Comments on: Ayahuasca in the Supreme Court http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/ Homepage of the Great Medicine Mon, 05 Jul 2010 07:52:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Steve Beyer http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-1248 Steve Beyer Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:13:41 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-1248 Susan -- Thank you for the kind words about my work. Please convey my very warmest regards to Fred. I am sorry to hear that you have lymphoma, and I hope that the chemotherapy is not too exhausting and is making you better. Please remember that I am absolutely in no way a clinician and can offer you no medical opinions. I have no idea whether combining ayahuasca with chemotherapy is a good idea or a bad idea. I would suspect that it is a bad idea, based almost entirely on the thought the interaction of the two might be detrimental to your recovery. It seems to me that the first job right now is to get better from the lymphoma, and you might want to avoid anything that might interfere with that. I have no way to balance the potential benefits of your healing insights from ayahuasca over against its possible risk to your recovery. That weighing is something you have to do yourself, preferably in consultation with your physician. I think you have to tell your physician about ayahuasca, its ingredients, and its effects in a very open manner, even if you feel that he or she would disapprove. Your physician can then do whatever medical research is possible, and the two of you can come up with a plan of action together. Perhaps you can discuss and weigh alternative sources of healing insight, including such practices as meditation or healing ceremonies without ayahuasca. I wish you all blessings on your journey to health. -- Steve Susan –

Thank you for the kind words about my work. Please convey my very warmest regards to Fred.

I am sorry to hear that you have lymphoma, and I hope that the chemotherapy is not too exhausting and is making you better. Please remember that I am absolutely in no way a clinician and can offer you no medical opinions. I have no idea whether combining ayahuasca with chemotherapy is a good idea or a bad idea. I would suspect that it is a bad idea, based almost entirely on the thought the interaction of the two might be detrimental to your recovery. It seems to me that the first job right now is to get better from the lymphoma, and you might want to avoid anything that might interfere with that.

I have no way to balance the potential benefits of your healing insights from ayahuasca over against its possible risk to your recovery. That weighing is something you have to do yourself, preferably in consultation with your physician. I think you have to tell your physician about ayahuasca, its ingredients, and its effects in a very open manner, even if you feel that he or she would disapprove. Your physician can then do whatever medical research is possible, and the two of you can come up with a plan of action together. Perhaps you can discuss and weigh alternative sources of healing insight, including such practices as meditation or healing ceremonies without ayahuasca.

I wish you all blessings on your journey to health.

– Steve

]]> By: Susan McNaughton http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-1087 Susan McNaughton Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:50:40 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-1087 Hi Steve, I follow your work with great interest and gratitude. I am a friend of Fred Smith who I beleive you've met. I have a question. I am undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma. I have the opportunity to drink the tea and would like to know your opinion on drinking the tea while on chemo? I have found remarkable little info on this. I have been living with lymphoma for 8 years now and in my own experience have had remarkable insights into my journey to wellness through the medicine. I would appreciate your opinion. all the best, Susan Hi Steve,

I follow your work with great interest and gratitude. I am a friend of Fred Smith who I beleive you’ve met.
I have a question. I am undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma. I have the opportunity to drink the tea and would like to know your opinion on drinking the tea while on chemo? I have found remarkable little info on this. I have been living with lymphoma for 8 years now and in my own experience have had remarkable insights into my journey to wellness through the medicine. I would appreciate your opinion.

all the best,
Susan

]]> By: Ayahuasca Khan http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-922 Ayahuasca Khan Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:42:06 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-922 Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this Steve! Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this Steve!

