Role of Science in the Debate on Religious use of Ayahuasca in the U.S and World
Ayahuasca has been used by the Native people of the Amazon basin for as long as they have been in existence. Largely due to the brews association with the spiritual world, traditional healers have broadly used it for such purposes as divination, treatment of various ailments, protection in warfare, hunting and sometimes as an aphrodisiac. This brew is thought to have originated from the Amazon rainforest but spread to the Andean Highlands and is now widely used in Brazil, large cities of South America, the U.S, Italy, Holland, Spain and Japan. For ayahuasca users, the brew greatly helps in discernment of the spiritual world. Brazilian society has especially been very accommodative of various types of heretical religious movements which have mixed Indian, African, Catholic and an assortment of esoteric elements. This has resulted in a wide range of cults which pursue different religions. The Brazilian health system is also unstable and spiritual healers have become very popular among most of the poor population. Yet, while Brazilian opinion makers and authorities have been less concerned about ayahuasca use as long as it is confined to the religious practices of the distant regions of the Amazon, the religious use of the same has been a debatable issue in the U.S and many other countries of the world with many legal battles resulting from it. Various attempts have been made to disqualify the brews use within a religious framework and have it classified as a dangerous drug but no scientific evidence has achieved this and as a result, courts in the U.S and other countries have continued to rule in favor of the religious use of ayahuasca and religious freedom of the various sects that use it (MacRae 1-3, 22 Tupper 5).
The term ayahuasca has been used to refer to a psychoactive brew that the Native people of the Western Amazon basin have used for as long as they have been in existence. Basically, the brew is made from two main ingredients the Psychotria viridis leaf and the vine of the Bannisterrioris Caapi. The brew which is popularly referred to as the Daime, became a replica of the Christian sacrament or Blood of Christ. Various sects have adopted the use of ayahuasca the most common ones being the Santo Daime, CEFLURI, Barquinha and the more recent Uniao do Vegetal among others. Uniao do Vegetal commands the widest following and has spread to the U.S, Europe and other parts of the world and is followed by Santo Daime. The effects of ayahuasca are similar to those of several other drugs including psilocybin and LSD that fall under the same pharmacological class. Biomedically, ayahuascas hallucinatory effects are the function of the combination of psychoactive harmala alkaloids and DMT. Religiously however, users associate its effects with supernatural forces and spiritual domains. Different occasions are marked by specific rituals but all involve the taking of ayahuasca so that users can get into the altered state of consciousness that is meant to guide them into the next level. The brew produces such effects as moderate increases in diastolic blood pressure and heart rate as well as cardiovascular stimulation. Other effects reported by users include vomiting, illumination, fear, elation, sadness and gratitude (MacRae 4-16 Tupper 3-4 McKenna 3).
Ayahuasca has a very rich history of use not only for cultural and religious constructions but as a medicine as well. The growing interest in its use outside the boundaries of indigenous religious practice has made it a topic of necessary consideration, especially regarding drug policies and drugs. The issues raised over the use of ayahuasca in the U.S have also been raised in such other countries as Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and Italy. For the States, interest in the religious practices of ayahuasca largely originates from its responsibility in the protection of the safety and health of its citizens from the negative impact of unlawful drugs. As the religious sects that use ayahuasca in their rituals continue to expand worldwide, the concern in the U.S. and other nations is that the brew is slowly losing its religious concept and might gradually be falling into the category of drugs that are abused through recreational use. However, science has not provided any concrete evidence on the long-term effects of this brew and the little investigation that has been conducted has exempted it from causing any psychological or physiological harm when used in the context of religious ceremonies. There is also no evidence of any ayahuasca dependence and some scientists have even hailed the brew for having some degree of therapeutic applications and even suggested its use as an option in the treatment of certain addictions. Yet, several legal battles have been fought as the US try to restrict its use arguing that growing interest in therapeutic practices and alternative medicine may lead to increased use of the brew among the general public (Tupper 3-5, 10).
