ArticlePDF Available

Be Careful What You Wish For – The Peril of Regulated Status for Psychedelic Churches

  • March 2019
Authors:
Charles Carreon at Arizona Yage Assembly
Charles Carreon
  • Arizona Yage Assembly
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), is to submit an application for exemption to the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) in compliance with a two-page instruction sheet prepared by the DEA, entitled the Guidance Regarding Petitions for Religious Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") Pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (the “Guidance”). This paper discusses the First Amendment rights that would be lost to a church that submits a Petition Requesting Exemption from the CSA (“PRE”) in compliance with the Guidance, considers the effect of regulation on church that administers a psychedelic sacrament, and considers whether the First Amendment would provide an effective objection to a DEA subpoena.
Content uploaded by Charles Carreon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles Carreon on Mar 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Paradoxes of ayahuasca expansion: The UDV-DEA agreement and the limits of freedom of religion <https
  • Jan 1948
  • 17
  • B C Labate
x B.C.Labate, Paradoxes of ayahuasca expansion: The UDV-DEA agreement and the limits of freedom of religion <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09687637.2011.606397> xi B.C.Labate, id. at page 23. xii Shapiro v. United States, 335 US 1, 17 (1948).
Pequera de Busquets, 604 F.2d at 78, quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 66 (1976) and Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. NLRB 559 F. 2d 1112
  • Jan 1977
  • 1124
  • Xix Surinach V
xix Surinach v. Pequera de Busquets, 604 F.2d at 78, quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 66 (1976) and Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. NLRB 559 F. 2d 1112, 1124 (7th Cir., 1977).
Pequera de Busquets, 604 F.2d at 78 (emphasis added), quoting Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403
  • Jan 1971
  • 620
  • Xx Surinach V
xx Surinach v. Pequera de Busquets, 604 F.2d at 78 (emphasis added), quoting Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 620 (1971).
Pequera de Busquets, 604 F.2d at 79, (emphasis added and internal citations omitted), citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374
  • Jan 1963
  • 406
  • Xxi Surinach V
xxi Surinach v. Pequera de Busquets, 604 F.2d at 79, (emphasis added and internal citations omitted), citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963);