Heretic said:Would this have no sway in court if used as a defense you think?
Santo Daime - The Rainforest's Doctrine - Community
Unfortunately not. The fact that the UN chooses to allow something does not mean that member nations must also allow it, it simply gives them the option to (although if a UN treaty forbid ayahuasca brews containing DMT, that would compel the signatory nations to forbid it as well)... as we know, the US has chosen not to exercise that option and regards DMT and all things that contain it, including ayahuasca brews.
To cker and ShamanDoc, I agree with what you're both saying about the maladaptive prejudices that fuel the drug war. If you haven't read them, I highly recommend the Proemium from Jonathan Ott's Pharmacotheon and an essay entitled Legalize Methamphetamine by Marc Victor; both outline clear reasonable arguments why the only sensible or conscionable course of action is to abandon the drug war and legalize all drugs. Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance has also spoken eloquently on the subject.
I have to admit that part of what intrigues me so much about the argument from ubiquity is its potential to render the Controlled Substances Act invalid. Sure, if that happened Congress would be chomping at the bit to replace it, but I think it could open a healthy debate on the subject.
What drugs really need is a good PR campaign, one that cuts straight through all the propaganda and fear-mongering. People are gradually realizing that prohibition of cannabis is not only ineffective, it's entirely counterproductive and an affront to the notion of liberty that our forbears shed their blood to secure... this is promising, but it's only the start. Prohibition of any mind-altering drug, regardless of health risks, is an affront to the fundamental notion of liberty. Adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about what they put in their own bodies. Clear information with an eye towards harm reduction is crucial in the process of responsible decision-making, but attempting to control people's personal decisions about what to consume through criminal sanctions is simply unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.
I didn't devote much space to these concerns when treating the question of "where do we go from here?" because self-evident truths about liberty and individual sovereignty do not hold any weight in a court of law. I fully support activism in these areas, but I was focused on considering the options under our current legal paradigm.