One of the most contentious cases was the Gonzales vs. UDV case and subsequent Supreme Court decision over the same. This was a ranging court battle between the state and UDV, the largest religious sect using ayahuasca as a sacramental in religious practice. The government argued that by banning the use of the brew by sect members, it was defending the greater interest of the public and putting measures in place that would help to control the abuse of ayahuasca. While the court conceded that the use of hallucinogen as a sacramental tea is in itself a very sincere practice, the U.S Government chose to restrict such use based on the fact that use of hallucinogens is prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act. But in its decision, the Supreme Court chose to protect the safety and health of the UDV religious sect members whereby while the government insisted that the use of DMT was on the increase, the court on the other hand defended the church by citing the small amounts the later imported for religious purposes and which were not reason for any cause of alarm considering that religious sects conduct a disciplined use of ayahuasca and that the brew was strictly used within a religious context. The Supreme Court also defended UDV based on the Religious Freedom Act arguing that the Native American Church had for a long time been exempted from a ban on the use of peyote in religious practice another substance which like ayahuasca is also considered to be a schedule I substance. The ingredient mescaline which is found in peyote is equally dangerous yet the executive branch and Congress had decreed that Native Americans be exempted from the controlled Substances Act. Native Americans outnumber UDV members by the thousands and a greater risk was therefore evident in the use of peyote than ayahuasca. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of UDV (546 U.S___(2006).
In the Employment Division of Oregon vs. Smith case, there was a clear indication of conflicting provisions between state laws and the U.S. Constitutional provisions. The use of peyote for example was unlawful in the state of Oregon but nevertheless covered under the First Amendment that defends the free exercise of religion. Minority religious practices had been protected under the First Amendment. The U.S government may have failed to draw out clear guidelines or boundaries between substances used in religious practice and the laws defining the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The state failed to offer evidence that peyote use in religious practice has ever caused any harm to the users and the Court, on the other hand, found no relationship between unrestricted use of drugs that are classified as unlawful and use of peyote. Besides, the use of peyote in Native American Churches is so internally restricted to religious practice that it does not in any way hinder the states concerns over the safety and health of its citizens. Although the state feared giving exemption to religious purposes, peyote would encourage other forms of exemption, the use of peyote had been going on for many years and no overwhelming claims for religious exemption had been recorded. Once again, the Court ruled in favor of the sect (494 U.S 872_1990). In February 2006 however, under the context of Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficente Unia do Vegetel, the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that the U.S. drug laws were in danger of being tramped by religious freedom with respect to the use of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. In 1993, Congress had placed the limits of U.S drug laws at the precincts of religious liberty when deciding the legality of peyote use in the Native American Church and this was being used as ground for exemption in the use of ayahuasca in religious practice. The U.S. Supreme Court has had enough ground to defend the religious sects and other countries also seem to rule in favor of the religious use of Daime and religious freedom. Such rulings have taken place in the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. In Holland, its use has been legalized (Tupper 1-5 McKenna 12)
No concrete proof has yet been made about the medicinal value of ayahuasca and most of its growing reputation is almost legendary. Very little scientific investigation has been carried out about its clinical value and neither has science provided ample evidence of the negative pharmacological effects of its use. As a result, ayahuasca has been an item of several legal battles that are nevertheless ruled in favor of the religious sects. A lot of scientific research is required to determine its safety as a drug and rule out any negative effects on its users (MacKenna 16).
The term ayahuasca has been used to refer to a psychoactive brew that the Native people of the Western Amazon basin have used for as long as they have been in existence. Basically, the brew is made from two main ingredients the Psychotria viridis leaf and the vine of the Bannisterrioris Caapi. The brew which is popularly referred to as the Daime, became a replica of the Christian sacrament or Blood of Christ. Various sects have adopted the use of ayahuasca the most common ones being the Santo Daime, CEFLURI, Barquinha and the more recent Uniao do Vegetal among others. Uniao do Vegetal commands the widest following and has spread to the U.S, Europe and other parts of the world and is followed by Santo Daime. The effects of ayahuasca are similar to those of several other drugs including psilocybin and LSD that fall under the same pharmacological class. Biomedically, ayahuascas hallucinatory effects are the function of the combination of psychoactive harmala alkaloids and DMT. Religiously however, users associate its effects with supernatural forces and spiritual domains. Different occasions are marked by specific rituals but all involve the taking of ayahuasca so that users can get into the altered state of consciousness that is meant to guide them into the next level. The brew produces such effects as moderate increases in diastolic blood pressure and heart rate as well as cardiovascular stimulation. Other effects reported by users include vomiting, illumination, fear, elation, sadness and gratitude (MacRae 4-16 Tupper 3-4 McKenna 3).
