Quote:

(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

---

Quote:

P.S. I did think "DMT people" was a funny (& possibly degrading! ) term to use given the circumstances. It makes much more sense now, though, in light of your revelation.

---

Seuss said:

>> Does freedom of religion apply to psychedelics?
> yes it applies to everything

Cool! So can I start human sacrifices again?

---

Quote:

Treiber, Meeks and Bauer may be retried on the possession counts. The government should be free to cross-examine them on whether they, in fact, are Rastafarians and to introduce evidence negating their asserted claims. It is not enough in order to enjoy the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to claim the name of a religion as a protective [**23] cloak. Neither the government nor the court has to accept the defendants' mere say-so. The court may conduct a preliminary hearing in which the defendants will have the obligation of showing that they are in fact Rastafarians and that the use of marijuana is a part of the religious practice of Rastafarians.

---

Quote:

RFRA, as applied to Guam, is a constitutional exercise of Congress's Article I powers, yet provides no defense to Guerrero, who was prosecuted for importation of marijuana, not simple possession.

---

Quote:

First, Rastafarians are not similarly situated to NAC members because of the uncontrolled use to which they put marijuana in their religious practice. See Olsen, 878 F.2d at 1463-64. Joe McBride testified that his religion places no limitation on how much marijuana he smokes or at what time of the day he smokes it. Such practices have been noted by other courts addressing the disparate treatment accorded Rastafarians and NAC members under federal law. See Olsen, 878 F.2d at 1464. These practices make the administration of a regulatory scheme for the religious use of marijuana nearly impossible because of widespread and uncontrolled usage....

Second, Rastafarians and NAC members are not similarly situated because peyote is not abused at the same rate as marijuana; thus, the attendant social ills regarding marijuana are exponentially higher than that of peyote....

Modern courts have interpreted the unique obligations owed to Native Americans as exempting laws passed pursuant to the trust responsibility from the strictures of traditional equal protection analysis...

No court in United States history has acknowledged a similar political status on behalf of the Rastafarians. As such, the two groups [*920] are not similarly situated, and the McBrides' Equal Protection-Establishment Clause argument must fail.

---