Santo Daime Followers Can Have Their Tea and Drink It Too

Jacob Sullum | March 19, 2009

On Wednesday a federal judge in Oregon ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) allows followers of the Brazil-based Santo Daime sect to consume ayahuasca, a psychedelic tea containing the ordinarily illegal drug dimethyltryptamine (DMT), as part of their rituals. Guided by the Supreme Court's unanimous 2006 ruling in "a very similar case" involving Uniao do Vegetal, another Brazilian religious group that also consumes ayahuasca, U.S. District Court Judge Owen Panner concluded that RFRA "requires that plaintiffs be allowed to import and drink Daime tea for their religious ceremonies, subject to reasonable restrictions." The church already had convinced the Oregon Board of Pharmacy to exempt it from state DMT restrictions.

As I noted in my 2007 Reason article about the fallout from the Uniao do Vegetal decision, it was hard to see why Santo Daime practitioners would not qualify for protection under RFRA, since the relevant facts are almost exactly the same in the two cases: Both groups are small, they use the same sacrament in carefully controlled conditions, the sacrament is central to their religious practices, there is strong evidence that it enhances the lives of people who use it, there is practically no evidence that it causes serious problems, and there is little interest in it as a recreational drug. But you never know. Uniao do Vegetal's ayahuasca rituals seemed, if anything, less threatening to the current drug control regime than the peyote ceremonies of the Native American Church, which involve many more people yet have long been tolerated by the federal government. UDV still faced unrelenting resistance from the supposedly pro-religious Bush administration, which fought the church all the way to the Supreme Court and was rebuked by the courts at every step.

Panner's ruling is available here (PDF).

Comments

TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 12:50PM|#

I am all for the tea but against the religion. Do I get some sort of Libertarian chip or ribbon now?

The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 12:53PM|#

So, is this bad for equal protection reasons (believe in some fruitcake god and get to use drugs) or is this good for "thin edge of the wedge" reasons?

Zeb|3.19.09 @ 12:55PM|#

I've always thought that it seemed a pretty blatant violation of the first amendment that the government can decide what counts as a sincere religion.

If the law says that I can't claim a religion of which I am the only member and which consists entirely of me spending every Sunday doing bong hits and masturbating, I would say that that is pretty clearly a law regarding the establishment of religion.

Xeones|3.19.09 @ 12:58PM|#

and which consists entirely of me spending every Sunday doing bong hits and masturbating

That's not a religion, that's called "college."

|3.19.09 @ 1:00PM|#

and which consists entirely of me spending every Saturday and Sunday doing bong hits and masturbating

Schism!

|3.19.09 @ 1:04PM|#

Leave Zeb's false religion and join mine!

The McGangBang is our communion wafer.

|3.19.09 @ 1:05PM|#

Both groups are small, they use the same sacrament in carefully controlled conditions, the sacrament is central to their religious practices, there is strong evidence that it enhances the lives of people who use it, there is practically no evidence that it causes serious problems, and there is little interest in it as a recreational drug.

These make for a good test case, and I'm glad the test case is being confirmed.

However, I don't see how these should necessarily be limits on the application of the new rule.

What difference does it make if a religious practice involving psychoactives involves a small or a large group, or whether it enhances their lives?

How do you determine, in any objective way, that the psychoactive is central to their religion or that it enhances their lives.

How do you justify denying the use of the psychoactive just because it is also used as a recreational drug?

Cabeza De Vaca|3.19.09 @ 1:16PM|#

I tried this stuff once, not fun at all. It tastes like dirt & makes you extremely nauseated.

The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 1:24PM|#

why should moonbat hippies in the desert get to use psychoactive drugs and not me?

This is just like the "conscientious objector" stuff...either we all live by the same rules or we get rid of the rule.

|3.19.09 @ 1:28PM|#

Since the gov claims drugs kill you, make you stupid, etc., this can only been seen as an attempt by the government to either kill or dumb down people of certain religious persuasions.

Warty|3.19.09 @ 1:59PM|#

I've been wanting to try this stuff. How's it compare to acid?

Leave Zeb's false religion and join mine!

Ah, the Church of the Holy Tax-Exempt Status.

|3.19.09 @ 2:04PM|#

>How do you determine, in any objective way,
>that the psychoactive is central to their
>religion or that it enhances their lives?

