I don't know anything about the dangers of hoasca, but I wouldn't infer much about such dangers simply from the fact that Congress has outlawed it. Indiana, unless, I'm mistaken, bars anyone from furnishing alcoholic beverages to minors, see Ind. Code 7.1-5-7-8; but I wouldn't lightly condemn a parent who gave a child a sip of wine -- whether sacramental or otherwise -- of child abuse. Nor would I condemn the parent even if the parent had done this during Prohibition. That Congress considers Schedule I drugs to be dangerous doesn't by itself tell us that much about how dangerous they are (especially when taken in moderation), or even how dangerous they are when minors drink them.
Returning specifically to RFRA, that hoasca is a schedule I drug isn't, it seems to me, conclusive of how dangerous it is when consumed in a religious ceremony, even when it's consumed by a minor. Eugene -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 2/22/2006 7:57 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case I hope the paragraph below was in jest. Schedule I drugs are drugs that are considered to have no beneficial use and to be dangerous. If children are drinking the DMT in the tea, they are the victims of child abuse. I cannot believe that anyone on this list is willing to give a group a pass in abusing children just because it is religious. It is one thing for adults to choose to take such drugs, but quite another for that group to provide the drugs to children. With respect to RFRA, it's error lies in its blind accommodation. It is a blind handout to religion. As I argue in God vs the Gavel, I have no problem with legislative accommodation, and in fact in many circumstances support it. But to be legitimate, it must be passed pursuant to consideration of the public good (i.e., Congress fulfilled its constitutionally appointed duty to make policy choices) and not be merely, as RFRA was, a special interest gift. I may disagree with the public policy balance, which is a wholly different matter. Under RFRA, Congress shuffles those hard policy choices over to the courts. The defenses of RFRA as responsible congressional enactment are formalistic in the extreme. Marci In a message dated 2/22/2006 6:19:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know how important it is that minors drink the tea. Why is drinking it per se bad for minors, or for anybody else? It is only bad because Congress said it was, at least as a general proposition. However, Congress can properly decide to allow for a little play in the joints, can't it? You seem to want to hem in Congress' policy discretion on matters of this sort, and there is no Constitutional basis for doing so. If Congress passes bad - but constitutional - laws, then the answer is to elect a different Congress. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
