a3ea5bb0d82e2601f2b5366c" alt="" DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 177 Joined: 14-Apr-2011 Last visit: 22-Jul-2016
|
Oh, I certainly wouldnt go around announcing it to anyone. Even if you were able to get off by way of religious freedom, you would still probably be out several thousand dollars in lawyers fees.
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ada73/ada73fd8679ccc0b1c906ecb56f3e48d0c3dcf04" alt="" polyfather anomalous
Posts: 630 Joined: 14-Mar-2010 Last visit: 19-Jun-2017 Location: Region of Thud
|
bricklaya wrote:could the religious freedom restoration act come into play with issues like these? after all many of us here use the sacrament for religious purposes, and should be within our rights to do so. I think for a bigger organization, than yes. Some suggested this was indirectly why the charges against the Bouncing Bear Botanicals guy were dropped, when he was pretty clearly guilty as charged - the fed govt didn't want to risk a broader judgment against the Controlled Substances Act due to its ambiguity and conflict with the RFRA/1st amendment. I think it'd be more difficult for an individual to use that as a defense, but I'm not an attorney. Regardless, this is very sad! To think of all the cartels and poisonous powders running up through Florida, and these DEA agents choose to pick on someone like this. Shame on them. "...I didn't know that Cheshire cats always grinned; in fact, I didn't know that cats could grin..." - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
|