This is indeed good news. I wonder how Alito would have voted on this had he been on the court. Either way, it shows that even the most conservative judges (Thomas and Scalia) have a basic respect for religious freedom. This generally bodes well for other first ammendment issues likely to come across the Supreme Court in the coming years. However, I am not so confident when it comes to the 4th ammendment, which has been essentially entirely wiped clean from the constitution at this point.

Well this seems to me to actually be a big deal.

A couple of things worth noting: First, the court ruling was eight to zero (Justice Alito did not participate). A resounding victory for the UDV and a ruling announcing a clear precedent for future cases.

Second, the court found that the government's interest in uniform application of the Contolled Substatnces Act in and of itself is not a compelling enough reason to limit the use of Schedule 1 drugs in the face of sincere religious use of ayahausca. This means that all future decisions regarding the religious use of controlled substances will have to be made on a case by case basis.

It is worth noting that the government did not dispute that the UDV's use was part of a sincere religious activity. The contested issues that were relevant were the health risks to the UDV members and the possiblity of diversion to non-UDV members. Particularly with respect to the issue of health concerns, the court accepted the lower's court's determination that evidence regarding the health risks were "balanced"; neither side was able to make a strong showing pro or con. This is a critical point, since the catagorization of the psychedelics in Schedule 1 was not made based on legitimate health concerns but on hysteria. This ruling means that proponents of the religious use of psychedelics get to raise the issue of the actual health risks. Particularly since DMT, ecstacy and psilocybin are the subject of recent or current research, it seems likely that this line of argument is going to be likely to carry significant weight in future cases.

So the sticking points for future cases are going to be bona fide religious use and the possiblity of diversion. I wonder what will happen if an individual who uses psychedelics claims to be a shaman. Seems to me that the right individual could show a sincere religious belief, and little potential for harm from occassional use. The only troublsome issue would be the potential for diveresion - in which case the shaman might be able to craft a solution like a prescrition to be filled once a month or the like to arrive at the "least restrictive means" of furthering the government's interest in enforcing the CSA.

It's going to be interesting to see the cases that come in the wake of this decsion.

From what I've heard, the religious right has backed (ie lobbied for) this ruling because it preserves the barriers between church & state (ie it keeps the state out of the church and out of the church's pockets).

The religious right is defintely behind this trend because of broader implications for religious freedom. The UDV court cited, for example, a decision where the Amish were permitted to not send their children to public schools and have them subject to standardized cirricula based on religious objections. We'll probably see a lot more of that kind of case in the short term.

And by Mr. Neutron I mean Jason.

This is, indeed, good news. WONDERFUL NEWS! Wonderful post!! But what about a **secular** (trans)humanist? There will eventually have to be a case, and will, alas, take a evolutionary series of cases (but--depending upon how great the quantum-leaps [!!] in the jurisprudence, with decisions in the proper direction--perhaps/hopefully, not *too* many] to *get* (jurisprudentially-evolve) to the case I have in mind, which is: a person who simply wishes to scientifically/systematically **explore** hir own consciousness--which is to say, hir own neurochemistry & neurophysic from an **organismically-internal** perspective (this is dual-aspect metaphysics--see Gregg Rosenberg's stuff, cited by me several times here in other threads, and highlighted about a year ago by Paul in one of his post [see/search Archives])--using, say, not only Ayahausca, but also straight DMT (whether bumped or snorted), or psilocybin (whether in 'shrooms or pure-distilled). The First Amendment is ultimately about, among other closely-related themes, EACH & EVERY PERSON being FREE to ****explore/investigate/conjecture/espouse**** ultimate ONTOLOGICAL & COSMOLOGICIAL (or even TRANSCENDENT/MYSTICAL) issues, as well as to be FREE to be true to hir own CONSCIOUSNESS & CONSCIENCE (which is, ultimately, after all, CON (with) **SCIENCE**!!!). There is a wonderful quote somewhere around about p. 344 (I think...) of Graham Hancock's great new book, **Supernatural**, to the effect that **if only one lived in a truly FREE society, any competent adult should/would be able to buy pure DMT (or virtually any other psychedelic) at the local pharmacy, with appropriate accompanying info re pros & cons, contraindications, appropriate precautions to be taken (set, setting, etc., yadda yadda). And then to go home...and boag hir brains out.**

