cannabisnews.com: Court Allows Church To Use Hallucinogenic Tea





Court Allows Church To Use Hallucinogenic Tea
Posted by CN Staff on December 11, 2004 at 11:59:20 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press 
Albuquerque, New Mexico -- The U.S. Supreme Court sided Friday with a New Mexico church that wants to use hallucinogenic tea as part of its Christmas services, despite government objections that the tea is illegal and potentially dangerous.The high court lifted a temporary stay issued last week against using the hoasca tea while it decides whether the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal is permitted to make it a permanent part of its services.
The legal battle began after federal agents seized 30 gallons of the tea in a 1999 raid on the Santa Fe home of the church's U.S. president, Jeffrey Bronfman.Bronfman sued the government for the right to use the tea and the church won a preliminary injunction, which was upheld by 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The Bush administration then took the case to the Supreme Court."They're delighted," attorney Nancy Hollander said of the church members she represented. "They're so thrilled that they can celebrate Christmas for the first time since 1998."Bronfman and attorneys for the government did not immediately return calls seeking comment.The church, which has about 140 members in the United States and 8,000 worldwide, said the herbal brew is a central sacrament in its religious practice, which is a blend of Christian beliefs and traditions rooted in the Amazon basin.Hollander said the tea is drunk in a ritual similar to the Catholic Communion. Church members then sit in a circle and meditate; they believe the tea brings them closer to God.The tea is brewed from plants found in the Amazon River Basin and contains DMT, which officials say is a controlled substance under an international treaty.However, Bronfman's complaint contends the tea is "non-addictive, is not harmful to human health and poses none of the risks commonly found with the use of certain controlled substances."The church had drawn parallels to federal protection for members of the Native American Church using peyote, which also has hallucinogenic properties.Newshawk: HopeSource: Associated Press (Wire)Published: Friday, December 10, 2004 Copyright: 2004 The Associated Press CannabisNews -- Justice Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/justice.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #27 posted by afterburner on May 25, 2006 at 08:04:29 PT
OT: 'Hallucinogen researcher Charles Grob says ...
psychedelic drugs have the potential to alter modern medicine.' US: Web: The Electric Kool-Aid Medicine Test.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n667/a06.html
Pubdate: Wed, 24 May 2006.
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by 13th step on December 15, 2004 at 08:38:24 PT
paulpeterson
Thank you for the information. This is fascinating, if a bit over my head.Off to read the RFRA, and thanks again for your comments.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on December 15, 2004 at 08:18:25 PT
Paul
I just wanted to say keep up the good work and happy holidays to you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by paulpeterson on December 15, 2004 at 06:27:49 PT
13th step
I filed suit in August, 2002, for a declaration that the RFRA is good law in the 7th Circuit (including Illinois). A case came down stating that the RFRA is "presumed" good law where the DOJ doesn't argue otherwise. I then filed to withdraw my claim since I claimed victory, my prayer for relief was "moot", since this cae came down, and the judge dismissed my claim after the DOJ failed (again) to rebut my assertions.Since that time, although I have been open and notorious about my advocacy efforts (to decriminalize in the "North Shore" of Chicago's suburbs). As a result of my court efforts, you see, if the DOJ were to bother me at all, I would be able to argue "waiver, laches and estoppel" ie: they had their chance to come up to the plate. In addition, if they bug me, I would be able to argue that they are merely retaliating against my invocation of First Amendment Freedoms. That would mean any jury would have a right to see the documents I filed against them so they could analyze whether the feds were discriminating against me, etc. They call this "Political Defendant Status".(Of course, if also helps that I had argued for the unconstitutionality of the CSA & had asked to force the FBI & DOJ to prosecute the lawyer police for mail fraud under federal law-nobody in the FBI or DOJ wants anything to do with me because I say the lawyer police got blood on their hands).Now, of course, since we have 8 solid towns that have already decriminalized in my "rebel held territory", my loyal police forces here help to form a further protective barrier against fed intervention (maybe the feds keep asking for assistance and they get laughed at by my friends that have listened about medical wonders of this plant). Or maybe they just fear the truth and truthful people. I just think that the RFRA is the best tool around to confabulate these goons. End of Transmission. PAUL PETERSON, somewhere in safe zone.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by 13th step on December 14, 2004 at 08:05:00 PT
paulpeterson
"The RFRA has been seen to be helpful in Illinois, for me, that is. "Would you mind explaining this?I'm very curious to know!Thank you for your comments.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by paulpeterson on December 13, 2004 at 17:07:27 PT