]]> By: John Schooley http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-905 John Schooley Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:25:33 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-905 Thank you Steve for the very enlightening description of the history of the religion clause of the First Amendment and how that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court through the years especially in arguments about the limits of religious practices when they get cross ways with US law that “burden” the free exercise. I do think though that some very important distinctions are generally being missed in this ongoing argument. To make my case on this I need to posit some things that seem basic. 1. The universal human right to Freedom of Belief (or Consciousness) is absolute (inalienable) and can in no way be restricted by any government or society anywhere. This is cognitive liberty, freedom of belief or consciousness. While this is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights it is the basic statement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is in truth what free society is all about. The First Amendment in its entirety seeks to protect by codifying and sanctifying the social practices that are essential to freedom of thought, namely religious belief and practice, freedom of speech, press and assembly. It is telling that these essential or primary freedoms are put together under the same protective shelter. 2. Freedom of expression (practice) of belief, speech, press and assembly however, are not absolute. In general, freedom of religious practice or expression (as well as Speech and Press and assembly) must be given the greatest possible latitude by free societies. 3. The First Amendment freedoms practice are (or should be) also unrestricted insofar as the action of persons practicing their religion does not directly and substantially harm others. I believe these three statements are relatively non-controversial. Government entities that object to this or that religious speech, press, assembly) practice normally do so under color of maintaining the “good order of the state”. The fact that the state may, in principle, passe any law and define the “good order” as the universal obeying of that law begs the question. It would be absurd to for instance make a law banning the press and call printing a newspaper disruptive of the good order per se. So the argument really is not ostensively about internal freedoms of thought, it is about peoples actions in society. The government does not claim to care so much about what you think (as opposed to the sporadic but real Inquisitions that very much care) as what you do. I am personally however of the opinion that power controllers care very much about what we think and believe because thought leads to action or the lack thereof. I will return to this later. Religious practice, as well as press, assembly and speech , itself falls under two headings: primary and secondary practices. I will hereafter focus on Religion. It is essential to make a distinction between primary and secondary religious practices. Primary religious practices include the religious rituals, teaching, education and practices that are aimed at communicating the religious ideal to the practitioners of the religion, and this especially includes those rituals in which the religionists contact and communicate directly with the Divine or their Ideal. This is often called prayer, meditation, religious ritual, communion and so on. Primary Religious practices include all of the means by which the fundamental religious ideal or truth or core experience is contacted and communicated to oneself. Secondary religious practices are those in which the religious ideals, state of being or consciousness are put into action in various ways that express and strengthen them in the lives of the religionists. These include the range of practices from applying virtues such as charity, compassion and non-violence to particular communicative and symbolic lifestyle choices such as dress codes, and personal ornamentation, and in the cases above choosing the day of Sabbath, number of wives, food prohibitions and so on. The reason it is important to make this distinction precisely goes to how the law or state can treat religious practices. The barrier to prohibiting (“burdening” in the euphemistic legal term) primary religious practices should and must be set very much higher than the barrier to burdening secondary religious practices. It is one thing to outlaw polygamy as a religious practice in the interest of the public good but it is quite another to prevent the printing of the sacred book of Mormon, or outlawing Mormon prayer assemblies, or outlawing Mormon sermons in the public good (as they all may lead to the belief in the practice of polygamy). Polygamy represents a secondary religious practice to (some) Mormons. Their faith and practice of their core religious rituals are not essentially dependent on this. The rights to Print and disseminate their sacred texts, their rights to assemble, to communicate their beliefs and participate in the religious services that connect them directly to the spiritual realities of their faith are Primary religious practices precisely because they are together essential to the existence of Mormonism (or any other ism). When we don’t understand the distinction between Primary and secondary religious practices we invite trouble from the state that may correctly be trying to protect the public good from harmful