Religious use of Peyote vs. drug laws

[Toto]

Government entanglement with the religious use of peyote (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/national/07PEYO.html)


(snip)

William Glaspy, now a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington who was once an agent in South Texas, said: "Federal law allows Native Americans to possess peyote for their personal use in religious ceremonies. If we found someone in possession of peyote in personal-use quantities and they could prove that they were a Native American, we kicked them loose."

...

Until last year, a buyer in Texas had to be at least 25 percent Native American or a member of a tribe to buy the cactus legally. But after state officials received requests involving unknown tribes, the Texas Department of Public Safety began enforcing rules that permit only federally recognized tribes to obtain peyote, said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the agency.

The federal government recognizes only about 550 of at least 1,000 known Indian tribes, Mr. Johnson said, and the law does not cover Canadian or Mexican tribes.

Peyote is always in demand, he said, because it is central to some tribes' religious ceremonies.

"To them, it is a way to get closer to their creator, to see what they call `the clear light,' " Mr. Johnson said. "It's just a portion of their religion, but it is key to their rituals. Their mission is not to get high but to seek enlightenment."
. . .


How is enlightenment different from getting high? Who is the government to say that seeking enlightenment is legally protected as religion, (but only if you fit a certain racial-political classification), but getting high cannot be the basis of a religion?

[Gar]

I can understand the point of view of the natives on this one. Obviously the natives were here before the Christians and they have been using the drug in question for hundreds of years in their religion. To deny them that drug would be like outlawing communion in the Christian church on the grounds of underage drinking. It is not as if people are claiming the religion in order to get high. It is their ethnic heritage, and although it may be inconsistent with our laws we cannot allow the christians to use illegal substances and deny others.

[Jamie_L]

The point is, why just the Native Americans? What if I (a fair-skinned, white man) choose to convert to their religion? Shall I be denied use of Peyote? What if I believe Peyote can bring me closer to some other, non-Native American God?

And why should religion matter at all? Why does the government trust the judgement of a religious man to say "using this drug in this fashion should not be illegal", but the government does not trust the judgement of a man making the same statement about using the drug in the privacy of his own home for recreation?

Is it just that the government doesn't want people having fun with drugs? Apparently not, because medical marijuana use is being fought by the federal government. I guess it's because you can trust religious authority.

I mean, just look at Catholic priests.

Jamie

[theyeti]

Originally posted by Toto:
Government entanglement with the religious use of peyote (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/national/07PEYO.html)

How is enlightenment different from getting high? Who is the government to say that seeking enlightenment is legally protected as religion, (but only if you fit a certain racial-political classification), but getting high cannot be the basis of a religion?

I personally don't agree with criminalizing drugs, but if you're going to outlaw them and make exemptions for religious use, you have to draw the line somewhere, even if it's arbitrary. Otherwise, every joe pot smoker will claim that they're exercising their religious freedom, and the law will be unenforcable. Conversely, the religious exemption could be removed, and then native tribes would be denied something that is obviously central to their religion and culture. It's a tough line to walk. I would rather do away with the drug laws altogether, but given that's not likely to happen, maybe things are best the way they are.

theyeti

[Peregrine]

Actually I think Arizona (or Nevada) outlaws all use of Peyote. And the law stood up under SCOTUS review because of the Smith Doctrine - a law does not violate Freedom of Religion if it has a secular purpose and does not have the primary intent on hindering free exercise.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by theyeti:


I personally don't agree with criminalizing drugs, but if you're going to outlaw them and make exemptions for religious use, you have to draw the line somewhere, even if it's arbitrary. Otherwise, every joe pot smoker will claim that they're exercising their religious freedom, and the law will be unenforcable.

Hmmmmmmm....

Finally, a legal way around the drug war. I think I'll found the First Church of Joe Potsmoker tomorrow. I'm sure it won't be hard to find converts. The services will be a blast.
:)

[The Other Michael]

Hi Ragnarok,

No need to start a new church. Just become a Rasta and smoke the sacrament of ganja while praising Haile Selassie.

