SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dragonfly who wrote (1232)2/26/2006 12:04:45 PM
From: c.hinton  Respond to of 50107
 

OT US court backs hallucinogenic tea

The group blends Christian beliefs and South American traditions
A small US congregation can use hallucinogenic tea as part of its rituals to connect with God, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The unanimous decision is court's first religious freedom case since Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed.

The hoasca tea is considered sacred to members of the group, O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.

In its ruling, the court said the government must allow the use of the tea under religious freedom laws.

Mr Roberts wrote that federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the tea.

However, the justices sent the case back to a federal appeals court, which could consider more evidence.

Controlled substance

The administration of President George W Bush had argued that the tea was illegal and potentially dangerous.

Members of the group believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.

The brewed tea, made from two plants that grow in the Amazon, contains dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, a controlled substance banned under federal drug laws.

About 130 members of a Brazil-based church were involved in long-running dispute with federal agents, who seized their tea in 1999.

Mr Roberts, a conservative, was appointed to the court last year.

Since he replaced another conservative, William Rehnquist, that change was not thought likely to affect the court's balance.




To: Dragonfly who wrote (1232)2/26/2006 9:11:40 PM
From: Proud Deplorable  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50107
 
what constitution would that be? I am Canadian and we don't live by your constitution which allows criminals to rule your country.