ArticlePDF Available

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

Authors:
  • Independent Researcher

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.
Page1of8
BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor–ThePerilofRegulatedStatusforPsychedelicChurches
byCharlesCarreon,Attorneyatlaw1
ThePracticeofCommunionMediatedbyaPharmacologicalAgent
AnInternetsearchfor“Ayahuascachurch”revealsthatpsychedelicreligionisboominginpopularityin
theUnitedStates.Ayahuascapracticeisnottheonlyformofpsychedelicreligion,however.For
purposesofthisarticle,Idefine“psychedelicreligion”asanyreligionthatusesasacramentthatis
pharmacologicallyactive.Sacramentsarefoundinmanyreligions–thebreadandwineofChristian
ceremonyprovidesafamiliarprimaryexample,andTibetanBuddhistswillbefamiliarwith“dutsei”–
blessingpillspreparedaccordingtoancientrecipes,and“amrita”‐‐saffron‐waterthatissprinkledand
drunkduring“empowerments”and“mandalafeasts”.
Sacramentsthatarenotpharmacologicallyactivearedeemedspirituallyefficaciousduetothemagicof
doctrineandthepowerofpriestlyincantations,gestures,andlineageauthority.Forexample,the
Catholicmass,i.e.,the“celebrationoftheHolyEucharist”isaceremonywhereinbreadandwineare
“transubstantiated”byamalepriestwhocommuneswiththeFatherDeity,transformingtheseearthly
foodsintospiritualnutrition‐‐the“BodyandBloodofChrist.”Thisisnomereattempttopushbelievers
intocontemplationorasenseofdeeperconnection.Catholicdoctrinemakesitclearthatthis
communionceremonyisnota“symbolicexperience,”butratherthecoreofthetrueChristian
mysteriumtremendum.iAsaninstructivewebsiteforCatholicspreparingtoreceivetheirFirst
Communionexplains,communion“isamysticalandspiritualunionofthesoulwithJesus…producedin
thesoulbyourphysicalcontactwiththesacredBodyofJesus.iiNotwithstandingthedoctrinal
assertionthat“somethinghappens”whenbelieversconsumetheEucharist,however,thereisnodoubt
thatthefaith‐inspiredimaginationofthepractitionermustbeengagedforthe“spiritualunionwiththe
soulofJesus”tooccur.
Psychedelicsubstancesarenotplacebos–theyaltertheconsciousnessofthosewhoingestthem.The
differencebetweensacredandprofaneuseofpsychedelicsisbasedonthereligiousapplicationofwhat
Dr.TimothyLearyintroducedastheteachingon“setandsetting,”inwhich“set”referstothe“mindset”
ofthepersontakingthepsychedelic,and“setting”referstothephysicalandsocialenvironmentwhere
thepsychedelicisconsumed.ThelawofpsychedelicreligionintheUnitedStateshassilentlyabsorbed
thisteachingbydeclaringthat,whenapersoningestsapsychedelicwithareligiousmindsetina
religioussetting,theyareengagingina“non‐druguse”ofthesubstance,iiiandthusqualifyforan
exemptionfromlawsthatmaketakingthepsychedelicillegalforthosewhotakethesubstanceforany
otherpurpose.

1CharlesCarreonhasbeenamemberoftheCaliforniaBarforthirtyyears,andretiredfromtheOregonbarin
2012.AgraduateofUCLALawSchool(1986),heservedthepublicasanOregonprosecutorandFederalPublic
Defender.Hisprivatepracticehasfocusedonciviltrialandappellatelitigation,transactionalworkformedia
companies,andintellectualpropertyregistration,negotiation,andlitigation.HecurrentlyservesasGeneral
CounselforanArizonachurchthatadministersapharmacologicallyactivesacrament,andmaintainsaprivate
practiceconsultingonissuesofConstitutionallaw,medialaw,andintellectualproperty.Hemaybecontactedat
chas@charlescarreon.comor628‐227‐4059.
