Since I use psychedelic substances (Psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, MDMA/Ecstasy) to enhance my conscious experience and become unified with God and the Universe, these substances are a vital part of my religious experience. Does the War on Drugs violate this freedom of mine, since my own personal use does not harm others?
2006-08-21 08:27:10 · 8 answers · asked by Lifestyle Freedom 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think the supreme court ruled on this. No surprise (almost all S. Court decisions are statst anyways) the Supreme court ruled its not your right. The case is Employment division v. Smith.
heres a link
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/110/
2006-08-21 08:39:12 · answer #1 · answered by Jason 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Because the anti-entanglement provisions only require laws be neutral with respect to religious activities.
The govt cannot punish religious activity more than it punishes the same activity for non-religious reasons. But the govt also cannot treat religious activity any better under neutral criminal laws. In other words, the activity gets punished the same, whether religion is involved or not.
So, where a neutral drug law forbids using a particular substance, that neutral law is applicable regardless of whether the action is religiously motivated.
The exception is when the law itself is religiously motivated, to punish a certain religious practice. So, if a law is crafted so that it impacts one particular religion, and has no other significant effects (because nobody else is doing that activity), then it is no longer neutral and would be a constitutional violation.
The classic example was a religious sect that practiced animal sacrifice in Florida. The county enacted a law that banned all killing of animals, then made exceptions for every other existing activity except for that one religious group. The court struck down the law as obviously being targeted at that one group.
The same applies to a recent case that dealt with a particular type of hallucinogenic tea. This tea was only being used by one particular religious group, and was not (at the time) a controlled substance. The DEA added the tea to the controlled substance list, making it illegal. The court threw out the designation, since there was no evidence that it was a widely used drug, so the new regulation had the primary effect of only targeting that particular religion.
The bottom line is that as long as a law is truly neutral and generally applicable, religious status doesn't enter into the equation one way or the other.
2006-08-21 08:36:53 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first amendment only prevents Congress from establishing a state religion. That is all it does. It does not prevent Congress or any other legislative body from criminalizing certain behaviors that may be a part of a religion.
So, yes, the "war on drugs" violates your freedom, but it is not unconstitutional.
2006-08-21 08:40:30 · answer #3 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
quite an interesting religion you have there. If your church condones the use of these then you have the covering of the church. If you're shooting from the hip with this then you better be prepared to back up your claim with doctrine. Otherwise, you're hiding behind a false cover.
2006-08-21 08:38:01 · answer #4 · answered by Alan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends. American Indians have a few exceptions. You might want to move to Needle Park in Europe.
2006-08-21 08:40:37 · answer #5 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"my own personal use" may not meet the" recognized religion "standards of the u. s. govt...yet Scientology and devil worship are recognized. crazy world huh ?
2006-08-21 10:06:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh brother, why don't you take your case to court and find out what your rights are.
2006-08-21 08:34:21 · answer #7 · answered by Jasmine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WTFE, go to a meeting.
2006-08-21 08:40:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