I wonder if there are more Rastafarians than those adherents of the peyote-using Native American religions? If so, just on sheer "numbers make us a religion and not a cult" they would seem to have a chance to get Rasta exempted too.

cheers,
Michael

[Toto]

Here's a new twist:

Family court judge in Michigan refuses to allow 4-year-old to ingest peyote until older (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1501EDT0601.DTL)

The boy's father, Jonathan Fowler, 36, a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, had asked Dimkoff to reverse an earlier decision and allow his son to ingest sacramental peyote with him at the Native American Church of the Morning Star. Fowler contended that prohibiting the boy from ingesting peyote infringes on his religious freedom.

Kristin Hanslovsky, Fowler's ex-wife, had fought the request, saying peyote could injure her son.

Hanslovsky, a Roman Catholic, said Tuesday she has no interest in stifling anyone's religious freedom and no problem with her son being taught traditional Indian ways.

. . .

Fowler said he would appeal the ruling.

"For American citizens, including Indians -- at least in this state -- religious freedom has been reduced to the whims of a Family Court judge," Fowler said.

The ruling didn't surprise Fowler, who has credited his use of peyote with helping him find God and stay sober for 10 years.

[dangin]

You know, that eagle scout should have converted to a peyote using sect. That would have been sweet. They would have had to let him stay in the scouts, and he could advocate drug use. That would have settled their hash(the bsa)

[Gunnaheave]

Actually, the religious use of peyote in North America doens't go back hundreds of years, at least not for most tribes. It was brought up from South America during the early reservation period by the Kiowa and Commanche and spread from there out to other tribes. Go back a few generations and you find native traditionalists arguing with NAC folks over the matter, but today young kids tend to see peyote as traditional. It has become a strong force in Indian cuntry in any event.

Membership in a tribe is BTW not inherently racial matter. Each tribe has the authority to determine its own composition, and they can do that entirely as they see fit. The fact that bloodquantum continues in both tribal designations and some legal policies is a legacy of racism that far out-stretches the issue of peyote use. None of those criteria are necessary. They could just demand a valid census card, thus verifying tribal membership, and that would be the end of it.

And part of the problem here is that the boundaries between religion and politics within Indian country are not as sharp as they are in mainstream America. The kinds of sectarian conflicts which we associate with religion have little to do with native ceremonial systems, and that affects their attitudes toward 'religion' to this day. It's not uncommon to see some natives in a Prebyterian church one day, a Catholic the next week, and on the following Friday night participating in a traditional ritual. For them it is often a matter of practical significance, and the doctrinal choices that make up the rationale for the religion clases of the First Amendment just aren't part of that way of thinking. This is one reason the establishment clause has never been applied to tribal juridiction. Tribes are free to establish any religion they wish, though they are prevented from restricting free exercise.

When the Federal government supports Native American religions (as they did in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978) they justify this in terms of trust doctrine, and the government to government relationship between tribes and the feds. Since Indian tribes are free to define ceremonial systems as part of their political agenda, and since the feds are obligated to support Indian tribes, the usual relationship between church and state gets skewed. If that seems odd or unfair, it's hardly an even swap for all the other unfair things they've had to deal with right on up to the present.

How the distinction between Indian cases and others got so lost is beyond me. People v Woody had drawn a fairly sharp distinction between the two. The idea that non-Indian churches could use the same rationale is a relatively new development.

[Zehava]

The ruling didn't surprise Fowler, who has credited his use of peyote with helping him find God and stay sober for 10 years.

Anyone else find this statement contradictory?

Here is a Native American wanting his son to take part in a Native Amrican religious ceremony, yet he is apparently a born again Christian.

When did God become part of a Native American religion? Has there been some sort of mingling of Native American beliefs with Christianity? If so how can Native American's still be professing to follow their ancestral religion, in which peyote use would be protected?

Come on, it's one or the other. Either he is a believer in his Natvie American religion in which case the use of peyote is protected, or he is a Christian in which case it is not protected. You cannot have it both ways.

[Gunnaheave]

Actually yes, Jesus has been a common theme in Native American traditions for some time. Christianity was a strong influence on everything from the movement that put Tecumseh in power to the Ghost Dance religion, and yes, the Native American Church. He has even been incorporated into some of the origin narratives told by various tribes. It's called syncretism. And if you find that odd, then odds are pretty good that you are still thinking in sectarian terms. Since native ceremonial systems are not denominational systems anyway, there is absolutely no reason they should not incorporate other people's religious themes as they see fit. Your one-or-the-other dichotomy just doesn't have much to do with native traditions, ancestral or otherwise.