HOW RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION WORKS
The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 93) is based loosely on case law precedent defining the scope of religious freedoms, from the draft cases, etc., where the relevant standard is that there must be a "sincere belief" system, which does not even need to be accepted by others of your faith, and beliefs occupying the same place as a belief in god or an afterlife, or with the same intensity, or involving ultimate beliefs or ideas. Once a sincere belief is sustained, then the 2 step approach comes in 1) is there a compelling state interest and if so, 2) is there a less restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling state interest. In this case, regulation of the church was found to be quite feasible and safe, etc.Yes, this already has been sustained for Rasta's in the 9th Circuit: Guam (01) & California (96). Those cases, in fact, were cited in this case briefs, etc. Sacramental usage can be proven, but there are standards, such as a church rubric, but individual belief systems can still be supported.Non-violence, compassion for all living things, a belief in paying taxes and being sociable helps, of course.A basic tenet should be a search for truth and justice and a search of faith in a power outside of one's self I think evidences good intent. One need not lie about what one's internal conclusions are about these things, in my opinion, so don't think you have to bow down to any dogma or orthodoxy. Just some thoughts, of course. The RFRA has been seen to be helpful in Illinois, for me, that is. Signing off. PAUL PETERSON.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Hope on December 13, 2004 at 09:48:29 PT
Thanks, Afterburner
I'd like to repeat...and in all sincerity.Be careful with peanuts and use them responsibly. Peanuts can and do kill.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by 13th step on December 13, 2004 at 07:43:05 PT
afterburner
That's beautiful. I really appreciate your response. (Everyone else's too!)I think maybe I'm just imagining how *some* would use sacramental/medical as an excuse, or loophole, if you will. I see that as bad, when everyone should enjoy, or be able to enjoy, the benefits of this herb. Medical, recreational, whatever.When they get what they want, then will they no longer be on our side? I'm sure many, such as several of you who frequent CNEWS, will, but I'm sure there are those that won't. Maybe I just fear that if they get what they are looking for, they won't be on our side, and we won't have the numbers needed to help our cause.I do see one benefit to medical exemption as opposed to sacramental. That when doctors/scientists/general public/politicos see that cannabis is utilized, it is no more harmful than coffee. Probably less so. Then the rest of the prohibition will crumble. I don't see that as possible with a sacramental use, mainly, because, who would be studying these users?Look at peyote, many natives use peyote in their rituals, you can even do it in prison. But is it legal for the rest of us? No.Thanks again!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by afterburner on December 13, 2004 at 02:25:50 PT
Double-Edged Sword
Comment #11 -- Well said, Hope. The real issue is freedom. The cannabis plant was created by God for a purpose. He said to use it for food and medicine. Cannabis should never have been made illegal. The reasons for doing so were phony, racist, and irrational. As such, all cannabis enthusiasts became victims and prisoners of a vindictive "state of mind." Typically, the federal government "blames the victim." We have to fight for our God-given rights to enjoy the cannabis plant, and not accept the mantle of victim. The term cannabis culture, which when capitalized represents an activist magazine, is the way I see us. I too have a problem with the drive for medical use for the same reasons given by 13th step regarding sacramental use. Personally, I consider cannabis a guide, a meditative aid, a brain regulator, an experience enhancer, a social relaxant, a medicine (but not always a medicine, not just a medicine), and because of the "Good Friday Miracle" and personal experience, a sacrament (but not always a sacrament, not just a sacrament). I do not want to have to sign a declaration that I always employ cannabis as a medicine only. I do not want to have to sign a declaration that I always employ cannabis as a sacrament only. That is not what the Creator intended when He gave us this "wonderful" plant. God gave us the plant for its many uses. God is one. Cannabis culture is one. Man has divided us by passing restrictive laws. The activists have fought back necessarily using a piecemeal approach in the face of irrational hostility. However, always remember that we are one, regardless of the lies and persecutions of the civil state. We must support all initiatives that free our blessed herb, but we must fight most of all for freedom.You do not need to believe in God to enjoy the blessings of the cannabis plant. You do not need to be sick to enjoy the blessings of the cannabis plant. Religious freedom, First Amendment, is the strongest defense (even for atheists and agnostics: no state religion) and medical freedom, Tenth Amendment, is a weaker defense, but we should not have to defend ourselves. Just as the sun shines on all of us whether or not we believe in God, the blessings of cannabis *shine* on us all as well. Do not let the state divide and conquer. Resist. Love your brothers and sisters. Love truth. Love freedom. "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." 