Page2of8
Legalreasoningoperatesbyanalogy–likethingsreceivesimilartreatment.Thechurchesthathave
prevailedincourtontheirclaimsforreligiousexemptionfromlawsproscribingthepossessionand
manufactureofpsychedelicdrugshavewonbecausetheyanalogizedtheiractivitiestothoseof
establishedChristianreligions.AclearanalysisofmodernUSlawlegitimizingthepracticeofpsychedelic
religionmakesitclearthat,bydescribingtheNativeAmericanChurch’spracticeofeatingpeyoteand
theUDV’spracticeofdrinkingAyahuascaas“sacramental,”theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas
equatedeatingpeyoteanddrinkingAyahuascawiththeCatholicceremonyofcommunion.ivAlthough
wecanengageinlengthydiscussionsofhowcourtsdefinepsychedelicreligion,Ibelievethatequating
peyoteandAyahuascawiththeChristianbreadandwineisthekeytounderstandinganddevelopingthe
jurisprudenceofpsychedelicreligion.Why?NotbecausethecourtslikeChristianchurchesandthose
thatclaimsomeChristianelementsintheirdoctrinereceivefavoredtreatment.Becausewithoutthe
sacramentoftheHolyEucharistthereisnoCatholicMass,andunlessapsychedelicsubstanceis
essentialtothereligiousexperienceofachurch’scongregants,thechurchcannotclaimFirst
Amendmentexemptionfromfederallawsthatcriminalizethepossessionanddistributionofthe
substance.
ToprevailinalawsuitclaimingtherighttoanexemptionfromtheControlledSubstanceAct(the“CSA”)
ongroundsofreligion,thechurchmustshowthattheCSA“substantiallyburdens”thechurch’s
membersinwaysthatgobeyond“diminishedspiritualfulfillment.”vThereisonlyonewaytoestablish
thisdegreeofcentralitytoreligiouspurposeinajurisprudencewheretheChristianceremonyof
communionprevailsasthesinequanonofritualpractice–bydrawingtheanalogybetweentheuseofa
psychedelicsacramentandtheHolyEucharistexplicitlyandunequivocallyinallcontexts.Hencemy
definitionofpsychedelicreligionasthosethatuseapharmacologicalagenttomediateanexperiencein
whichchurchmembersengageincommunionwiththeDivine.
Manylogicalconclusionsfollowfromthisconclusionthatpsychedelicreligionsseekinglawfulexemption
fromtheapplicationoftheCSAshoulddefinetheirceremoniesasthesacramentofcommunion,andI
intendtoexploretheminfuturearticles;however,forthepresent,IhaveaccomplishedwhatIneedto
forpurposesofthisarticle–todefinepsychedelicreligionbasedonthecentralityofthepsychedelic
experienceitself,anexperiencewithoutwhichthereligionitselfwouldhavenomeaningandchurch
memberswouldhavenoreligiouspractice.
TheConsequencesofRegulatedStatusforaPsychedelicReligion
Since2006,whentheUDVwonanexemptionfromtheCSAtoimportanddistributeAyahuascatoits
members,vimanypsychedelicchurcheshavewonderedwhethertheycouldreachthisleveloflegality.