They HAVE determined in an objective way that Daime is central to SD practices and doctrine. The consumption of the tea is the fundamental act of the religion, one of the only acts that make it all that different from an environmentally-minded quasi-Catholic congregation. However, the entire philosophy of the Santo Daime is premised on the idea that one communes with the essence of that religion - its mystical underpinning - by consuming ayahuasca and opening the soul to its effects.

In terms of enhancement, there is at least one bio-chemical study of UDV ayahuasca drinkers that not only demonstrates a complete lack of neurotoxicity, but also a statistically measurable benefit to users (compared to non-using controls) in terms of attention and overall mental well-being. I think, for instance, that the UDV medical study found not a single instance of depression, but don't quote me on that. Legion are the anecdotes of drinkers and druggers who have abandoned their addictions as a seemingly direct result of their participation in UDV ayahuasca rituals. While that could be attributed to joining a spiritually-minded group of any sort, the ayahuasca experience itself, in its ritual context, is often compared to "years of psychotherapy." The drinker sees their outer and innermost selves in a highly novel manner that is particularly useful in ones efforts to break bad habits, overcome neuroses and traumas, etc.

>How do you justify denying the use of the
>psychoactive just because it is also used as >a recreational drug?

This is very easy to justify from the government's standpoint. Among the reasons that other drug-using religions and practitioners have failed in their legal challenges, notably Rastafarians and similar groups, is that the federal government has a long-standing compelling interest (from their perspective) in preventing the cultivation, sale and importation of marijuana, which is used by millions of Americans as a recreational drug with no apparent 'sacred' context. The same reasoning applies to cocaine, meth, etc. In such cases, the government would argue, their compelling desire to control our borders and prevent international drug smuggling overrides the stated religious desire to use that drug, and the prohibition of that drug is done for its own sake, and is not specifically intended to prevent the free-practice of religion. This is why the RFRA exists; it originally answered the legal challenge to members of the Native American Church to procure, distribute and consume peyote, which is also a Schedule I substance, as is mescaline, its purported psychoactive component. Its broader use allows for intelligent exceptions when an EXTREMELY compelling case is made that a certain law/practice unduly burdens the free practice of a religion. Ayahuasca is used regularly in the US by probably less than a few thousand people, is not a popular black market substance, is not especially dangerous (not even compared to marijuana), and bears almost no risk of being diverted for non-religious purposes. The same can not be said, in the U.S. at least, of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, PCP, coke, meth, etc. I'm not saying these drugs are all equivalent, but they are in practical terms, in the sense that the market for them is almost entirely recreational, there is a substantial black market for most of them, they are often associated with organized crime (by default, really), etc.

Further, SD members are not typically "moonbat hippies." They come from all walks of life, and tend towards the upper end of the bell curve in terms of 'intelligence,' however you define that quality. In Brazil, the ayahuasca religions are rather egalitarian, attracting the poor, middle class and wealthy alike, and while there are "hippies," they are decidedly much more than that.

Warty|3.19.09 @ 2:08PM|#

Now that is not knowledge I would have expected John to have.

So, John, since you're the Brazil expert, do you have any tips for how to avoid the tranny hookers?

JiggleTits|3.19.09 @ 2:12PM|#

"If the law says that I can't claim a religion of which I am the only member and which consists entirely of me spending every Sunday doing bong hits and masturbating, I would say that that is pretty clearly a law regarding the establishment of religion."

Pssst...make that two members (and separate perishes).

|3.19.09 @ 2:16PM|#

do you have any tips for how to avoid the tranny hookers

Pay attention to the hands.

TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 2:19PM|#

"So, John, since you're the Brazil expert, do you have any tips for how to avoid the tranny hookers?"

Easy. Don't bring me with you to the brothels. God I love trannies!

|3.19.09 @ 2:21PM|#

They HAVE determined in an objective way that Daime is central to SD practices and doctrine. The consumption of the tea is the fundamental act of the religion,

IOW, it is central because the SD practitioners say it is. Sounds easy enough.

How do you justify denying the use of the
>psychoactive just because it is also used as >a recreational drug?

This is very easy to justify from the government's standpoint.

I understand why the government wants to draw this line; because without this restriction the religious exemption becomes a "loophole" that destroys the drug war. That, however, is not a principled reason.