- Thomas Jefferson
The Good Friday experiment, or 'miracle at Marsh Chapel' 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on December 12, 2004 at 12:06:56 PT
Robbie
I understand how that would be helpful. A church doesn't even have to be a place when you think about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Robbie on December 12, 2004 at 11:50:43 PT
This could actually help
If I was invited to a church where I could smoke pot, I'd listen to the sermons and maybe even get a little bit out of them.Of course, they'll still have to answer my persnickety little questions.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Hope on December 12, 2004 at 11:11:42 PT
Interesting article...I wonder how true it is
http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article4B1054F1E3404954A473E0DD1C849B01.asp?printerFriendly=true
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Hope on December 12, 2004 at 10:48:55 PT
I have an idea
Since cannabis use is supposed to be so "dangerous"...what about if everyone who used it wore a helmet, like a bicycle, skateboard, skate, riding, or motorcycle helmet?lola cannabis helmet?My niece would like to see peanuts and all their products be illegal. Her child could die if someone so much as kissed her with a bit of peanut butter residue on their lips. Yet peanuts are legal and you don't even have to sign anything for them.This is, or certainly can be, a cold, wicked, cruel, dangerous and insane world. Prohibitionists don't advance civilization...they hold it back.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on December 12, 2004 at 10:10:02 PT
Hope
One thing I've learned thru life is to always be true to myself. We must know how we feel and why. No one can change my mind about issues concerning God and how I feel about Him or His Creations. I don't have a problem with anyone who thinks differently then I do. We are individuals and we need to sort things out in our own heads and I hope I always allow people to do that who are around me or influenced in anyway by me. That is something I know I must do is to be non judgmental.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Hope on December 12, 2004 at 09:46:57 PT
Amen
and Amen.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on December 12, 2004 at 09:41:25 PT
Hope
Cannabis is a gift! Yes! You and I are on the same wavelength. I thank Him for Cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Hope on December 12, 2004 at 09:33:47 PT
me, too
I want cannabis use legal for adults and prescribable for underage people who need the help cannabis can provide medicinally.The government should be forced to leave people alone in the matter of cannabis...not the other way around.If you want to use it as a "sacrament"...that's fine...it should be a free country, a free world. If you need it for medicine you shouldn't have to jump through hoops. Churchill used alcohol to make himself more sociable and talkative...to loosen him up and relax him. You should be able to use cannabis for the same reasons. Cannabis is "holy" to those of us who believe in a Creator, because all of his "gifts" are "holy" when we are thankful for them.But, for me, personally, I want it legalized to stop the insane persecution of those who do wish to use this plant. Plain and simple...don't hurt the people who touch or consume the plant cannabis...whatever they use it for… a sacrament, a house plant, medicine, meditation, paper, fuel, mulch, to stimulate conversation, arthritis oil, cosmetics, fun, or "partying".No one...absolutely no one...should have the government peering over their shoulder, taking it from them or slapping anyone up side the head because of it. Government certainly should never be able to bind anyone’s hands behind their back, take them were they don't want to go, take their belongings or put them in cages. Common sense ought to tell human kind that...but apparently it doesn't. So when I see the unfairness...the ugly wrong of the situation...I have to say something. I have to do what I can to see that that situation is changed.So fight for it as a sacrament if that’s really all you want it legal for. But, other wise, I wish you would all join in the fight for freedom…all the way around.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on December 12, 2004 at 07:46:04 PT
13th step 
I understand what you are saying. I do believe in God but I don't go to any church anymore. I would be doing something very wrong if I tried to say I believed Cannabis was a sacrament for me because it isn't a sacrament for me. You are being true to yourself and I must always be true to myself. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by The GCW on December 12, 2004 at 05:48:33 PT
Article about poll, last week.