practices (polygamy in my facile real world example). Without the distinction, when the first barrier is easily breached then the legal principle of breaching the barrier is validated. Of the two forms of religious expression, primary religious practices are very close to being absolute rights in free societies as long as those practices are not directly and seriously harmful to others human rights. Examples of severe abuse in this area are probably so rare as to be hypothetical. Religionists may not, for example, murder people as part of a primary religious ritual even though their right to believe in the practice is absolute. The question of whether persons should be allowed to engage in practices that have a potential or possible physical or psychological harm to the religious participants themselves is more difficult. Risks are inherent in everything we do (or don't do) in life. As we continually make choices as to relative risks to rewards people constantly do things that are to some extent dangerous. Almost all sports (which are normally enjoyed for less personally urgent and core belief reasons than religious rituals) carry real physical risk. All medicines and medical procedures carry risk. Driving to work involves risk. Proscription of primary religious practices under the excuse that there is some possible risk to the participant is actually thinly veiled judgment that the religion is worthless (or evil) and is an attempt to deny the practice of that religion. Because direct attack on religion is illegal and politically incorrect often the ubiquitous and dubious doctrine of governmental paternalism is used as a cover and justification for such attacks. Primary religious practices that are actually and grossly physically harmful to religious practitioners are very rare. Some self-flagellation practices come to mind. Some monks of some religions practice partial finger removal (mutilation) as a religious dedication ritual. Others fast for long periods or follow strict diets or very long meditation or prayer regimes. As repelling and irrational as some of these practices may seem to many people, the importance and sanctity of the unfettered rights to primary religious practice by informed and consenting parties are usually protected even here as otherwise we begin sliding down a very slippery slope towards religious intolerance towards all. A Sacrament is a visible form of an invisible or inner spiritual grace. A Sacramental is a physical object used as sacred means to aid the seeker to communicate with the sacred. Use of sacramental means of communication with the sacred has been a widespread and essential component in religious rituals worldwide stretching back into prehistory. The use of otherwise proscribed chemical substances used as sacramental means to communicate with the sacred in religious ritual is a clear example of a primary religious practice that is manifestly not harmful to third parties civil and human rights. The primary reason for proscription of Entheogens in modern society is clearly their consciousness changing properties rather than potential physical harm to the religionist. The severe and actual harm that society imposes onto those who practice their religion in this way is incomparably greater than the theoretical or possible harm of the freely practiced religious ritual is to the individual and clearly demonstrates government's real intent. In the many cases in which the sacramental is a chemical, either natural or manmade, the making (or transubstantiation or consecration) of the sacramental into a Sacrament is partially due to the knowledge of chemical's ability to help induce the core religious experience, and partially upon the corresponding intent of the participant. A substance or object is transformed into a sacrament by the mind and spirit and intent of the person who uses it or dedicates it thusly. Proscription of the use of religious sacraments by government is tantamount to directly denying the right of those religious practitioners to practice their religion and thereby denying access to the essential state of consciousness that is aimed at by and is the core religious experience of the religion. Such efforts, which are really attempts to organize society through one dominating religious or socio-political culture, are counterproductive in all societies, but especially in free societies that value religious freedom and human rights. Cultural multiplicity is the norm of modern free societies. Individual citizens cannot help but be more supportive of a society or government that protects their right to practice their religion and honors their cultural practices rather than spending billions to hunt them down, imprison and destroy their lives and families under the guise of acting in their best interests and using their own tax money to do so. Ranting aside, The government in their ongoing attempts to deny the Ayahuascan’s access to the Primary practice of their religion is tearing down a much higher moral and legal barrier set up to protect them from overt religious persecution. I have read the amicus briefs for the UDV petition and the support for the real principals involved which I tried to illuminate here are extremely encouraging to the future of the right to religious freedom in America. There was no ganging up on a competing religion in evidence, much to the contrary. The putting the denial of the sue of religious sacramental in primary religious rituals and worship is very much more destructive to society than the protection of that right in unusual circumstances can ever due even if the use of Ayahuasca is harmful which it evidently is not. Thank you Steve for the very enlightening description of the history of the religion clause of the First Amendment and how that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court through the years especially in arguments about the limits of religious practices when they get cross ways with US law that “burden” the free exercise. I do think though that some very important distinctions are generally being missed in this ongoing argument.
