Skip

Laws on getting high
May 23, 2007 7:19 AM   Subscribe

Spiritual Highs and Legal Blows - the power and peril of religious exemptions from drug prohibition
posted by daksya (8 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Metafilter: Sorry about the genocide. Have some peyote
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:34 AM on May 23, 2007


That was the line that jumped out at me too.

I understand how devotees of one religion can consider all other religious experiences bogus: with a few exceptions (hello Quakers, hello Unitarians etc) that's what the dogma requires.

But how can anyone say with a straight face that "these twenty sets of mystical beliefs are real, and these others are bogus: coincidentally the latter appear to conflict with our drug laws"?
posted by imperium at 7:51 AM on May 23, 2007


I hearby declare that under the guiding authority of the Church of Perennial Impotence I hearby have lawful right to the 8 ounces of uncut cocaine currently abiding in the Trojan Magnum condom in my lower intestine.
posted by The Straightener at 8:13 AM on May 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


But how can anyone say with a straight face that "these twenty sets of mystical beliefs are real, and these others are bogus: coincidentally the latter appear to conflict with our drug laws"?

That sentiment is echoed in the shorter companion piece:
This is scary stuff, if you work for the Drug Enforcement Administration. To avoid a flood of religious freedom claims from a host of do-it-yourself faiths, drug warriors have to restrict the definition of religion so it does not include this sort of spiritual exploration, and the courts are happy to help.
Yet it points out that certain substances (psilocybin administered in two noted studies) give the user an experience that is frequently described as spiritual in nature when used in a religious or non-religious setting.
posted by peeedro at 8:40 AM on May 23, 2007


There's a fellow around here, head of the local NORML chapter, who refers to himself as "The Reverend." He's head of the "Cannabis Church" (or whatever he calls his group). He will provide weed on the basis that it is for religious purposes, which he argues based on the legal ruling from the article. The fun thing is though is the "church" website" tells how any religion can use weed - like because of some reference to "herb" in the Bible, it is necessary to smoke weed to commune with God.

I don't think he'll get away with it for long.
posted by champthom at 10:04 AM on May 23, 2007


Texas Cannabis Congregation
posted by shawnj at 10:15 AM on May 23, 2007


One reason to hope the UDV case will undermine the war on drugs is that the Bush administration clearly feared it would.

Damn right. Anything that pisses Bush off must be good.
posted by triolus at 11:07 AM on May 23, 2007




« Older Ah, but can it catch a fly with them?   |   Flashback Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post