Peyote Exemption
Cynthia S. Mazur, Marijuana as a Holy Sacrament: Is the Use of Peyote Constitutionally Distinguishable from That of Marijuana in Bona Fide Religious Ceremonies, 5 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 693 (1991).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol5/iss3/5
Is the peyote exemption based on race and/or religion?
Kennedy v. Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs, 459 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1115 (1973): “... the Government ... argues ... the members of the Native American Church are Indians who are specially classified for many purposes ... and that peyote is central to the religious rites of the North American Church and not as central to the Church of the Awakening ...” 459 F.2d, at 416; “neither of those assumptions makes a constitutional difference unless the distinctions have some rational relationship to the legitimate governmental interest or interests to be served by the challenged regulation ... The sole governmental interest to be served by regulating the use of peyote is the protection of the health of the citizens by controlling the manufacture, sale, and use of dangerous or potentially dangerous drugs” 459 F.2d, at 416.
Native American Church of New York v. U.S., 468 F. Supp. 1247 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), aff’d, 633 F.2d 205 (2nd Cir. 1980): “The defendants contend that the exemption of the sacramental use of peyote was intended by Congress to be limited to such use by the Native American Church only, and not to include use thereof by other religious groups” 468 F. Supp., at 1249; “... the Court concludes that the exemption for peyote is equally available to the plaintiff, the Native American Church of New York” 468 F. Supp., at 1251.
United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Peyote Exemption for the Native American Church, December 22, 1981: “the purpose for the peyote exemption in H.R. 2 does not appear in the legislative history” Id., at 405. “it must have a secular purpose” Id., at 415; “the exemption should not be viewed as having a religious purpose” Id., at 418.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006): “The Government responds that there is a ‘unique relationship’ between the United States and the Tribes” 546 U.S., at 433; “Nothing about the unique political status of the Tribes makes their members immune from the health risks the Government asserts accompany any use of a Schedule I substance, nor insulates the Schedule I substance the Tribes use in religious exercise from the alleged risk of diversion” 546 U.S., at 434.
No! The peyote exemption is based on risk to health and risk of diversion.
Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Indigenous Peyote Conservation Initiative, September 29, 2022
Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Indigenous Peyote Conservation Initiative, October 26, 2021
DEA Guidance on Religious Exemptions, November 20, 2020
In The Only State Where Selling Peyote Is Legal, The Cactus Is Threatened And Still Controversial, Texas Standard, November 13, 2018