Comments on: UDV case update http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/udv-case-update/ 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/udv-case-update/comment-page-1/#comment-380 Steve Beyer Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:55:13 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=59#comment-380 Matthew -- Omigod, I just realized that I called you Michael instead of Matthew. Please forgive me. As increasingly happens, my fingers were faster than my brain. I apologize. I think you are right that the district court would like to see a compromise reached, in which the UDV and the government agree on some reasonable and workable set of regulations. Presumably the government wants regulations concerning -- at least -- record keeping, secure storage, and limitations on distribution. As you know, if such regulations were contested, the court would decide what restrictions **unduly** burdened UDV religious practice -- that is, whether the proposed regulations were the least burdensome way for the government to assert its compelling state interests. Not all burdens on religious practice are undue burdens. For example, if I remember correctly, government regulations require that peyote be given only to members of the Native American Church who have a 25 percent "blood quantum" membership in a federally recognized tribe. I assume that the government would like to prevent the UDV from handing out hoasca to anyone who dropped by. Is this a compelling state interest? If so, what would be the least burdensome way this compelling interest could be accommodated? At this point, however, it looks like everyone is being intransigent. -- Steve Matthew –

Omigod, I just realized that I called you Michael instead of Matthew. Please forgive me. As increasingly happens, my fingers were faster than my brain. I apologize.

I think you are right that the district court would like to see a compromise reached, in which the UDV and the government agree on some reasonable and workable set of regulations. Presumably the government wants regulations concerning — at least — record keeping, secure storage, and limitations on distribution. As you know, if such regulations were contested, the court would decide what restrictions **unduly** burdened UDV religious practice — that is, whether the proposed regulations were the least burdensome way for the government to assert its compelling state interests. Not all burdens on religious practice are undue burdens.

For example, if I remember correctly, government regulations require that peyote be given only to members of the Native American Church who have a 25 percent “blood quantum” membership in a federally recognized tribe. I assume that the government would like to prevent the UDV from handing out hoasca to anyone who dropped by. Is this a compelling state interest? If so, what would be the least burdensome way this compelling interest could be accommodated?

At this point, however, it looks like everyone is being intransigent.

– Steve

]]> By: Matthew Meyer http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/udv-case-update/comment-page-1/#comment-374 Matthew Meyer Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:36:47 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=59#comment-374 Steve, The UDV has also sought, repeatedly, to be subject to the same restrictions as the NAC. Generally these pleas have consisted in pointing out that the NAC, once their peyote is harvested by licensed dealers, is subject to almost no oversight--not even as much as the UDV is under the terms of its preliminary injunction. Yet the government has thus far given every indication of throwing the CSA book at the UDV by making them fulfill the letter of the law for importers of controlled substances. We will see if Judge Parker can strike a compromise. Thanks for your comments. Matthew Steve,
The UDV has also sought, repeatedly, to be subject to the same restrictions as the NAC. Generally these pleas have consisted in pointing out that the NAC, once their peyote is harvested by licensed dealers, is subject to almost no oversight–not even as much as the UDV is under the terms of its preliminary injunction. Yet the government has thus far given every indication of throwing the CSA book at the UDV by making them fulfill the letter of the law for importers of controlled substances. We will see if Judge Parker can strike a compromise.
Thanks for your comments.
Matthew

]]> By: Steve Beyer http://www.ayahuasca.com/news/udv-case-update/comment-page-1/#comment-373 Steve Beyer Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:46:29 +0000 http://www.ayahuasca.com/?p=59#comment-373 Michael -- This is an outstanding summary. Thank you for bringing this up to date. This case may well turn out to be like the Heller gun-rights case: the state will be able to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the importation and use of hoasca, and the argument will then be about which restrictions are reasonable and which are not. I think an appropriate model may turn out to be the use of peyote by the Native American Church, where peyote may be picked and sold only by authorized peyoteros, and the individual churches must be certified as being part of the NAC. That does not strike me as unduly burdensome, especially given how well organized the UDV is. But, as you rightly point out, it has been a long hard road, which in itself may have a chilling effect on claims to religious exemptions from the drug laws. Thank you again. -- Steve Michael — This is an outstanding summary. Thank you for bringing this up to date. This case may well turn out to be like the Heller gun-rights case: the state will be able to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the importation and use of hoasca, and the argument will then be about which restrictions are reasonable and which are not. I think an appropriate model may turn out to be the use of peyote by the Native American Church, where peyote may be picked and sold only by authorized peyoteros, and the individual churches must be certified as being part of the NAC. That does not strike me as unduly burdensome, especially given how well organized the UDV is. But, as you rightly point out, it has been a long hard road, which in itself may have a chilling effect on claims to religious exemptions from the drug laws. Thank you again. — Steve

]]>