they either have to allow we humans, born on this rock we call the N American continent, to believe in what we wish as which would be a freedom of religion.
or they have to admit that they are governing religion as they see fit, breaking the u s constitution upon which our country is founded, and there discriminating what religions they will have and what they wont.
and we really are a country run by spiritually fascist regime bent on making sure none of us acts in any way they dont want us too.

http://www.neip.info/downloads/Matthew%20UDV-USA%20case.pdf

>>The UDV also attacked the government’s argument that hoasca was controlled by the 1971 Convention. They introduced a letter from Herbert Schaepe, Secretary of the International Narcotics Control Board, the group responsible for enforcement of the Convention, stating explicitly that ayahuasca (hoasca) was “not under international control and, therefore, not subject to any of the articles of the 1971 Convention”

This letter was requested by the Dutch Ministry of Public Health in 2001 to aid in evaluating a legal case then going on in the Netherlands involving Santo Daime, the other major Brazilian church that uses a sacrament made from Banisteriopsis and Psychotria viridis. The relevant paragraph reads in full:

“No plants (natural materials) containing DMT are at present controlled under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Consequently, preparations (e.g., decoctions) made of these plants, including ayahuasca are not under international control and, therefore, not subject to any of the articles of the 1971 Convention.”

The UDV attempted to enter this letter into the record at the evidentiary hearing in October-November 2001, but the government objected and Judge Parker forbade it, as pertaining to a topic outside the scope of the hearing (see 10th Circuit en banc rehearing, opinion of McConnell, p. 28).< <

The conclusion of Mr. Meyer’s paper nicely articulates the cultural tensions between the idea of ingesting “drugs” for religious purposes and the largely Protestant historical underpinnings of drug prohibition in the United States.

Regardless, I would like to have some one explain to me the “compelling state interest in applying the Controlled Substances Act” to such seekers.

In view of the information you provide on article 32(4) — that Brazil never claimed an exception for religious groups — do you know what was the exact argument contained in the 2001 fax from the International Narcotics Control Board to the Dutch Justice Minister that allegedly tilted the scale in favor of the Santo Daime in the Netherlands? Or could that too be an urban (shamanic) legend?