Viewed at: http://www.fosters.com/December_2004/12.12.04/news/poll_resp_12.12.04.asp
 
Readers support states on medical marijuana use 
By JAMES BAKERStaff WriterDOVER — Do you think states to be able to make it legal for people to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes, or should the federal government have the right to ban the drug?We posed that question in our reader’s poll this week, and among the 260 people who responded, more than 85 percent said they were in favor of state control, while just under 14 percent said the federal government should be able to veto state laws.Some responders, such as Liz of Rochester, said legalizing marijuana makes sound fiscal sense."They should just legalize it like they did alcohol and put an age restriction on it. That will stop wasting all our precious dollars in legal fees, and will stop wasting all our courtroom time on small petty issues."Rick Newman of Nottingham wrote in to say marijuana should definitely be allowed for medicinal purposes."We use morphine, OxyContin, and many other more potent drugs for medical use. How can the feds stand in the way of marijuana use if it is going to ease a patient’s suffering? This is a ridiculous debate fueled by the thought and body police among us."On reader who claims to suffer from fibromyalgia, arthritis, and post traumatic stress disorder said it is an "outrage" that a healing plant put on Earth by God could be made illegal by a government."I use it for medicinal reasons and there is nothing that is as multifunctional in the world. I’m tired of worrying about the problems of trying to find it when I need it so badly. It helps me physically and mentally it helps me to relax."I will never understand why it is illegal when such a destructive thing as alcohol is legal. I have a pretty good feeling that half our government (representatives) are a bunch of drunks anyway!"Robin, who favors state control of marijuana for medicinal use, said the whole issue centers around money."Think about it ... it’s perfectly legal to take OxyContin, morphine, Demerol, and all those other hard core drugs which one could easily overdose on and which adversely affects the body... but Mother Nature’s painkiller marijuana... safe, efficacious, and impossible to overdose on, is illegal."But hey...if it were to be legalized, just think what that would do to all those pharmaceutical companies who have the monopoly on pain-related drugs. It would be hugely detrimental to their profits, and we can’t have that now, can we?"The controversy drew the attention of Robert Sharpe, a policy analyst for Common Sense for Drug Policy in Washington, D.C., who had this to say:"If health outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms, marijuana would be legal. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco."Marijuana can be harmful if abused, but jail cells are inappropriate as health interventions and ineffective as deterrents. The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican migration during the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association."Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. White Americans did not even begin to smoke pot until a soon-to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began funding reefer madness propaganda."By raiding voter-approved medical marijuana providers in California, the very same U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that claims illicit drug use funds terrorism is forcing cancer and AIDS patients into the hands of street dealers. Apparently marijuana prohibition is more important than protecting the country from terrorism."Conversely, some responders were adamantly opposed to legalizing marijuana for any purpose."Of course you’re going to feel better smoking pot, no matter what the illness! I’m sure I’d feel a heck of a lot better smoking a joint when I have a stress headache. Sorry, I don’t think it’s a good idea for many reasons, the top one being abuse," said one reader.Another described the whole controversy as "complete BS.""Marijuana importation, growing, and use is against federal law. If there are really benefits for those in ‘pain,’ why can’t the pharmaceutical companies produce the pain-killing drug found in marijuana smoke in the lab and process that into a pill that the patient can take."This is just a scam by the ‘high times’ crowd to incrementally legalize marijuana."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by 13th step on December 12, 2004 at 05:24:53 PT
The whole 'sacramental use' argument