Ayahuasca has a very rich history of use not only for cultural and religious constructions but as a medicine as well. The growing interest in its use outside the boundaries of indigenous religious practice has made it a topic of necessary consideration, especially regarding drug policies and drugs. The issues raised over the use of ayahuasca in the U.S have also been raised in such other countries as Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and Italy. For the States, interest in the religious practices of ayahuasca largely originates from its responsibility in the protection of the safety and health of its citizens from the negative impact of unlawful drugs. As the religious sects that use ayahuasca in their rituals continue to expand worldwide, the concern in the U.S. and other nations is that the brew is slowly losing its religious concept and might gradually be falling into the category of drugs that are abused through recreational use. However, science has not provided any concrete evidence on the long-term effects of this brew and the little investigation that has been conducted has exempted it from causing any psychological or physiological harm when used in the context of religious ceremonies. There is also no evidence of any ayahuasca dependence and some scientists have even hailed the brew for having some degree of therapeutic applications and even suggested its use as an option in the treatment of certain addictions. Yet, several legal battles have been fought as the US try to restrict its use arguing that growing interest in therapeutic practices and alternative medicine may lead to increased use of the brew among the general public (Tupper 3-5, 10).
One of the most contentious cases was the Gonzales vs. UDV case and subsequent Supreme Court decision over the same. This was a ranging court battle between the state and UDV, the largest religious sect using ayahuasca as a sacramental in religious practice. The government argued that by banning the use of the brew by sect members, it was defending the greater interest of the public and putting measures in place that would help to control the abuse of ayahuasca. While the court conceded that the use of hallucinogen as a sacramental tea is in itself a very sincere practice, the U.S Government chose to restrict such use based on the fact that use of hallucinogens is prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act. But in its decision, the Supreme Court chose to protect the safety and health of the UDV religious sect members whereby while the government insisted that the use of DMT was on the increase, the court on the other hand defended the church by citing the small amounts the later imported for religious purposes and which were not reason for any cause of alarm considering that religious sects conduct a disciplined use of ayahuasca and that the brew was strictly used within a religious context. The Supreme Court also defended UDV based on the Religious Freedom Act arguing that the Native American Church had for a long time been exempted from a ban on the use of peyote in religious practice another substance which like ayahuasca is also considered to be a schedule I substance. The ingredient mescaline which is found in peyote is equally dangerous yet the executive branch and Congress had decreed that Native Americans be exempted from the controlled Substances Act. Native Americans outnumber UDV members by the thousands and a greater risk was therefore evident in the use of peyote than ayahuasca. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of UDV (546 U.S___(2006).
In the Employment Division of Oregon vs. Smith case, there was a clear indication of conflicting provisions between state laws and the U.S. Constitutional provisions. The use of peyote for example was unlawful in the state of Oregon but nevertheless covered under the First Amendment that defends the free exercise of religion. Minority religious practices had been protected under the First Amendment. The U.S government may have failed to draw out clear guidelines or boundaries between substances used in religious practice and the laws defining the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The state failed to offer evidence that peyote use in religious practice has ever caused any harm to the users and the Court, on the other hand, found no relationship between unrestricted use of drugs that are classified as unlawful and use of peyote. Besides, the use of peyote in Native American Churches is so internally restricted to religious practice that it does not in any way hinder the states concerns over the safety and health of its citizens. Although the state feared giving exemption to religious purposes, peyote would encourage other forms of exemption, the use of peyote had been going on for many years and no overwhelming claims for religious exemption had been recorded. Once again, the Court ruled in favor of the sect (494 U.S 872_1990). In February 2006 however, under the context of Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficente Unia do Vegetel, the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that the U.S. drug laws were in danger of being tramped by religious freedom with respect to the use of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. In 1993, Congress had placed the limits of U.S drug laws at the precincts of religious liberty when deciding the legality of peyote use in the Native American Church and this was being used as ground for exemption in the use of ayahuasca in religious practice. The U.S. Supreme Court has had enough ground to defend the religious sects and other countries also seem to rule in favor of the religious use of Daime and religious freedom. Such rulings have taken place in the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. In Holland, its use has been legalized (Tupper 1-5 McKenna 12)
No concrete proof has yet been made about the medicinal value of ayahuasca and most of its growing reputation is almost legendary. Very little scientific investigation has been carried out about its clinical value and neither has science provided ample evidence of the negative pharmacological effects of its use. As a result, ayahuasca has been an item of several legal battles that are nevertheless ruled in favor of the religious sects. A lot of scientific research is required to determine its safety as a drug and rule out any negative effects on its users (MacKenna 16).
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment