Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Friday, April 15, 2005
Gettin' High
This is the kind of youth ministry I think can really be successful:The administration is challenging the New Mexico group -- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal -- and its practice of drinking hoasca, a sacred herbal tea that members believe connects them to God. The tea contains dimethyltryptamine, a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act and one the administration claims is banned by international treaty. The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, No. 04-1084, at its conference Friday.
I think the crux of the issue is this: I use far too many colons. If you'll forgive me that, I thank you.
So long as THC is a schedule 1 controlled substance, the Controlled Substances Act has no credibility. I don't know anything about dimethyltryptamine. I don't know if it's as harmless as pot or as dangerous as crack. If adherents to this religion have been taking it for years and aren't annoyed to know end by strung-out addicts geeking it for it in the pews, then I side with RFRA. If the cost to society is less than the perceived benefit to the individual, the government should step out of the way.
Now, does anyone know an ordained minister who can score me some X? I was watching Six Feet Under and Peter Krause's portrayal has encouraged me to violate some laws.
2 Comments:
I think there is a SC case right on point for this about native Americans and peyote where the court said screw your religious beliefs, we've got a war on drugs to fight.
By 
, at
1:01 PM
This is from the synopsis of City of Boerne v. Flores:
Congress enacted RFRA in direct response to Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876, in which the Court upheld against a free exercise challenge a state law of general applicability criminalizing peyote use, as applied to deny unemployment benefits to Native American Church members who lost their jobs because of such use. In so ruling, the Court declined to apply the balancing test of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965, which asks whether the law at issue substantially burdens a religious practice and, if so, whether the burden is justified by a compelling government interest. RFRA prohibits "[g]overnment" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless the government can demonstrate the burden "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that ... interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. RFRA's mandate applies to any branch of Federal or State Government, to all officials, and to other persons acting under color of law. § 2000bb-2(1). Its universal coverage includes "all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after [RFRA's enactment]." § 2000bb-3(a). Pp. 2160-2162.
So RFRA was at least in part a response to the peyote case. The Supreme Court went on to find that RFRA exceeded Congress's authority.
I'm not enough of a Supreme Court junkie to figure out how the two cases intertwine.