(Please, no one take this as an insult. It is not intended as such. I have no qualms or problems with your religious beliefs.I feel we are all able to make our own decisions in this regard, and I am free to do as I want, also.)I keep reading more and more about this type of argument being raised in defense of cannabis consumers.It worries me, a bit.The whole argument leaves out those of us who feel it is unnecessary or unneeded to believe in a deity. I realize a lot of religious people feel we aren't worthy of being considered people, but that's beside the point. I have no religious beliefs, and no need for them. I do not want to worship anything, and am not even going to raise any kind of a 'sacramental use' defense, nor hide behind one. It's wrong for me, and I'm sure, many many other cannabis users.If this type of defense were to be successful, what would that mean for those of us who do not lie, even to protect our own backsides? I'm sure there are those that would have no qualms about saying they use canna in a religious sense, even when they don't. But there are many out there who are ethical people who will not. What about us?I'm not sure what the term is I'm looking for, but there is just something about this idea that bothers me.Please, understand that I am greatful that the Supreme Court has 'temporarily lifted the temporary stay' , and if that could happen for some canna users, that would be great, a step in the right direction, *possibly*. But if a religious exemption defense were to be successful, how about those of us who are not religious? Would many have to 'fake it' in order to be able to use a substance that we want to use? Would we still be arrested, as are peyote users who do not belong to a Native church?I'm just leery of anything with a religious wrapping on it. You'll forgive me, for that, I hope. I was raised here in the USA. You should understand.: )
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by rogerchristie on December 11, 2004 at 22:43:36 PT:
Let's hear it for 'sacramental use'
Hello out there,Aloha. Yes, apparently even the Supremes have a spot in their hearts and minds for 'sacramental use' of an otherwise prohibited substance. Hallelujah! Thank The-Great-You-Name-It (mahalo ke akua) for a victory of conscience. Let this please be a trend and not a fad.I recommend a tight and solid 'religious exemption' for everyone to avoid government intrusion on many levels now, and into the future. Start at www.ulc.org and become ordained online for free. Then check-out our website for more specific steps to take, www.thc-ministry.org.I really like this affirmation; 'We are safe and we are loved. All is well'.Happy holy-days!All the best to you and yours,Roger
* The Hawai'i Cannabis Ministry *
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Hope on December 11, 2004 at 20:48:46 PT
temporary?
They temporarily lifted a temporary stay? Still, it seems good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Hope on December 11, 2004 at 20:46:14 PT
It's temporary...I think...not final yet...
"The high court lifted a temporary stay issued last week against using the hoasca tea while it decides whether the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal is permitted to make it a permanent part of its services." But surprising and makes me more hopeful.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on December 11, 2004 at 19:03:10 PT
Dankhank 
I want to say I'm sure glad you are on our side! Go get em!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dankhank on December 11, 2004 at 18:50:38 PT
Church
Yes, form your own church .. the Cannabis Ministries in Hawaii have done it ..I am researching churching around here with the same idea.By the way, I am typing this in an internet cafe on our new, today, wireless notebook.I'm mobile and much more dangerous to the prohibitionists, now.One of the sponsors of the meta study is a GA legislator, and I will be in GA in a week for a week or so. I may have to pay him a visit ...No, I will endeavor to see him ...Peace to all who fight for the right ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mayan on December 11, 2004 at 17:57:28 PT
Tea Time
However, Bronfman's complaint contends the tea is "non-addictive, is not harmful to human health and poses none of the risks commonly found with the use of certain controlled substances."That statement could just as well describe cannabis! Bypassing the mainstream media blackout...Blackwell Locks Out Recount Volunteers:
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/blackwell-locks-out-recount-volunteers.htmlElection Investigation: House Judiciary Committee Moves to Columbus for Second Forum: Monday, December 13th, Columbus City Hall, 10:30 AM:
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/953708.htm"YOU STOLE MY VOTE" 51 CAPITAL MARCH - SUNDAY, DECEMBER 12TH 2004 at Noon Everywhere!
http://www.51capitalmarch.com/index.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by drfistusa on December 11, 2004 at 12:15:32 PT
Ancient religious use of Hemp by N.Europeans
a long history of use hemp by the surpressed western form of Buddhism, predate religious use by Rastafarians by 2400 yrs.
form your own church!
Western Buddhism = Scythien Buddhism
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment