dharmahuasca
Rising Star
REGARDING THE LEGAL CLAIMS OF AYAHUASCA HEALINGS AND THE ONAC
There are a lot of details involved with this issue that would take even more time and space then I am already allowing here. I will try to be brief and concise. An even more nuanced and precise account can be given as we go on
The fundamental legal issue here is the assertion by Ayahuasca Healings that:
“We have 100% legal rights to use the sacred sacraments of Ayahuasca, Peyote, San Pedro – any plant that grows from the earth – inside of America, according to the laws of the land.”
“Anybody who is a member of our church, and our mother church, the Oklevueha Native American Church, has complete, 100% unquestionable legality to sit with this plant medicine and great teacher spirit of Mother Ayahuasca, and any other plant sacraments that grow from the earth.”
This is categorically untrue. It is based on a lack of understanding and misreading of legislation and case law. This lack of understanding seem to be based on Ayahuasca Healing listening to James Mooney and the ONAC and not to actual lawyers who have expertise in these matters.
James Mooney/ONAC won a case in the Utah Supreme Court that clarified that non tribal members in Utah can use peyote as part of a Native American Church. This case only applied to Utah and only to Peyote. It did not extend to any other plant medicines.
The court ruled based on the plain language of the religious peyote exemption. They ruled that because the text of the exemption is devoid of any reference to tribal status, they could find no support for an interpretation limiting the exemption to tribal members.
This language is what allows peyote use in any NAC church in Utah regardless of whether the participants are Native Americans. Again only Peyote. No other plant medicine. And only in Utah.
Mooney/ONAC and Ayahuasca Healings try to maintain that the US Supreme Court decision in the UDV Ayahuasca case makes them legal. It does not. It only allowed the UDV to legally use Ayahuasca and not any other plant medicine.
It created a precedent that other groups can use in asking for an exemption from the DEA or going to court to force the exemption. Yet, it does not in and of itself make Ayahuasca legal for the ONAC or any other religious group.
A branch of the Santo Daime also won the right to use Ayahuasca in a federal court case. They used the UDV case as a precedent. They were not automatically legal after the Supreme Court’s UDV ruling. They had to go to court to fight for their right. This Santo Daime ruling only applied to the Santo Daime and only to the use of Ayahuasca not to any other plant medicine.
It also was only was effective within the jurisdiction of the 9th district . Though the DEA has now stopped fighting them and is giving them exemptions to open branches in other states without going to court.
The UDV and Santo Daime also have to follow strict protocols on the tracking, storage and distribution of their Ayahuasca to prove that none of it is being diverted outside of the specific religious context.
Nothing in these cases or in the wording of RFRA, AIFRA or the First Amendment allows Ayahuasca Healings or the ONAC to legally use or conduct ceremonies with Ayahuasca or any other plant medicine (with the exception of Peyote in the context previously mentioned.)
Again these court cases and these laws create precedents and contexts for becoming legal. Yet, each church has to go through the process. It is not automatic. Not a given.
And if a church wants to claim a right to use multiple controlled substances they will have a much harder case than the UDV or the Santo Daime. Both because it may be very difficult to impossible to show why each sacrament/controlled substance is essential to the practice of the religion as well as being able to prove you have strict controls that will guard against diversion.
People can try to spin this to to suit their perceived needs but it is not a matter of my opinion or their opinion. It is a matter of the courts opinions and the letter of the law which is quite unambiguous in this matter:
Neither Ayahuasca Healings or any branch of the ONAC can legally conduct Ayahuasca ceremonies unless they ask for and get an exemption to do so from the DEA or a specific court ruling that forces the DEA to give them the exemption. Just as the UDV and Santo Daime did. That's just how it is at the present time.
Just so it's clear I think these medicines should be legally available to us without going through all these hoops. And many of us choose to partake of sacred medicine regardless of the letter of the law.
Yet to publicize Ayahuasca retreats and assert that you are legal when you are not brings unwelcome attention to the medicine community as well as calling into question the good judgment of those who are leading these retreats and churches. I hope their discernment will soon match their enthusiasm.
There are a lot of details involved with this issue that would take even more time and space then I am already allowing here. I will try to be brief and concise. An even more nuanced and precise account can be given as we go on
The fundamental legal issue here is the assertion by Ayahuasca Healings that:
“We have 100% legal rights to use the sacred sacraments of Ayahuasca, Peyote, San Pedro – any plant that grows from the earth – inside of America, according to the laws of the land.”
“Anybody who is a member of our church, and our mother church, the Oklevueha Native American Church, has complete, 100% unquestionable legality to sit with this plant medicine and great teacher spirit of Mother Ayahuasca, and any other plant sacraments that grow from the earth.”
This is categorically untrue. It is based on a lack of understanding and misreading of legislation and case law. This lack of understanding seem to be based on Ayahuasca Healing listening to James Mooney and the ONAC and not to actual lawyers who have expertise in these matters.
James Mooney/ONAC won a case in the Utah Supreme Court that clarified that non tribal members in Utah can use peyote as part of a Native American Church. This case only applied to Utah and only to Peyote. It did not extend to any other plant medicines.
The court ruled based on the plain language of the religious peyote exemption. They ruled that because the text of the exemption is devoid of any reference to tribal status, they could find no support for an interpretation limiting the exemption to tribal members.
This language is what allows peyote use in any NAC church in Utah regardless of whether the participants are Native Americans. Again only Peyote. No other plant medicine. And only in Utah.
Mooney/ONAC and Ayahuasca Healings try to maintain that the US Supreme Court decision in the UDV Ayahuasca case makes them legal. It does not. It only allowed the UDV to legally use Ayahuasca and not any other plant medicine.
It created a precedent that other groups can use in asking for an exemption from the DEA or going to court to force the exemption. Yet, it does not in and of itself make Ayahuasca legal for the ONAC or any other religious group.
A branch of the Santo Daime also won the right to use Ayahuasca in a federal court case. They used the UDV case as a precedent. They were not automatically legal after the Supreme Court’s UDV ruling. They had to go to court to fight for their right. This Santo Daime ruling only applied to the Santo Daime and only to the use of Ayahuasca not to any other plant medicine.
It also was only was effective within the jurisdiction of the 9th district . Though the DEA has now stopped fighting them and is giving them exemptions to open branches in other states without going to court.
The UDV and Santo Daime also have to follow strict protocols on the tracking, storage and distribution of their Ayahuasca to prove that none of it is being diverted outside of the specific religious context.
Nothing in these cases or in the wording of RFRA, AIFRA or the First Amendment allows Ayahuasca Healings or the ONAC to legally use or conduct ceremonies with Ayahuasca or any other plant medicine (with the exception of Peyote in the context previously mentioned.)
Again these court cases and these laws create precedents and contexts for becoming legal. Yet, each church has to go through the process. It is not automatic. Not a given.
And if a church wants to claim a right to use multiple controlled substances they will have a much harder case than the UDV or the Santo Daime. Both because it may be very difficult to impossible to show why each sacrament/controlled substance is essential to the practice of the religion as well as being able to prove you have strict controls that will guard against diversion.
People can try to spin this to to suit their perceived needs but it is not a matter of my opinion or their opinion. It is a matter of the courts opinions and the letter of the law which is quite unambiguous in this matter:
Neither Ayahuasca Healings or any branch of the ONAC can legally conduct Ayahuasca ceremonies unless they ask for and get an exemption to do so from the DEA or a specific court ruling that forces the DEA to give them the exemption. Just as the UDV and Santo Daime did. That's just how it is at the present time.
Just so it's clear I think these medicines should be legally available to us without going through all these hoops. And many of us choose to partake of sacred medicine regardless of the letter of the law.
Yet to publicize Ayahuasca retreats and assert that you are legal when you are not brings unwelcome attention to the medicine community as well as calling into question the good judgment of those who are leading these retreats and churches. I hope their discernment will soon match their enthusiasm.