As I've remarked before, the RIGHT TO GET HIGH and the RIGHT TO EXPERIENCE/EXPLORE PSYCHEDELIC STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS are quintessentially subsumed within the both **spirt** and actual jurisprudence of the First Amendment (as well as [obliquely] the 4th Amend., and definitely the 9th Amendment). This is **so** intuitively **obvious** (to me, at least) that only legislative (as well as judicial) maggot-brained monkey-moronity could explain how/why drug-control was instituted in the first place, and maintained yet still today (Schedule-this, Schedule-that, indeed; fuck 'em). And, yes, I'm well-aware of marijuana (i.e., hemp) being fucked-over by King Cotton back just after the turn of the last century (I'm after all a charter-member of United Heads for Hemp [a slightly more radical cousin of NORML]), and the book *Acid Dreams*, of course, is excellent history as to how/why psychedelics came to be verboten in the 60's (I mean--mein Gott!--we can't have the **hoi poloi** actually activating--much less coming to systematically use and enjoy--the **shamanic neuro-circuits** can we!!??!!??).

But there ***now***--the time is right/ripe-- needs to be a systematic activism toward making the case (!!) for this position. That, OF COURSE, drugs should be legal, merely in the sense that any competent adult should be able to peacefully obtain & use whatever s/he wants to alter hir consciousness in virtually any way and by virtually any mean s/he wishes, with only minimal regulation.

Randy Barnett has an excellent discussion of this, in passing, in his excellent book, **Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty**.

To ***disallow*** (**prohibit**) a competent adult from using psychedelics to explore hir own consciousness, as well as to systematically explore/investigate ultimate ontological/cosmological issues IS ITSELF NO LESS THAN **TANTAMOUNT** TO **MIND CONTROL** BY THE **STATE**, AND IS **INHERENTLY** **REPUGNANT** TO THE LOCKEAN SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY (AND CORRESPONDING JURISPRUDENCE) THAT THE U.S.A., ABOVE ALL OTHER NATIONS, IS **FOUNDED UPON**, as embodied in it CONSTITUTION. Which is to say that such STATE MIND CONTROL is INHERENTLY REPUGNANT TOWARD, AND ABROGATIVE OF, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. When both the **legislatures** (both Union-State & Federal) and the judiciaries (both Union-State & Federal) find "GET THIS", then America well have taken yet one more (great) step toward genuinely fulfilling it's appellation as the NATION OF THE **ENLIGHTMENT**, **with all that implies...**

PLEASE, dear, dear colleagues: Read Randy Barnett's stuff. It's terrific.

And please forgive the prolixity. Happy 'shrooming & ayahausca-snuff snorting to all, and to all a good night [wink]...

Meant to mention this before in the above, but forgot. Then ran into stupid-ass computer/network probs here where I'm accessing the WWW. Fuck this low-tech crap. Can we please have Robo/nanotopia soon...?!!

Anyway, as someone else recently mentioned, Yahoo, good little nanny that it has apparently become, won't allow one to post here (purportedly due to "questionable content" [!!!???!!??]; puhlease...give me a fuckin' break...!!!!) if one lists Y a h o o as one's e-mail in the field provided here. (I tested it again just now...). So I have to use Hotmail. But I rarely check my Hotmail acct. So, if you want to e-mail me, please use mcp2012@Y A H O O.com, NOT hotmail!! But, please be advised, don't send me any rants or crazy shit--save that, if at all, for comments here--but don't clog-up my e-mail with crap. On the other hand, any civil, intelligent/intelligible comment(s) will be most welcome, and this includes, of course, scathing criticism of my position(s), as long as the counterposition (and counterarguments) are well-founded, well-thought-out, and reasonably well-articulated. I value dialog/dialectic, and shall be honored to reply to any & all correspondence, as & to the extent time permits. HOWEVER, I'd RATHER get such feedback (critical or otherwise) **HERE**, in this superlative Socratic Forum (THANKS again, EventHorizon & Scroll1 for that wonderful image!!), so that others may participate, observe, & learn as well...