Theonlyknownavenuetoobtainingsuchanexemption,asidefromafederallawsuitunderthe
ReligiousFreedomRestorationAct(“RFRA”),vii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PursuanttotheReligiousFreedomRestorationAct(the“Guidance”).viiiIhavediscussedthehazards
ofsubmittingaPetitionforReligiousExemptionfromtheCSA(a"PRE")incompliancewiththe
Guidance,placingparticularemphasisonthepotentialforself‐incriminationthatisinvolvedinaprocess
Page3of8
thatessentiallyinvolvesdeliveringaconfessionoffaciallycriminalconducttotheDEAinhopesthatthe
agencywillfindthatreligiousmotivesjustifythecrime.ix
DespitethefactthattheDEAhasnotgrantedanyRFEs,andthattheonlyAyahuascachurchwithanPRE
currentlypendingdidsoonlyinresponsetoamildlythreateningletterfromtheDEA,forpurposesof
thisarticle,weassumethatahypotheticalpsychedelicchurchdidinfactsuccessfullynavigatethePRE
processundertheGuidance,andreceiveditsexemptionfromtheCSAtoimport,manufactureand
distributeitssacrament.Let’scallourhypotheticalchurchtheChurchoftheAncestralDreamtime(the
“CAD”),whosememberscallthemselves“Tabernanths”because,inasuitablysacredsetandsetting,
theyconsumeanextractofIbogaTabernanthe,andreceivesacredcommunicationsfromtheAncestral
Dreamtimeinastateofecstaticcommunion.SufficeittosaythatwithoutIboga,therewouldbeno
CAD,becausethereisnowaytoreachtheAncestralDreamtimeexceptbyconsumingIbogainCAD
ceremony,thatincludestheperformanceofceremonialdanceandchantingtoestablishpropersetand
setting.
Aftercelebratingtheirsuccess,whatwillthelegalconsequencesofregulationbefortheCAD?
Inaword,alotofpaperwork.AscholarlyarticleontheUDV’sexperienceoperatingapsychedelic
churchundertheaegisofDEAregulationrecites:x
“DespitetheUDV’svictoryintheSupremeCourt,duringensuingyears
theUSGovernmentcomplicatedthegroup’sactivitiesthroughaseries
ofbureaucraticandadministrativestrategies.Becauseofthelegalpath
thatthisdisputefollowed,theUDVwasstillsubjecttoavarietyof
pressuresanduncertainties,andtheagreementfinallysettledthis
disputebetweenthem.Theagreement***establishesthattheUDV
must:informtheDEAofallshipmentsofhoascainadvance,aswellas
quantities;followastrictbureaucraticprotocoltoimport,storeand
distributehoasca;keeparecordofhowmanyparticipantsattendeach
sessionandthetotalamountofhoascaconsumedineachsession;keep
hoascainroomsprotectedwithasolidcoredoorandadeadboltlockto
avoidtheftsanddiversion;informtheDEAofthenamesofpeople
authorizedtokeepthehoasca,andallowtheDEAtoinvestigate
whetherthispersonhasbeenpreviouslyconvictedofafelonyrelating
tocontrolledsubstances.”
ThislistisactuallyonlythebeginningoftherecordkeepingresponsibilitiesthattheUDV
assumedinitssettlementwiththeDEA,butitissufficienttoprovidethecontextnecessarytocontinue
ourdiscussion.Astheauthorofthequotedarticlenotesbycitingseveralexamples,thesettlementhas
affectedhowtheUDVconductsitspractices,alteringitscharacterinsignificantways.Thus,theUDV
haschangedfromareligionwithrusticoriginsintheAmazonianrainforest,thattransmittedliturgical
lorethroughanoraltradition,utilizedawiderangeofherbsinadditiontoAyahuasca,andentrustedits
memberswithadequatequantitiesofAyahuascatoengageinself‐initiatedpsychedelicpracticeoutside
offormalchurchmeetings,intoareligionthathaslargeurbanmemberships,reliesextensivelyon
Page4of8
writtenrecords,audio‐recordingsandcommercialmusic,haslargelyeliminatedtheuseofallsubstances
