Court asked to ban sect backed by Kirkpatrick from using hallucinogenic drugs in rituals By Craig M. Kibler The Layman Online Thursday, February 17, 2005 The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to block an obscure Brazilian-based religious sect from using a hallucinogenic tea in their ceremonies that worship spirits in plants and animals and encourages ritualistic vomiting. The Bush administration contends that using the hallucinogenic tea is illegal and potentially dangerous. The sect argues that it is a question of religious freedom. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), supports the sect's argument in an amicus curiae brief, as does Christian Legal Society, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Queens Federation of Churches. The Associated Press reported that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Supreme Court on February 10 that a lower court was wrong to allow the sect to import and use hoasca tea as part of its religious services. "The court's decision has mandated that the federal government open the nation's borders to the importation, circulation and usage of a mind-altering hallucinogen and threatens to inflict irreparable harm on international cooperation in combating transnational narcotics trafficking," the government's filing states. In December, the Supreme Court lifted a temporary stay that allowed the sect to immediately use the tea. The Justice Department had argued the sect should be blocked from doing so until it filed a formal appeal. If the high court agrees to hear the case, it won't be taken up until next term. The sect, the Uniao Do Vegetal or Union of the Vegetable in Portuguese, has its U.S. headquarters in Santa Fe. The American group is called O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, which is Portuguese for the United Beneficent Spiritual Central of the Vegetable. Drug confiscated On May 21, 1999, agents with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency seized 30 gallons of hoasca tea, which contains the hallucinogen N.N. dimethyltryptamine (DMT), at the Santa Fe home. News reports stated that no one was arrested, but that sect members said federal agents told them the tea containing the controlled substance could be destroyed. At the time, DEA agent Lou Kilgas told KOAT-TV that hoasca is a "a hallucinogenic drug. It has hallucinogenic properties similar to LSD. It's a Schedule 1 controlled substance." Schedule I, according to the DEA, consists of those controlled substances – such as heroin, LSD, marijuana, codeine, morphine, mescaline and MDMA ("Ecstasy") – that have a high potential for abuse; that have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and, consequently, have not been approved as medicine by the Food and Drug Administration; and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the substance under medical supervision. Because these substances have not been approved as medicine, human consumption of them is strictly prohibited outside of FDA-approved scientific research. When Congress wrote the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, it provided that anything containing "any quantity" of a Schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substance is, itself, a Schedule 1 controlled substance, unless it is an FDA-approved drug product. Lawsuit filed On Nov. 21, 2000, the president of the group, Jeffrey Bronfman, and other sect members sued the DEA, alleging that the government violated their constitutional right of freedom of religion by seizing the tea. The suit argues that the tea is an essential sacrament, similar to the Native American Church's use of peyote. The group was seeking the return of the tea and to stop the DEA from interfering with its activities. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Fe, claims the tea should be legal for members of the group and that, by confiscating it, the DEA violated its rights. The Albuquerque Journal reported that Bronfman told the court the seizure of the tea harmed "the core of my being." Kirkpatrick joins suit The complete text of an Advisory Committee on Litigation report to the Assembly Committee on General Assembly Procedures, presented to the 215th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), states: "On February 20, 2003, the Stated Clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick, joined an amicus curiae brief in Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft. The context of the case is the use of a governmentally controlled substance used in the ceremonies of a traditional indigenous religious belief. "The brief in this case argued that under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Action the government must show a compelling governmental interest with respect to particular religious conduct of the individuals in question and that it does so by the least restrictive means. As of the date of this report, no decision has been made in the matter." The 212th General Assembly (2000) directed the "Washington Office and the Stated Clerk to continue their participation in and support of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion in advocating a new federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Congress, one that restores the Compelling Interest/Least Restrictive Means Test, that contains a broad definition of 'exercise of