New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | April 22, 2005

In honor of the compelling interest to restore religious freedom, Jacob Sullum takes a swig of psychedelic tea.

Comments

|4.22.05 @ 12:11PM|#

Making special rules for religions puts the government in the unsavory position of determining which religions are legitimate, and how sincere a person's belief in that religion is. I realize the government already does that in a number of other cases, but it's just plain wrong. Sullum's last point is strongest: if it's legal for some, it ought to be legal for all.

|4.22.05 @ 12:31PM|#

A good rule of thumb might be that when a religious group can reasonably demand an exemption from a law, it's the law rather than the group that deserves scrutiny.

Perhaps the best statement I've ever read on the subject.

I'm not happy with making these exceptions, for precisely the reasons that phocion just cited, but I reluctantly conclude that it's better to have such exceptions than to not have them.

|4.22.05 @ 12:41PM|#

"For the Bush administration, which is big on religion but down on drug..."

No, it's big on CHRISTIAN religion. Althouh he pays lips service to other mainstream faiths, as a born-again he privately believes these pagans, heathens, and heretics will burn in hellfire at the end of days... etc, etc, blah blah blah

|4.22.05 @ 12:46PM|#

The law was a response to a 1990 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom does not require the government to tolerate the peyote rituals of the Native American Church.

The idea of the government "tolerating" the actions of the citizens makes me very uneasy.

|4.22.05 @ 1:22PM|#

No, it's big on CHRISTIAN religion.

To be fair, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist groups have received our money under the faith-based program as well. It's impossible to know what Bush's personal religious beliefs are, but the way he talks leads me to believe that it's only atheists and agnostics like me who really get his blood boiling. Maybe Wiccans and new agers too. To link this in with a thread from yesterday, Bush thinks you gotta serve somebody.

As opposed to Bush himself, a significant number of his followers, including those in the House and Senate, seem to think that non-Judeo Christians are weirdos at best, and ought to be deported or killed at worst. Man do they get furious when he mentions the Koran.

|4.22.05 @ 1:32PM|#

I also agree to Phocion and Thoreau's points on exemptions for religious freedoms. However, considering an irrational policy that does not differentiate between legitimate use from abuse like it does with alcohol, fire arms, Rx, etc., a person has to defend their noncriminal use with every means necessary, whether religous or medical. Any means that demonstrate use from abuse helps to inform the mainstream public that not all drug use is abuse and that the abuse actually resides within a small minority. Let the case go to court!

|4.22.05 @ 1:45PM|#

s.a.m. - I sent Mr Sullum the link to the "abuse" by teens of pharmys (as I'm sure others did), and mentioned something similar...they were using the word "abuse" every time they said teens used pharmys, and my question was something along the lines of whether all use was abuse. I suspect that in the evil drug warrior's eyes, it is, but I know better. Because I've both used and abused drugs, and there is a huge difference!

fyodor|4.22.05 @ 1:51PM|#

s.a.m.,

Any means that demonstrate use from abuse helps to inform the mainstream public that not all drug use is abuse and that the abuse actually resides within a small minority.

Unfortunately I don't see how that mainstream public would be moved by the tea sippers' victory in this case when they could simply decide that all use not sanctioned by a religion is still abuse and still should be outlawed. Since human beings' ability to rationalize is limitless and since drug warriors are not uniformly mere simpletons, it will be easy for them to dream up the argument that an established religion with an established tradition involving drug use provides some sort of proper context that makes it different from the rest of everything else. Now I ain't saying I agree with any of that, and I ain't saying the tea sippers should lose, only don't expect too much mainstream shift on the drug war issue if they win. And be prepared to face that argument!

SteveInClearwater|4.22.05 @ 5:15PM|#

LOWDOG, you aptly notice that in the Bush Bros twin Offices of Drug Control Policy (Czar Walters in Wash DC and Czar McDonough here in Florida) even a SINGLE USE of an illicit substance constitutes Drug Abuse.

This is a key determinant in how they can define their state success in 'reducing drug abuse'.

If they arrest someone and incarcerate them, even for short term, they have created one less drug abuser.

So arrest a hundred thousand and incarcerate them at some point during the year and you can then claim at years end an additional 100,000 less drug abusers under our watch.

|4.22.05 @ 7:37PM|#

"A good rule of thumb might be that when a religious group can reasonably demand an exemption from a law, it's the law rather than the group that deserves scrutiny."

There you go with that pesky Ninth Amendment again...

|4.22.05 @ 9:10PM|#

It's impossible to know what Bush's personal religious beliefs are, but the way he talks leads me to believe that it's only atheists and agnostics like me who really get his blood boiling.

I don't know that we really get his blood boiling. His father famously said that we couldn't be patriots and shouldn't be considered real Americans, but Dubya has on several occasions used phrases like "people of all faiths, or of no faith" when describing how we all share common values.

It isn't much, but it is about the closest I've heard any President from either party come to acknowledging that atheists are good people too.

|4.23.05 @ 6:47PM|#

Does anybody know if Coptic Christians get special exemptions for marijuana use?

I suspect that even some of the most die-hard atheists on this forum might be willing to join the Coptic church if such an exemption existed.

|4.24.05 @ 11:29PM|#

If the government makes exceptions to a law for some religions then it has to make such an exception for anyone who claims that his or her religion requires them do what the exception allows.

For example, if Rastafarians are aloud to use pot, then anyone who claims their religion requires them to use pot. Unfortunately that wont happen

So consider this thought experiment. Lets say I go to the government and apply to have an exception for my religion: the Church of Taking Advantage of Religious Loopholes to Use Narcotics . I am the only member and I was divinely inspired to start this religion after reading the court's decision in favor of religious exceptions. According to the holy book I am advocating I have to use every scedule one narcotic each year at least once. Otherwise I will have to listen to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson extoll the virtues of abstinence for all eternity.

Can the government allow members of the Native American Church to use Peyote but not let me use it? No, because then they would be legally saying the Native American Church is a real religion but the Church of Taking Advantage of Religious Loopholes to Use Narcotics is not. The government is not allowed to make such a judgement.

Nor can they argue that no exception should be made for me on grounds that I don't really believe my professed faith. No more than they can interview each individual member of the Native American Church to see what they really believe. The sicerity of my beliefs is not subject to examination by the state for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant an exception.

Of course a simple solution would be to repeal victimless crime laws so adults who want to engage in peaceful behavior, whether for
religious reasons or not, can do so.