otherthanAyahuascainitsceremonies,anddoesnotallowpractitionerstotakeAyahuascahomefor
personaluse.Further,ithasinitiatedarecordkeepingregimethatisanopenbooktotheDEA,
abrogatingtherightsofprivacythathavetraditionallybeenaccordedtoUDVmembersinitshome
countryofBrazil.xi
TheRequiredRecordsDoctrine
Itwillnotsurpriseyoutolearnthatourmodernregulatorystatehasapowerfuljudicialhammerbehind
ittocompelthedisclosureofinformationthatisneededtomaintaintheregulatorysystem.Thisjudicial
hammerisknownastheRequiredRecordsDoctrine,anditdatesbackto1948,whenthefederal
governmentwasactivelyengagedinwhattodaymightbereviledassocialism–regulatingthepricesof
fruitsandvegetables:
“Thepetitioner,awholesaleroffruitandproduce,onSeptember29,
1944,wasservedwithasubpoenaducestecumandadtestificandum,
issuedbythePriceAdministratorunderauthorityoftheEmergency
PriceControlAct.Thesubpoenadirectedpetitionertoappearbefore
designatedenforcementattorneysoftheOfficeofPriceAdministration
andtoproduce‘allduplicatesalesinvoices,salesbooks,ledgers,
inventoryrecords,contractsandrecordsrelatingtothesaleofall
commoditiesfromSeptember1,1944toSeptember28,1944.’"xii
Thegreengrocerproducedalloftherecords,andmadeafeebleobjectionundertheFifthAmendment
thattheSupremeCourtbrushedasidewithnaryacomment.Therecords,theCourtheld,hadtobe
producedbecauseCongresshadenactedawartimelawtoregulatethesalesoffruitsandvegetables,
andrequiringgreengrocerstokeeptheveryrecordsthathadbeensubpoenaed.Therewasnothing
unconstitutionalaboutit,becausesuchregulatorydocumentsessentiallybecame“publicrecords,”and
thegovernmenthadtherighttoinspectthemupondemand.
TheRequiredRecordsDoctrineisstillthelawoftheland,andwillstillnullifyanyFifthAmendment
objection.Ithasoftenbeenusedtocompelproductionoftaxreturnsanddocumentsthatwould
discloseviolationsofthetaxlaws.Recently,itwasusedbytheNinthCircuittocompelthedisclosureof
bankingrecordstoaGrandJuryoveraFifthAmendmentobjectionthatproducingthemwould
incriminatethewitnessfortaxevasionandbankingcrimes.xiiiAlthoughthewitnessobjectedthat
bankingrecordswereprotectedbyprivacyregulations,theNinthCircuittorturedthemeaningofpublic
recordswiththereadyimplementofpriorprecedent,holdingthatbasedonacaseinvolvingthe
compelleddisclosureofconfidentialmedicalrecords,anydocument,howeverpersonalandprivate,can
have"’publicaspects’forpurposesoftheRequiredRecordsDoctrineandthat‘expectationsofprivacy
donotnegateafindingthatthereisapublicaspecttothefilesunderthe...regulatoryschemes….’"xiv
Mostimportantlyforourpurposes,thecourtrejectedaclaimthatevenifthedocumentshadtobekept
inordertoengageinoffshorebanking,theywerestillprotectedfromdisclosureundertheFifth
Amendmentbecauseparticularmattersrecordedinthemtendedtoincriminatethewitness.Tothat
Page5of8
contention,theNinthCircuit’sresponsewassimple:“[N]ooneisrequiredtoparticipateintheactivityof
offshorebanking….”xvThisprincipleismostimportantforanypsychedelicchurchthatisconsidering
submittingarequestforexemptiontotheDEA,becauseifthechurchgetswhatit’saskingfor,itwill
simplyenterintoaregulatedrelationshipwiththeDEA,anditwillberequiredtoproducealltherecords
thattheDEArequiresittokeep,upondemand.Shouldthechurchobject,undertheFifthAmendment
oronanygrounds,theanswerwillsimplybe:“Nooneisrequiredtooperateapsychedelicchurch.”
