Religious Use of "Drugs"

My question involves civil rights in the State of: Illinois

First off, I'm thankful for any help I may get here. Does the religious exemption clause for drugs also apply to personal, soul-ly spiritual beliefs? The constitution seems to be implying a personal right here. Has this ever been taken to court and shot down? I mostly identify with early Gnostic Christian teachings, in which there is a tradition of using psychoactive chemicals for a long time.

I'm mostly concerned with use of the sacrament Ayahuasca. União do Vegetal and Santo Daime both describe themselves as spiritualist Christian practices, and were allowed by the supreme court to use this wonderful plant teacher,however I believe they only are allowed to consume ayahuasca during rituals (or that they both do ) and I believe this is a very,very personal thing. I've tried it once in Brazil and really would like my religious freedom to be accepted and recognized by the United States so I can continue my journey as a spirit through this material world in a proper way and not in a prison cell. Thank you again for any information you may be able to provide.. blessings

Sorry all the dope heads have attempted this unsuccessfully. The only exception is for native American Indian use in ceremonies.

Quote:

---

For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court holds that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (1990), the classification of peyote as a Schedule I controlled substance, see 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(12), does not apply to the importation, possession or use of peyote for 'bona fide' ceremonial use by members of the Native American Church, regardless of race.

---

so, to save everybody some time, link those SCOTUS decisions, would ya?

So, you somehow relate Gnosticism with a plant that was not available to any groups or person considered to be Gnostic?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

so, to save everybody some time, link those SCOTUS decisions, would ya?

So, you somehow relate Gnosticism with a plant that was not available to any groups or person considered to be Gnostic?

---

Actually I did discover an exception for Ayahuasca also. It won't benefit OP unless they want to join an existing church, permitted by the Religious Restoration Act to use it in ceremonies.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418

Church of the Holy Light of the Queen b. Mukasey

This will not benefit OP partying on their own as DMT is a schedule 1 drug.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

so, to save everybody some time, link those SCOTUS decisions, would ya?

So, you somehow relate Gnosticism with a plant that was not available to any groups or person considered to be Gnostic?

---

:wallbang:


Yes, not claiming that ancient Gnostics used it (though there would maybe be some disagreement here,seeing as I would consider some Shamans to have definite Gnosis) . DMT and MAO-I's would indeed be available to the people called "Gnostic Christians" traditionally though with no archaeological proof, not even going to attempt to argue that they used them. It was in fact what gave me a first glimpse at true gnosis..not saying this holds true for all Gnostic folks.

That's why I am wondering if it could be applied on a personal level. It appears that there are references to putting yourself into this state of 'mind ' littered through Gnostic literature, but yes, I believe it was likely traditionally that they put themselves into the same,or at least similar, states through other methods. That doesn't affect current belief systems..beliefs are not static things.

There are definitely modern day people who consider themselves Gnostic that use this and other mind-manifesting sacraments,those that admit to it and ones that don't, and some that just recognize this fact without breaking the law( my current position, churches like this one http://psychede.tripod.com/ consider them to be the flesh of God himself and many others) being potentially deprived of their legal rights to eat a plant with no harmful effects used in proper context.

Here are both the SCOTUS decision


http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...4.mer.pet.html Santo Daime

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=04-1084
UDV

"It is important to guarantee the constitutional rights to practice religion and individual choice regarding the religious use of ayahuasca; "

I don't know. Courts confuse the #*%#% out of me

You want to claim to be Gnostic, then define what a Gnostic is. This should help you:

http://gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm

Here is an excerpt from that:

Quote:

---

In reality, "Gnosticism," like "Protestantism," is a word that has lost most of its meaning. Just as we would need to know whether a "Protestant" writer is Calvinist, Lutheran, Anabaptist, or whatever in order to evaluate him properly, so too the "Gnostic" must be identified

---

and there is truth to that. Claiming to be Gnostic is no more accurate than when one claims to be Christian. There are many flavors of Christianity and an extremely wide range of tenets and practices through them. Claiming that Gnosticism prescribes hallucinogenic drug use is like saying Christianity prescribes polygyny.

So, what specific branch of Gnosticism prescribes the use of hallucinogenic drugs, not merely allows for them but actually prescribes their use.

