Was the Supreme Court right to allow hallucinogenic tea in religious ceremonies?
103352
Yes, they were right.  Why?  Because no one has a vested interest in preventing these people from practicing their faith.  Personally, I think it's asinine that the US will allow hallucinogens for religious purposes but not for personal exploration.
1127674
I've always thought it should be legal, at least if you use it in the privicy of your own home..best stress reliever ever..and food taste better too..hahaha
432407
It was an amendment to the US Constitution that prohibited the sale of alcohol.  It was later repealed.
480366
In my personal opinion, yes, it should be. I don't indulge in a personal "high", however, I don't think that it is any worse than drinking a 12 pack of beer...which is "legal"...at least if someone is "high" they normally find a way home!
37895
There is no specific right to privacy granted in the constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is implicit in the "penumbras" of the various amendments. Concurring opinions referred to the ninth amendment which says that rights not explicitly given in the constitution to the people are not to be denied them as well as the 4th and 5th amendment requirements of due process. The main case establishing this precedent was Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a law banning contraceptives.
75056
Are you asking if it should be made illegal in public places? They tried something like that in the 1920's. It was called Prohibition. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
1090530
Yes, it happened in my household; beleive it or not; my mother in law, a lung cancer patient who in her end stage, expressed a wish to go to divine retreat centre in india to attend a one week spiritual retreat, was taken on a stretcher, still heavily bleeding, without having taken a morsel of food in days, came back , fully healed, walking, no bleeding and on the follow up medical examination was declared completely cured by the doctors, who still couldnt understand how it was possible
815080
The right for adults to use Marijuana in the privacy of there own homes.
515289
Any "illegal" drug which doesn't have to be manufactured should be legal.  I don't believe in God, but the best religious support I've heard for Marijuana and Mushrooms is: By making these drugs illegal is like saying God was wrong!  Take that to the local church, or even the religious leader Goegre W. Bucsh (yes, he probably spells his own name incorrectly).
801056
The Supreme Court did not hold that affirmative action was mandatory, and no federal that that I've seen makes it mandatory.\n\nWhat the Supreme Court said was that public schools/colleges could use race as a factor in admissions, provided that race was not the primary factor, and provided that the results of the admissions process did not unduly or unfairly exclude any one race.\n\nSo, the Supreme Court said that race could be used, which allows for some types of affirmative action. But since it did not require race to be used, affirmative action is still optional.\n\nAs far as the California situation, federal drug laws make pot illegal to possess or distribute. It's a controlled substance. So, even if the possession or distribution is for medical reasons, it's still possession or distribution and thus in violation of federal law.\n\nWhat the states did is say that there are certain situations where the state will not prosecute someone for drug use, namely if it is by perscription for valid medical reasons. So, the state said that the state allows it, but the federal govt said that the federal govt does not allow it. The net result is that it is only a federal crime, as opposed to being both a federal crime and a state crime.
483775
yes, it should be legalized. if you can't get rid of it at least you should be able to control it.
951012
No, not by the definition of a hallucinogen
428375
I think yes. They would try it. \nI am a Muslim. There is no problem with sharing a teapot, unless there had been alcohol inside.
658977
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion. \n\nThe most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.
964317
I think it would be illegal under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The school board is a public function. Having a prayer or some other religious observance centers out people who believe differently and it could even prejudice the proceedings against them. A person who leaves the room or just looks indifferent during the prayer might not get a fair hearing.
787044
To paraphrase a Supreme Court justice, the right to wave your fist around stops at the end of the other man's nose.  Cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen, so measures to protect the general public from it are entirely appropriate.
790962
Medical marijuana can be allowed if it is regulated by the government.