ABriefDiscussionoftheFirstAmendmentEstablishmentandFreeExerciseClauses
TheFirstAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthebedrockofprotectionsforreligious
freedomintheUnitedStates,andthesoleprotectionforfreedomtopracticepsychedelicreligion.The
courtsdividetheFirstAmendment’sprovisionsregardingreligiousintotwoclauses:first,the
EstablishmentClause‐‐“Congressshallmakenolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligion”‐‐and
second,theFreeExerciseClause‐‐“orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof....”RFRAismerelya
Congressionally‐createdremedyforanexcessofjudicialactivismthathadwipedawaydecadesofFree
Exercisejurisprudence,andreinstatedtherulepursuanttowhichthecourtshadfashionedvarious
religiousexemptionstolawsofgeneralapplication,onthegroundsthatthegovernmentwasforbidden
frompunishingpeopleforlivingaccordingtosincerely‐heldreligiousbeliefs.xviSeveralofthesecases
upheldtherightofareligiouspersontocollectunemploymentbenefitsafterbeingfiredfromprivate
employmentforviolatingemploymentrulesthatconflictedwithreligiousprinciples,liketheJehovah’s
Witnesswhorefusedtomanufactureweapons,andtheSeventhDayAdventistwhorefusedtoworkon
Saturday.xvii
TheDEA–AppointingaStrangertoReligionAstheRegulatorofReligion?
AfterCongressenactedRFRA,theSupremeCourtheldthatevencriminallawssuchastheCSA’s
proscriptionontheuseofcontrolledsubstanceshadtogivewaytotheFreeExerciseClause.Aswe’ve
discussedabove,theUDVacceptedregulationofitsreligiousactivityandthedutytorecordanddisclose
itsactivitiestotheDEAasanecessaryaccommodationtosecuretherighttoserveitsmembersa
psychedelicsacrament.TheUDVthusenteredintoastrangerealmthatIdonotthinkisconsistentwith
therobustprotectionofreligiousfreedomcontemplatedFirstAmendment–arealmwherereligious
organizationsareregulatedbyanorganizationthatspendsover$2Billionperyeardealingwiththe
suppressionofillegalnarcoticsandthedistributionoflegalones–anddoesthatjobsobadlythat
Americansaredyinginpreviously‐undreamednumbersfromoverdosesofbothillegalandlegalopioids.
TheDilemmaoftheAncients
Returningtoourhypotheticalreligion,imaginethatasectoftheTabernanthsreceivedarevelationin
ceremonyinwhichtheAncestorstoldthemtheywereforbiddenfromengagingintheregulatory
disclosuresrequiredbytheDEA.SupposetheAncestorstoldthemembersofthissectthatthe
leadershiphadenteredintoaFaustianbargainwiththegovernmentthatwouldresultinafallingaway
fromthetruepathoftheDreamtime.Furthersupposethatthesemembersseparatedthemselvesfrom
theirestablishedchurchandcreatedanewsectcalledTheAncientDreamers(the“Ancients”).Further
supposethatwhentheDEAwrotetheAncientsaletterandsuggestedthattheysubmitanapplication
Page6of8
forexemptionundertheGuidance,theAncientshadtheirlegalteamwritebackarespectfulletter
decliningtheinvitationonthegroundsthatitwouldviolatetheirFifthAmendmentrightstobefreeof
self‐incrimination.Finally,supposethat,promptlyuponreceiptoftheAncients’refusaltosubmita
requestforexemption,theDEAservedtheAncientswithanadministrativesubpoenademanding
disclosureoftheidentityofallofitsleadership,thelocationsofitshousesofworship,andcopiesofall
documentsrecordingtheimportation,manufactureandpossessionofIbogaTabernantheandIboga
extracts,bothofwhichareScheduleIsubstancesundertheCSA.WhatwouldtheAncientsdo?
TheFreeExerciseandEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmentProvideGroundsforSubjectingA
DEASubpoenatoAChurchtoStrictJudicialScrutiny
IftheAncientscametomeforadvice,Iwouldcongratulatethemforheedingthewisdomofthe
Ancestorswhospoketotheminceremony,becauseinrefusingDEAregulation,theyhadpreservedtheir
righttoobjecttothesubpoenaundertheFirstAmendment.Inmyopinion,boththeFreeExpression
ClauseandtheEstablishmentClausebartheDEAfrom(1)demandinginformationthatchurcheshave
therighttorefusetoprovide,and(2)becomingentangledintheunconstitutionalbusinessby
presumingtoregulatetheinternalaffairsofareligiousorganization.Foraprecedentthatisdirectlyon
point,weturntoSurinachv.PequeradeBusquets,604F.2d73(1stCir.1979),whereafederalappeals
courtquashedasubpoenafromaPuertoRicangovernmentagencythathadbeenservedonthe
SuperintendentsoftheRomanCatholicschoolsontheisland,demandingproductionofextensive
recordsabouthowtheCatholicschoolswerebeingoperated.xviiiTheFirstCircuitheldthatthevery
demandtoproducetherecordschilledfreeexercise:
"TheDepartment's[demandfor]‘compelleddisclosurehasthe
potentialforsubstantiallyinfringingtheexerciseofFirstAmendment
rights.’Weseethatpotentialinthechillingofthedecisionmaking
process,occasionedbythethreatthatthosedecisionswillbecomethe
subjectofpublichearingsandthateventually,iffoundwanting,will
besupplantedbygovernmentalcontrol."xix
ThecourtalsoindicatedthattheEstablishmentClause,thatforbidsthegovernmentfrombecoming
“entangled”intheinternalaffairsofreligiousgroups,wasoffendedbythegovernment’sefforttopry
intotheChurch’sprivateaffairs:
"Iftheschoolsareforcedtocomply,thatinformationwillbesubjected
togovernmentalperusal,topublicexamination,andultimatelymay
formthebasisforsignificantgovernmentalinvolvementintheirfiscal
management.Evenifwewereabletocountenancethedegreeof
entanglementoccasionedbythegovernment'sinvolvementinthese
detailsoffiscaladministration,wecouldnotfeelconfidentthatanend
tothatinvolvementwasinsight.***Thiskindofstateinspectionand
evaluationofthereligiouscontentofareligiousorganizationis
fraughtwiththesortofentanglementthattheConstitutionforbids."xx
Page7of8
BecausetheAncientscouldobjecttotheDEAsubpoenaongroundsoftheFirstAmendment,thecourts
wouldapplythehighestlevelofjudicialscrutinytothedemand:
"GivenourconclusionthattheSecretary'sdemandsforthefinancial
dataoftheseschoolsbothburdenthefreeexerciseofreligionandpose
athreatofentanglementbetweentheaffairsofchurchandstate,the
Commonwealthmustshowthat"somecompellingstateinterest"
justifiesthatburden.andthatthereexistsnolessrestrictiveor
entanglingalternative.Thisdemandinglevelofscrutinyalsois
requiredherebecauseofthevehicleofregulationchosenbythe
Department—compelleddisclosurewhichimplicatesFirstAmendment
rights.xxi
Conclusion
TheSurinachopinionhasneverbeenquestioned,andtheSupremeCourt’scurrentfavorableorientation
towardsrecognizingabroadswathofreligiousrightsmakesitanauspicioustimeforpsychedelic
churchestolookforawayforwardandbeyondthethicketofentanglementthatwouldarisefromDEA
regulation.Becausechurchesarenotcurrentlyrequiredtocreateanydocumentsbythegovernment,
andbecausesuchaproactiveregulatoryschemeishighlyunlikelytoemergefromCongressorthe
DepartmentofJustice,psychedelicchurcheswillneverbesubjecttotheRequiredRecordsDoctrine
unlesstheyvolunteerforit.Whilewehavenotdiscussedithere,thereisevidenceintherecordto
indicatethattheSantoDaimepreservedagreatdealmorefreedomfromregulationaftertheirvictory
overtheDEAinOregonDistrictCourt.Asscientificknowledgeestablishingthegeneralutilityandsafety
ofpsychedelicsubstancesinthetreatmentofdepression,PTSDanddrugaddictionadvances,
psychedelicreligionsshouldseektotakeadvantageofthewarmingclimateoftolerance,anddefend
theirfaithfromunwarrantedandunnecessaryregulationsthatarenotinflicteduponotherreligions.