To make my case on this I need to posit some things that seem basic.
1. The universal human right to Freedom of Belief (or Consciousness) is absolute (inalienable) and can in no way be restricted by any government or society anywhere. This is cognitive liberty, freedom of belief or consciousness. While this is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights it is the basic statement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is in truth what free society is all about. The First Amendment in its entirety seeks to protect by codifying and sanctifying the social practices that are essential to freedom of thought, namely religious belief and practice, freedom of speech, press and assembly. It is telling that these essential or primary freedoms are put together under the same protective shelter.
2. Freedom of expression (practice) of belief, speech, press and assembly however, are not absolute. In general, freedom of religious practice or expression (as well as Speech and Press and assembly) must be given the greatest possible latitude by free societies.
3. The First Amendment freedoms practice are (or should be) also unrestricted insofar as the action of persons practicing their religion does not directly and substantially harm others.
I believe these three statements are relatively non-controversial. Government entities that object to this or that religious speech, press, assembly) practice normally do so under color of maintaining the “good order of the state”. The fact that the state may, in principle, passe any law and define the “good order” as the universal obeying of that law begs the question. It would be absurd to for instance make a law banning the press and call printing a newspaper disruptive of the good order per se.
So the argument really is not ostensively about internal freedoms of thought, it is about peoples actions in society. The government does not claim to care so much about what you think (as opposed to the sporadic but real Inquisitions that very much care) as what you do. I am personally however of the opinion that power controllers care very much about what we think and believe because thought leads to action or the lack thereof. I will return to this later.
Religious practice, as well as press, assembly and speech , itself falls under two headings: primary and secondary practices. I will hereafter focus on Religion.
It is essential to make a distinction between primary and secondary religious practices. Primary religious practices include the religious rituals, teaching, education and practices that are aimed at communicating the religious ideal to the practitioners of the religion, and this especially includes those rituals in which the religionists contact and communicate directly with the Divine or their Ideal. This is often called prayer, meditation, religious ritual, communion and so on. Primary Religious practices include all of the means by which the fundamental religious ideal or truth or core experience is contacted and communicated to oneself.
Secondary religious practices are those in which the religious ideals, state of being or consciousness are put into action in various ways that express and strengthen them in the lives of the religionists. These include the range of practices from applying virtues such as charity, compassion and non-violence to particular communicative and symbolic lifestyle choices such as dress codes, and personal ornamentation, and in the cases above choosing the day of Sabbath, number of wives, food prohibitions and so on.
The reason it is important to make this distinction precisely goes to how the law or state can treat religious practices. The barrier to prohibiting (“burdening” in the euphemistic legal term) primary religious practices should and must be set very much higher than the barrier to burdening secondary religious practices. It is one thing to outlaw polygamy as a religious practice in the interest of the public good but it is quite another to prevent the printing of the sacred book of Mormon, or outlawing Mormon prayer assemblies, or outlawing Mormon sermons in the public good (as they all may lead to the belief in the practice of polygamy).
Polygamy represents a secondary religious practice to (some) Mormons. Their faith and practice of their core religious rituals are not essentially dependent on this. The rights to Print and disseminate their sacred texts, their rights to assemble, to communicate their beliefs and participate in the religious services that connect them directly to the spiritual realities of their faith are Primary religious practices precisely because they are together essential to the existence of Mormonism (or any other ism).
When we don’t understand the distinction between Primary and secondary religious practices we invite trouble from the state that may correctly be trying to protect the public good from harmful practices (polygamy in my facile real world example). Without the distinction, when the first barrier is easily breached then the legal principle of breaching the barrier is validated.
