|
>>They've now ruled
>> that Native Americans can no longer use peyote in their religious
>> rituals.
>>If the state their in allows it, they can.
>>The Doctah
Doctah, maybe I'm wrong(who, me ;^}), but from the way I heard it
the supreme court ruling applies across the board. The state
doesn't have any say in Native American affairs anyways, they are
independent from the state.
What really gets me on this ruling was one of the statements made
by one of the justices was that the 1st admendment didn't apply
when applied to the war on drugs. Well, now we have it, they can
throw out the constitution when ever it might get in the way of
what the government wants outlawed today!!! Better watch it, they
may choose that approach to take away your rights to control your
own body (ie abortion and/or birth control).
G_B
|
|
Repinted without permission from "The Oregonian" Apr-18-1990
Constitution Doesn't Protect Peyote Use
The Supreme Court says Oregon can exempt a religious practice from
its drug laws, but it doesn't have to.
by Roberta Ulrich of the Oregonian staff
WASHINGTON- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled tuesday that there is no
constitutional right to take the hallucingenic drug peyote as a
religious practice.
The justices, voting 6-3, said Oregon officals may deny
unemployment benefits to two fired drug counselors who took small
amounts of peyote in Indian religious ceremonies.
In a majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "We have
never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from
compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct the state
is free to regulate."
To allow that exemption, he said, "would be courting anarchy."
Scalia said that although states and the federal government
may exempt religious uses of peyote from the drug laws, such exemptions
are not constitutionally required.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Harry A. Blackmun said tha majority
had taken a distorted view of the court's earlier rulings, leading
it to conclude that freedom of religion is a luxury and that the
supression of minority religions is an "unavoidable consequence of
democratic government."
Oregon Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer called the decision
"a significant victory." He said the ruling was broader than he
had envisioned, and "we don't know how far-reaching" it will be.
Craig Dorsay, who represented the two counselors, Alfred L.
Smith and Galen W. Black, said the decision was a disappointment
but was not as bad as it could have been.
"It says the Consititution doesn't require an exemption for
religious peyote use but that it is permissible," said Dorsay, director
of the Native American Project of Oregon Legal Services in Portland.
He criticized Scalia's opinion as "standing the Constitution
on its head" because of its failure to protect minority religious
practices.
"This decision poses a lot of dangers for anything less than
a majority religious practice - and it's even dangerous for them,"
he said. "It's safe to say it will generate a great deal of discussion
among consititutional scholars."
Dorsay said the decision, like the court's ruling last summer
in a case related to abortion, had left the final say on peyote
use up to the states.
Scalia was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist and Justices Bryon R. White, John Paul Stevens and
Anthony M Kennedy. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner agreed with their
conclusion but filed a separate opinion in which she said the majority
opinion "is incompatible with our nation's fundamental commitment
to individual religious liberty."
The case began in 1984 when Smith, a Klamath Indian, and Black,
who is white, filed for unemployment compensation, saying they had
been wrongfully fired as drug and alcohol counselors because they
had taken peyote as part of a ceremony of the Native American Church.
Their employer, ADAPT, a non-profit rehabilitation organization,
banned the use of drugs or alcohol by its employees.
The two men, both residents of Springfield, claimed, however,
that their use of peyote was protected by the First Amendment to
the U.S. Consititution, guaranteeing freedom of religion.
Smith said Tuesday night that the decision was "terrible."
"But just the battle was lost; we didn't the lose the war,"
he added.
He said he would pursue more legal action but did not know what
that action would be.
He said he agreed with O'Conners remarks.
"We are talking about freedom of choice, freedom of religion.
We are talking about the First Admendment," Smith said.
The case went earlier to the Supreme Court, which returned it
to the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the status of peyote under
state law. In October 1988 the Oregon Supreme Court ruled for the
second time that the reigious use of peyote is protected by the
U.S. Consitiution and again ordered the state to pay unemployment
compensation.
The state appealed again, and the case was argued before the
U.S. Supreme Court on Nov.6.
The Native American Church, the nations single largest Indian
religious group, claims 250,000 members across the country and more
than 100 in Oregon.
Peyote is on Oregon's list of controlled substances that may
be obtained legally only by prescription. Illegal use is a Class
B felony.
O'Conner said only the state's "compelling interest" in prohibiting
possesion of peyote could permit it to ban the substance's use in
religious ceremonies. She said the state had met that test, "although
the question is close."
Blackmun questioned the state's interest in suppressing the
use of peyote, since it had never sought to prosecute Smith or Black
and does not claim to have made "significant enforcement efforts
against other religious use of peyote."
Emmerson Jackson, national president of the church, said he
did not understand the government's actions.
"The white people came here from Europe because they were
persecuted for their religion," said Jackson, who lives in New Mexico.
"Now they want to persecute the (native) people who live here for
their religious beliefs."
(staff writer Sura Rubenstein also
contributed to this story)
|