Psychedelicreligionsthatfollowproperprotocolsofsetandsettinginordertoinducethesacred
experienceofcommunionwiththeDivinethroughasacramentthatisnotaplacebopresentnohazards
thatrequiregovernmentregulation.NorwouldtheDEA,anorganizationinstitutionallydisposedto
viewallpsychedelicsasdangerousdrugsrequiringsuppression,betheproperagencytoprovideit.

ihttps://graceatsixty.wordpress.com/tag/catholic‐eucharist/
iihttp://www.beginningcatholic.com/communion
iiiCHLQv.Mukasey,615F.Supp.2d1210,1214(2006).
ivGonzalesv.OCentroSpiritaBeneficenteUniaoDoVegetal,546US418(2006).
vPerkel,ChurchofRealityv.UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice,No.08‐74457(9thCir.1/27/2010).
viGonzalesv.OCentroSpiritaBeneficenteUniaoDoVegetal,546US418(2006).
vii42U.S.C.§2000bb,etseq.
viiihttps://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt_022618.pdf
ixC.Carreon,TheDEA'sGuidanceRegardingPetitionsforReligiousExemptionfromtheControlledSubstancesAct
underRFRA:DoortoReligiousFreedomorFifthAmendmentTrapfortheUnwary?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331986523_The_DEA's_Guidance_Regarding_Petitions_for_Religious_
Exemption_from_the_Controlled_Substances_Act_under_RFRA_Door_to_Religious_Freedom_or_Fifth_Amendme
nt_Trap_for_the_Unwary
Page8of8

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.
xiiShapirov.UnitedStates,335US1,17(1948).
xiiiInreMH,648F.3d1067(9thCir.2011)
xivInreMH,648F.3dat1078.
xvInreMH,648F.3datid.
xviJusticeRobertsexplainedhowCongressturnedtheCourtaroundinGonzalesv.OCentroSpiritaBeneficente
UniaoDoVegetal,546USat424:"InEmploymentDiv.,Dept.ofHumanResourcesofOre.v.Smith,494U.S.872
(1990),thisCourtheldthattheFreeExerciseClauseoftheFirstAmendmentdoesnotprohibitgovernmentsfrom
burdeningreligiouspracticesthroughgenerallyapplicablelaws.***CongressrespondedbyenactingtheReligious
FreedomRestorationActof1993(RFRA),107Stat.1488,asamended,42U.S.C.§2000bbetseq.,whichadoptsa
statutoryrulecomparabletotheconstitutionalrulerejectedinSmith."
xviiThomasv.ReviewBd.ofIndianaEmploymentSecurityDiv.,450US707,716(1981);Sherbertv.Verner,374US
398(1963).
xviii“InJulyof1978,plaintiffswereorderedbytheSecretarytoprovidewithintendaysspecifieddocumentsand
booksandtofurnishsuchinformationastheschool'sannualbudgetsforthethreepreviousyears;thesourceof
theirfinances(registrations,donations,governmentalandothers);costsoftransportation;thestudentcostper
academicgradeforregistration,admissiondues..."Surinachv.PequeradeBusquets,604F.2dat74.
xixSurinach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).
xxSurinachv.PequeradeBusquets,604F.2dat78(emphasisadded),quotingLemonv.Kurtzman,403U.S.602,620
(1971).
xxiSurinachv.PequeradeBusquets,604F.2dat79,(emphasisaddedandinternalcitationsomitted),citingSherbert
v.Verner,374U.S.398,406(1963);Wisconsinv.Yoder,406U.S.205,220‐21(1972);Walzv.TaxCommission,397
U.S.664,674‐75(1970);and,L.Tribe,AmericanConstitutionalLaw851‐55(1978).
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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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);