religion,' and which provides for the protection of the religious practices of all persons." That is the main argument in the amicus curiae brief Kirkpatrick and the others signed. Illegal drug causes hallucinations and vomiting The report makes no mention of the sect, its beliefs and practices or the fact that the use of a controlled substance in the United States is illegal. Isabel Vincent, writing in the National Post of Canada, says that the Union of the Vegetable, far from being "a traditional indigenous religious belief" as Kirkpatrick says, is "a mix of Catholicism and native spirituality, which was founded by Raimundo Irineu Serra, an impoverished rubber tapper working in an isolated part of the Amazon before the Second World War." Vincent writes that the "Union of the Vegetable, one of the three branches of Santo Daime [of which Bronfman's group is an offshoot], is mainly practiced by foreign adherents who engage in group meditation after ingesting a hallucinogenic tea. The other branches of the Santo Daime religion – Barquinha and CEFLURIS – are practiced mainly in Brazil and all are associated with the Amazon rain forest." "Adherents say Mr. Serra founded the religion after drinking a strange brew made by the Indians in the Accre region. The tea … is made by boiling Amazon plants to produce a thick, brownish concoction with the consistency of tomato juice, which can cause hallucinations and vomiting. When Mr. Serra drank it, he claimed to have had visions of a woman dressed in white, which he referred to both as 'Our Lady of Conception' and the 'Forest Queen.'" Cult 'purified' by vomiting The sect's Internet site states that, "We praise the sun, the moon and the stars, calling for a life closer to God's nature and tuned with the human virtues of harmony, love, truth and justice" and describes its philosophy as a "syncretism of various folk, cultural and religious elements." "Of course, a lot of people abuse the tea," Marilia Bandeira de Mello, a psychologist and head of the Barquinha sect of Santo Daime in Rio de Janeiro, told Vincent. "The tea puts you in touch with your subconscious and consumed outside of the Santo Daime ritual can be very dangerous. You need to be protected by a spiritual guide when you drink the tea." Vomiting, which is euphemistically referred to as "a passage" in the Santo Daime religion, is encouraged as a means of "spiritual purification." Vincent also wrote that one of the goals of the sect is to create sustainable communities in the Amazon. In the early 1990s, World Bank officials proposed funding some of the projects, but backed out of the proposal when they found out about the hallucinogenic tea. "Within the religious ritual of the [sect], the tea is used as an instrument to increase perception and facilitate mental concentration for the religious work and spiritual studies that occur within the ceremonies," Nancy Hollander, who is representing Bronfman and the sect, told The New Mexican. DMT ruled a dangerous drug On Dec. 12, 2002, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government a stay of a preliminary injunction in the case pending an appeal of a lower court's ruling, saying that: "The district court's conclusion that the 1971 U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances does not extend to hoasca is in considerable tension with the language of that Convention, particularly Article 1(f), defining 'preparation' and Article 3, § 1 providing that 'a preparation is subject to the same measures of control as the psychotropic substances which it contains.' Hoasca is plainly a preparation containing DMT. As for the argument that plants cannot constitute preparations, Article 32, § 4 permits 'reservations concerning these plants' for magical or religious rites, thereby suggesting that plants are covered, although a reservation concerning a plant (i.e., a substance contained in a plant) is possible. We are unpersuaded that the Commentary or contrary opinions on the meaning of the Convention are sufficient to override the plausible interpretation of the Convention by the executive. "The district court's factual findings are in considerable tension with (if not contrary to) the express findings in the [Controlled Substances Act] that 'any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of' DMT … 'has a high potential for abuse . . . has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States . . . [and] there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.'" Court has 'compelling interest' An editorial in The Albuquerque Journal supports this view, which takes a different tack from Kirkpatrick. It states: "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says the government must have a compelling interest in interfering with a religious practice and must do so by the least restrictive means when such an interest exists. And the burden on the court should be heavy, for it is impossible to judge another person's religious conviction." "In this case, however, the court may have a compelling interest in protecting society from yet another drug in the ever-growing list of substances that must be controlled because they present a danger. "The courts have long held that every religious belief is protected by the Constitution, but that is not the case for every practice."

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links