And Jason/Mr. Neutron, since you are obviously an extraordinarily bright, well-read/informed, and passionate young fella, and are, from our exchange a few months ago on (meta)Constitutional theory, well-read in Constitutional theory and economics, I should hope hat you might take the time to read (and, I assure you, enjoy) both Hayek's **Law, Legislation & Liberty** (admittedly 3 volumes!--but they're reasonably well-written, so you can do it!) as well as Randy Barnett's stuff, **The Structure of Liberty: Justice & the Rule of Law**, and **Restoring the Lost Constitution**. If you should read them, I should very much enjoy your critical evaluation of them. Just a thought-in-passing...

OK, so now the old man will shut-up for a while [wink]

Love to all...

two words: HOLY SHIT!

Finally, some good news today ... ;)

Paul,

I really love reading your pieces; they resonate so deeply within me. I fantasize all the time, and I feel lost because I live for these fantasies, whereas others live for reality. I'm in a vicious cylce; the more I fantasize the more I want to realize my fantasies, and yet, they seem so unachievable. I can identify with your recent emotional struggle; it is how I've been feeling virtually all of my adult life.

P.S. Eventhough I don't know any of the people on this board, in some ways I feel closer to you all than to anyone else. I hope all of us here find infinite sublimity some day.

Here's the exact (and magnificently well-said) quote from Graham Hancock's superlative new book, SUPERNATURAL, that I alluded-to (and paraphrased) above. I think it hits the nail on the head:

"If we lived in a FREE society and made an adult choice to use hallucinogens to explore OUR OWN CONSCIOUSNESS, then we would be able to acquire good-quality injectable DMT [or any other psychedelic--MCP] FROM OUR LOCAL PHARMACY along with a safe system of delivery and excellent advice on how to use the drug, and on its risks, benefits, and contraindications. Unfortunately, however, the powers of this world have determined that we in the wealthy industrialized countries are not under any circumstances to be permited to use hallucinogens for consciousness exploration, or any other purpose, and that if we do we may be sent to prison for up to 30 years. Naturally, this brazen and inexplicable breach of OUR BASIC **RIGHT** OF **SOVEREIGNTY** OVER OUR **OWN MINDS** does make it quite difficult to acquire DMT--and particularly to acquire pure high-quality DMT." ---Graham Hancock, SUPERNATURAL (Canadian edition, Doubleday) pg. 422. (Emphases added by moi...)

HEADS who are also LAW PROFS (they're out there--YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!...): Please get to work on a knock-down-drag-out law journal article--strike while the iron is hot!!

FNORD!

But extracting it is so fun!

pharmacy?? no thanks- veganaut is right-- DMT-DIY

Vegenaut & what: Why not BOTH options (for the non-DIYer's)!!!??? But as far as extracting it oneself and DIY--HELL, YES!! MORE POWER TO YOU!!

YEAH, BABY...[WINK]

for the record

This is really a good news. I'm glad to know about this.

I was just being silly, although I do think extracting it yourself helps you to prepare for the experience and appreciate what you are doing. But hell, DMT from the pharmacy?! sign me up

lvx23: MARVELOUS!! THANKS!! WAY TO GO!!

one of many steps in the right direction, i cant wate to see how this case efects future cases.

As I broke the bark by hand and thought, this is the flesh of gods, and as I inhaled the vaporized powder flowing from the grinder, and poured the vinegar over the powder and I looked into the dark incarnadine and I thought: how can something so beautiful be hated?

-----------------------------

his ruling means that proponents of the religious use of psychedelics get to raise the issue of the actual health risks.

Well, not only is mescaline safe, it improves mental function. Not a tryptamine, though. But Dr. McKenna's cited research showing that ayahuasca use actually increases the number of serotonin receptors. W/ both, I have to wonder whether it's the actual drug or the experiences & the rituals surronding the sacrament.

Particularly since DMT, ecstacy and psilocybin are the subject of recent or current research

What type of research is going on with DMT?

-----------------------------

ie it keeps the state out of the church and out of the church's pockets

lvx, see how the all you have to do is be a church and you're home free with the rightists? I mean, come on, Scalia is Opus Dei and supported the UDV--these guys are easy to fool... now I'm going go look through my miscellaneous pills for some glutamine and try to go work off a nitrous headache. hi skool rewlz.