Of the two forms of religious expression, primary religious practices are very close to being absolute rights in free societies as long as those practices are not directly and seriously harmful to others human rights. Examples of severe abuse in this area are probably so rare as to be hypothetical. Religionists may not, for example, murder people as part of a primary religious ritual even though their right to believe in the practice is absolute.
The question of whether persons should be allowed to engage in practices that have a potential or possible physical or psychological harm to the religious participants themselves is more difficult. Risks are inherent in everything we do (or don’t do) in life. As we continually make choices as to relative risks to rewards people constantly do things that are to some extent dangerous. Almost all sports (which are normally enjoyed for less personally urgent and core belief reasons than religious rituals) carry real physical risk. All medicines and medical procedures carry risk. Driving to work involves risk. Proscription of primary religious practices under the excuse that there is some possible risk to the participant is actually thinly veiled judgment that the religion is worthless (or evil) and is an attempt to deny the practice of that religion. Because direct attack on religion is illegal and politically incorrect often the ubiquitous and dubious doctrine of governmental paternalism is used as a cover and justification for such attacks.
Primary religious practices that are actually and grossly physically harmful to religious practitioners are very rare. Some self-flagellation practices come to mind. Some monks of some religions practice partial finger removal (mutilation) as a religious dedication ritual. Others fast for long periods or follow strict diets or very long meditation or prayer regimes. As repelling and irrational as some of these practices may seem to many people, the importance and sanctity of the unfettered rights to primary religious practice by informed and consenting parties are usually protected even here as otherwise we begin sliding down a very slippery slope towards religious intolerance towards all.
A Sacrament is a visible form of an invisible or inner spiritual grace. A Sacramental is a physical object used as sacred means to aid the seeker to communicate with the sacred. Use of sacramental means of communication with the sacred has been a widespread and essential component in religious rituals worldwide stretching back into prehistory.
The use of otherwise proscribed chemical substances used as sacramental means to communicate with the sacred in religious ritual is a clear example of a primary religious practice that is manifestly not harmful to third parties civil and human rights. The primary reason for proscription of Entheogens in modern society is clearly their consciousness changing properties rather than potential physical harm to the religionist. The severe and actual harm that society imposes onto those who practice their religion in this way is incomparably greater than the theoretical or possible harm of the freely practiced religious ritual is to the individual and clearly demonstrates government’s real intent.
In the many cases in which the sacramental is a chemical, either natural or manmade, the making (or transubstantiation or consecration) of the sacramental into a Sacrament is partially due to the knowledge of chemical’s ability to help induce the core religious experience, and partially upon the corresponding intent of the participant. A substance or object is transformed into a sacrament by the mind and spirit and intent of the person who uses it or dedicates it thusly. Proscription of the use of religious sacraments by government is tantamount to directly denying the right of those religious practitioners to practice their religion and thereby denying access to the essential state of consciousness that is aimed at by and is the core religious experience of the religion.
Such efforts, which are really attempts to organize society through one dominating religious or socio-political culture, are counterproductive in all societies, but especially in free societies that value religious freedom and human rights. Cultural multiplicity is the norm of modern free societies. Individual citizens cannot help but be more supportive of a society or government that protects their right to practice their religion and honors their cultural practices rather than spending billions to hunt them down, imprison and destroy their lives and families under the guise of acting in their best interests and using their own tax money to do so.
Ranting aside, The government in their ongoing attempts to deny the Ayahuascan’s access to the Primary practice of their religion is tearing down a much higher moral and legal barrier set up to protect them from overt religious persecution. I have read the amicus briefs for the UDV petition and the support for the real principals involved which I tried to illuminate here are extremely encouraging to the future of the right to religious freedom in America. There was no ganging up on a competing religion in evidence, much to the contrary. The putting the denial of the sue of religious sacramental in primary religious rituals and worship is very much more destructive to society than the protection of that right in unusual circumstances can ever due even if the use of Ayahuasca is harmful which it evidently is not.