I just don't understand the principled reason for negating a right to use a given substance in a religious context because other people use it in a different context.

We are all fond of arguing that some people using guns to commit crimes is not a good reason for prohibiting all people from owning guns. Why doesn't the same logic apply here?

The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 2:30PM|#

I don't know if that's "our" John. Is it?

Anyway. John, who cares what that faith believes? Should a belief entitle you to special treatment?

Paul|3.19.09 @ 2:34PM|#

"Easy. Don't bring me with you to the brothels. God I love trannies!"

Whoa!

Xeones|3.19.09 @ 2:35PM|#

do you have any tips for how to avoid the tranny hookers?

That's more the kind of thing you should be asking Episiarch.

|3.19.09 @ 2:41PM|#

IOW, it is central because the SD practitioners say it is. Sounds easy enough.

How else is this determined!? The Santo Daime has been around for many decades now and their practices and doctrine are reasonably well-known, documented in books, documentary films, and ethnographic academic writings. Virtually everything they do as a religious group is, at one level or another - connected to the centrality of ritualized ayahuasca consumption in their practices. Being contrarian for no apparent reason doesn't bolster an argument against the concept.

I understand why the government wants to draw this line; because without this restriction the religious exemption becomes a "loophole"...why doesn't the same logic apply here?

The same logic DOES apply here. The federal court ruled in FAVOR of the Santo Daime, and stated that the government's interest in preventing this SPECIFIC drug use/importation unduly burdened the free practice of a religion. This is why the SD's lawywers went to great lengths to demonstrate that ayahausca is neither recreational, popular or dangerous, so as to poke a hole in the government's argument that prohibition of ayahuasca is related to issues of public safety, consistency of prophibition doctrines and such. The federal judge in this case saw through the government's case, and sided with the Santo Daime church. This is remarkable, and completely in line with the idea that because some people use "guns to commit crimes [it] is not a good reason for prohibiting all people from owning guns."

However, in terms of other drugs, they are typically not made by Brazilian churches and sent only to responsible parties among their foreign adherents. They are typically the domain of violent cartels or other criminal networks (even if non-violent), so that even IF you were using coke in a sacred setting, its production/distribution networks are not likely to a bunch of saintly mystics with big smiles on their faces as they lovingly package their products for distribution.

Warty|3.19.09 @ 2:51PM|#

I think that's not our John. No misspellings.

TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 2:58PM|#

Another imitator of me @2:19pm? What gives? Is today emulate a Progressive day or something?

|3.19.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Yes, I am an entirely different "John."

lukas|3.19.09 @ 3:16PM|#

However, in terms of other drugs, they are typically not made by Brazilian churches and sent only to responsible parties among their foreign adherents. They are typically the domain of violent cartels or other criminal networks

Anyone who manufactures and distributes these drugs is a criminal by definition. Next.

Cabeza De Vaca|3.19.09 @ 3:19PM|#

Warty,

It's not a euphoric experience. My friend I took it with said he had deep introspective thoughts. I just remember feeling weird & vomiting.

|3.19.09 @ 3:41PM|#

All black markets are the domain of violent cartels and criminal networks. The tautology of refusing to legalize something because it is distributed through a black market is seamless, a virtual black hole of thoughtlessness.

The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 3:43PM|#

New John - you are only highlighting how specious and arbitrary the reasoning used by the Government is.

The War on Drugs has now spilled over into "what constitutes a valid way to worship". your church is not entitled to special treatment; I don't care how many years of history or how "nonrecreational" YOUR use is. We should all live by the same rules regardless of what Sky Fairy (if any at all) we believe in.

Robert|3.19.09 @ 7:06PM|#

All black markets are the domain of violent cartels and criminal networks. The tautology of refusing to legalize something because it is distributed through a black market is seamless, a virtual black hole of thoughtlessness.

That may apply to "refusing to legalize something", but not to making a small exception for something otherwise illegal.

Krob|4.1.09 @ 3:00AM|#

"why should moonbat hippies in the desert get to use psychoactive drugs and not me?"

The churches are in Portland and Ashland, Oregon. They aren't in the desert. Eastern Oregon is desert, not Western Oregon. Do your homework, find some entheogens for yourself online.