As to the role of peyote in combatting alcoholism, it is one of the major tenets of the NAC that one should abstain from consumption of alcohol. And many an alcoholic has indeed turned to father peyote as a means of freeing himself fom alcohol abuse.

[Jewel]

Originally posted by Zehava
The ruling didn't surprise Fowler, who has credited his use of peyote with helping him find God and stay sober for 10 years.

Anyone else find this statement contradictory?


Just a bit. I also find it odd that the government would allow religious exemptions for drug use. That, as has already been mentioned, seems very much to be favoring some religions over others or over none at all.

[Majestyk]

Originally posted by Zehava
Either he is a believer in his Natvie American religion in which case the use of peyote is protected, or he is a Christian in which case it is not protected. You cannot have it both ways. Why not? Are you prepared to have the state begin setting the standards by which religion is practiced? Where failure to comply with their established requirements results in your privilege to practice being revoked?

I sincerely hope that the Rastafarians and American Indians achieve the quest to use controlled substances legally. If, the State's claim that there is a compelling reason to prohibit the secular use of a substance while the basis for such a claim does not manifest itself in the cultures permitted to use it as part of a religious rite then, the State’s secular claim is rendered baseless. Ergo the State's prohibition would be shown to be without merit and its actions against its citizens, unjust.

[Toto]

There is a long tradition of people taking drugs and *seeing God*. There have been recent reports of
ibogaine (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/40/features-pinchbeck.php), an African root bark that has been used with drug addicts. When the addict takes the drug, it induces an intense (and not exactly pleasant) experience, and the addict is then able to give up his addiction. Addicts seem to report a connection to the divine, after which God tells them to clean their rooms (a pretty benign message from God, considering what other people hear God tell them to do.)

[Gunnaheave]

There is no inconsistency in the man's claims about peyote and alcohol. NAC members do not walk about stoned all day, and they are expected to give up alcohol. His testimony is exactly what you would expect from a practitioner of that faith.

The favoring of Indian religion is warranted by tribal preference and federal trust responsibilities.


Originally posted by Jewel
Just a bit. I also find it odd that the government would allow religious exemptions for drug use. That, as has already been mentioned, seems very much to be favoring some religions over others or over none at all.

[Jewel]

Originally posted by Gunnaheave
There is no inconsistency in the man's claims about peyote and alcohol. NAC members do not walk about stoned all day, and they are expected to give up alcohol. His testimony is exactly what you would expect from a practitioner of that faith.

The favoring of Indian religion is warranted by tribal preference and federal trust responsibilities.

I just read your 1st post in this thread and I admit, I didn't realize just how differently the laws actually apply to Native American tribes. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. :)

-Jewel

[Derec]

Originally posted by Jewel
I just read your 1st post in this thread and I admit, I didn't realize just how differently the laws actually apply to Native American tribes.


Yes, and it's a fucking shame. Where is the Supreme Court when you need it? SCOTUS has the authority to declare treaties with so-called souvereign nations unconstitutional and thus null and void.

UMoC

[Gunnaheave]

Thank you Jewel, and your welcome.

Unglymanoncampus:

Toward what end? To eliminate tribal governments? Didn't our ancestors kill enough Indians for you? Or do you imagine that such a move wouldn't do serious harm to a large number of people?

Originally posted by UglyManOnCampus
Yes, and it's a fucking shame. Where is the Supreme Court when you need it? SCOTUS has the authority to declare treaties with so-called souvereign nations unconstitutional and thus null and void.

UMoC

And no the Supreme Curt does not have the authority to nullify tribal governments. Nor do they have the authority to write any other legislation that you desire.

[Derec]

Originally posted by Gunnaheave

Toward what end?


To eliminate special rights given to Indians. Indians living on reservations are tax exempt, but these reservations still receive federal and state funds. An Indian would get more federal welfare than a non-Indian in the same situation. Indian businesses likewise do not pay any taxes, for example on tobacco. Indians have monopoly status in some businesses such as whaling (are Iceland, Norway or Japan less "souveregn" than Makhai Indians?) and casinos. They can use certain drugs and do things that would qualify as child abuse if a non-Indian were to do it (the utterly barbaric practice of Sundance.)