Ya see, those SCOTUS issues you posted deal with members of a recognized church and the use was part of their church practices. You, on the other hand, are not claiming to be a member of an organized church and as such, have no claim to established religious practices.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You want to claim to be Gnostic, then define what a Gnostic is. This should help you:

http://gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm

Here is an excerpt from that:




and there is truth to that. Claiming to be Gnostic is no more accurate than when one claims to be Christian. There are many flavors of Christianity and an extremely wide range of tenets and practices through them. Claiming that Gnosticism prescribes hallucinogenic drug use is like saying Christianity prescribes polygyny.

So, what specific branch of Gnosticism prescribes the use of hallucinogenic drugs, not merely allows for them but actually prescribes their use.

Ya see, those SCOTUS issues you posted deal with members of a recognized church and the use was part of their church practices. You, on the other hand, are not claiming to be a member of an organized church and as such, have no claim to established religious practices.

---

Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live

If I organized a church that believed these things, would this make a difference? So if no one shares your beliefs, they should not be recognized? Gnosis would be the main thing identifying a Gnostic, which in my opinion is any One that knows his true self. I didn't claim Gnosticism prescribes the use of hallucinogens.. I claimed I am one and I personally believe that ayahuasca can help to achieve Gnosis.

What is the hold up with religious freedom? If I established a church, would my beliefs be recognized? I think it's more likely they would be laughed off because it wasn't created a couple thousand years ago and there are alchemical components, meaning assume its to bend the law and no other reason. Ayahuasca isn't exactly something most people do for recreation.

I honestly believe this is a case of discrimination, as with many backwards "rights," if I come up with a belief system similar to established ones that are given religious use exemptions, i.e. it's recognized that it plays a major part in at least some people's spirituality, I can't practice it. Why? My beliefs have no validity?

Is it really fair that there is no legal recourse to establish SPIRITUAL beliefs and protect myself from persecution? Peyotism is based entirely on this concept, Spirit guides them supposedly to do everything and they are not required to meet or convene to take peyote, it has no definable "religion" or set of beliefs other than that they take peyote. because they're Natives they should be allowed to have spiritual beliefs and wander around doing peyote wherever, just because they've been around for a while and call themselves a church?

Yes it is fair. No, starting your own little church will likely not protect you from drug charges.

Quote:

---

that;649322]

If I organized a church that believed these things, would this make a difference?

---

yes but I suspect it isn't likely to happen in your lifetime. Establishing a religion is not an overnight success. One that claims to be would likely be seen as a cult, not a religion.

Quote:

---

So if no one shares your beliefs, they should not be recognized?

---

I didn't say that but if we accepted every whacko's beliefs, well, there were some children in Waco molested due to somebody's whacko beliefs.

Quote:

---

Gnosis would be the main thing identifying a Gnostic,

---

it is also the same thing identifying a chronic drug abuser. Give me something that can be used to determine the difference.

Gnosis, in itself, is not a religion. Is is simply, as Mirriam Webster dictionary writes:

: knowledge : cognition : recognition

Quote:

---

I didn't claim Gnosticism prescribes the use of hallucinogens..

---

and that is one reason it will not be allowed under a claim of Gnosticism. The use of drugs under the religious umbrella are based on the claim their religion does in fact prescribe the use of not only drugs, but those specific drugs.

Quote:

---

I claimed I am one and I personally believe that ayahuasca can help to achieve Gnosis.

---

so can a life of being tied to a bedframe, kept in the dark, and beaten regularly.

What is the hold up with religious freedom? If I established a church, would my beliefs be recognized?

Quote:

---

I think it's more likely they would be laughed off because it wasn't created a couple thousand years ago and there are alchemical components, meaning assume its to bend the law and no other reason.

---

it would be seen for what it is: an attempt to be able to use ayahuasca. If you haven't noticed, that is the only thing you have proven here. You have not made a claim of religious persecution but simply that you are not allowed to use ayahuasca.

Quote:

---

Quoting that

---

If I established a church, would my beliefs be recognized?

---

Absolutely, you would be recognized (in no particular order) from - DEA - FBI - ISP

Short answer,

Religious protection by both federal and state amendment do not protect a person or group against prosecution of actions stated as illegal in your state.

One supreme court opinion, more famous, involving polygamy:

Opinion 1

Further, the to get deep into your research you would also need to reference the Free Exercise Law and Establishment Cause. To save time though I can give you a site with a lot of supreme court rulings and opinions to your question in nature HERE