]]> By: Steve Beyer http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-868 Steve Beyer Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:54:09 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-868 James -- I would not bet my liberty on this. US courts have consistently taken the position that a Schedule I controlled substance is prohibited in any form, including as a "natural" substance such as a plant. If I am mistaken, and you know of a court that has held otherwise, please let me know. The fact that chacruna is available online in relatively small amounts -- and I agree that it is -- does not mean that it is legal, just that nobody is bothering to do anything about it. -- Steve http://www.singingtotheplants.com/ James –

I would not bet my liberty on this. US courts have consistently taken the position that a Schedule I controlled substance is prohibited in any form, including as a “natural” substance such as a plant. If I am mistaken, and you know of a court that has held otherwise, please let me know. The fact that chacruna is available online in relatively small amounts — and I agree that it is — does not mean that it is legal, just that nobody is bothering to do anything about it.

– Steve
http://www.singingtotheplants.com/

]]> By: James Peterson http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-867 James Peterson Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:30:56 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-867 It is Completely legal in all states to own any dmt containing plant. Extracting dmt from plants is illegal. Trying to brew Ayahuasca is Illegal. One could purchase Psychotria Viridis from Ebay. It is Completely legal in all states to own any dmt containing plant. Extracting dmt from plants is illegal. Trying to brew Ayahuasca is Illegal. One could purchase Psychotria Viridis from Ebay.

]]> By: Ganja Man http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-673 Ganja Man Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:29:21 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-673 I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.

]]> By: graham clark http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-641 graham clark Tue, 05 May 2009 11:44:33 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-641 well...........................................if LIGHT truly does overcome darkness then the basic freedom to find the Light shall be protected and those that are in darkness shall become the Light. anyway lots of love peace joy gram well…………………………………….if LIGHT truly does overcome darkness then the basic freedom to find the
Light shall be protected and those that are in darkness shall become the Light.

anyway lots of love peace joy

gram

]]> By: Troy http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-571 Troy Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:10:03 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-571 it'll be a cold day in u know where before the control freaks in washington or any other state or local government allow us to ingest anything they don't want us to ingest. it's not for the "safety of the public" they do this. it's that as long as it's kept illegal they can process people like cord wood in and out of their institutions and the money to arrest, incarcerate, probate, and parole will continue to grease palms day after day. america is slowly becoming a police state day by day. The few that have $$$ can get out of trouble whereas those who are without it are at the mercy of creteans. it’ll be a cold day in u know where before the control freaks in washington or any other state or local government allow us to ingest anything they don’t want us to ingest. it’s not for the “safety of the public” they do this. it’s that as long as it’s kept illegal they can process people like cord wood in and out of their institutions and the money to arrest, incarcerate, probate, and parole will continue to grease palms day after day. america is slowly becoming a police state day by day. The few that have $$$ can get out of trouble whereas those who are without it are at the mercy of creteans.

]]> By: Paul Bridger http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/ayahuasca-in-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-332 Paul Bridger Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:20:18 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=24#comment-332 The medicine moves in mysterious ways. Ayahuasca works on many levels simultaneously. Just as the medicine cleanses an individual by exposing darkness and ushering enlightenment, ayahuasca has begun to work within the legal system of America. The medicine acts on behalf of truth to reveal deception and manipulation. I am reassured by ayahuasca's willingness to engage. The truth shall prevail. The light will continue to reveal the inconsistencies embedded within the justice system. Freedom for the individual to choose ancient methods of consciousness awakening shall be granted. Cultivate faith in the medicines. No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. The medicine moves in mysterious ways. Ayahuasca works on many levels simultaneously. Just as the medicine cleanses an individual by exposing darkness and ushering enlightenment, ayahuasca has begun to work within the legal system of America. The medicine acts on behalf of truth to reveal deception and manipulation. I am reassured by ayahuasca’s willingness to engage. The truth shall prevail. The light will continue to reveal the inconsistencies embedded within the justice system. Freedom for the individual to choose ancient methods of consciousness awakening shall be granted. Cultivate faith in the medicines. No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

]]>