To eliminate tribal governments?


Not necessarily. Tribal governments should either be brought inside the constitutional framework or full independence. Under the first plan larger tribes could be given statehood.
What needs to stop is the current system where Indians see themselves as sovereign or part of US as it best suits their needs. I.e. they are "souvereign" when they want to escape paying taxes but are part of USA when it comes to receiving public funds.


Didn't our ancestors kill enough Indians for you?


Pretty much all groups killed members of other groups today. That does not warrant giving them special rights in perpetuity.


Or do you imagine that such a move wouldn't do serious harm to a large number of people?


It would do a lot of harm to the tribal theocratic oligarchy.
It would do a lot of good to regular Indians though, especially in the long-term.


And no the Supreme Curt does not have the authority to nullify tribal governments.

Explain why.


Nor do they have the authority to write any other legislation that you desire.

I never said they can "write legislation". They can, however, declare legislation unconstitutional.

UMoC

[Gunnaheave]

Originally posted by UglyManOnCampus
To eliminate special rights given to Indians. Indians living on reservations are tax exempt, but these reservations still receive federal and state funds. An Indian would get more federal welfare than a non-Indian in the same situation. Indian businesses likewise do not pay any taxes, for example on tobacco. Indians have monopoly status in some businesses such as whaling (are Iceland, Norway or Japan less "souveregn" than Makhai Indians?) and casinos. They can use certain drugs and do things that would qualify as child abuse if a non-Indian were to do it (the utterly barbaric practice of Sundance.)

My friends and coworkers would be quite surprised to know that they do not pay taxes. But alas, Indians are not "Tax Exempt". State taxes do not apply to them for the same reason that Arizona cannot tax Nevada residents. It is a matter of jurisdiction, and the myth that Native Americans constitute a special class of people exempt from taxation is patently false. Tribal jurisdiction trumps state jurisdiction, and that gives tribes some business options they would not otherwise have. Hardly adequate compensation for the many disadvantages they have been handed over the last few centuries. The notion that Indians have "special rights" simply for being Indian is likewise a misrepresentation of the jurisdictional issues at stake, and an instance of misplaced jealosy sufficiently misplaced as to be absolutely comical.

Not necessarily. Tribal governments should either be brought inside the constitutional framework or full independence. Under the first plan larger tribes could be given statehood.
What needs to stop is the current system where Indians see themselves as sovereign or part of US as it best suits their needs. I.e. they are "souvereign" when they want to escape paying taxes but are part of USA when it comes to receiving public funds.

Larger tribes cannot be "given statehood." States would have to grant permission for that (see Article IV of the U.S. Constitution), and as a practical matter none will do that. And I do not know what you mean by having Indian tribes brought under the Constitutional framework, or why you think this "needs" to happen. You may try and pronounce this principle, ex cathedra, but I see no reason to accept it, and I really think you ought to think more carefully about the impact that your flippant demands will have on OTHER PEOPLE'S lives.

Pretty much all groups killed members of other groups today. That does not warrant giving them special rights in perpetuity.

And how easy it is to completely invert the realities of both history and politics! No Indians have been "given" special rights. What distinct legal authority tribal governments have is what is left of their sovereignty after 500 years of assault.

It would do a lot of harm to the tribal theocratic oligarchy.
It would do a lot of good to regular Indians though, especially in the long-term.

Easily said, but you obviously haven't given an ounce of thought to the current political realities, so I will decline to take your word for it on future impact. Federal Indian policy has a long history of empty promises, and the only thing to distinguish your own such promises from those that have come befoire is the singular lack of effort you have put into addressing the overal situation.

Explain why.

You said the Supreme Court could declare tribal sovereignrty null and void, and yet you cited no statute or constitutional provision on which they would base their decision. You are accordingly suggesting that the SC simply declare tribal governments null and void on its own voalition. That is what legislatures do, not courts.

I never said they can "write legislation". They can, however, declare legislation unconstitutional.

UMoC

Actually, you did. See above.