Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs Subject: Peyote, Politics & Religion From: bill.stites@insomniac.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Apr 95 16:52:00 MST Alert RE: Peyote, politics, freedom of religion, and a request for your help. Here is some hot news about a legal case in Texas involving the Religious use of peyote. The out come of this case will set a precedent regarding First Amendment Constitutional rights. The out come will have ramifications that affect us all, regardless of your beliefs. Are you interested? You should be for this case is like none other. Read on. This case involves me, Bill Stites, who was arrested on June 15, 1991 in Big Bend National Park in the State of Texas for the possession of Peyote (A sacred cactus). I have been a court documented member of The Peyote Way Church of God (a legally recognized church)for nine years prior to this arrest. The divine cactus, Peyote, is essential to, and a central part of my religion. (For a history of the Peyote Way Church of God and peyote religion, you may wish to read `The Peyote Book; A Study of Native Medicine' by Guy Mount. ISBN 0-9604462-3-0). As a result of this arrest, I, with no previous record, was convicted of a first degree felony and received a ten year probated sentence in the Texas Department of corrections for my religious beliefs. Prior to my arrest, the Peyote Way Church of God sought an exemption for the religious use of peyote by the church and its members in the Federal and Texas Statutes. These statutes forbid the use of peyote by anyone other than a member of the Native American Church and who is at least 25 percent Native American Indian blood. This case lasted almost ten years in court and went through three Attorney Generals.(See Peyote Way Church of God vs. Attorney General(s) Smith (742 F2D 193 (5th Cir. 1984)), Attorney General Meese (698 F.Supp. 342 (N.D.Texas 1988)), and Attorney General Thornburgh (922 F2D 1210 (1991)). In this case, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the Peyote Way Church of God by eliminating the time honored `Compelling Interest Argument'. Understand - the Compelling Interest Argument is very important. `Compelling Interest' means just what is a State's interest in achieving a certain objective (i.e. infringing upon religious rights). Without a compelling interest argument, the government can infringe upon your religious rights, whatever they may be, without demonstrating a reason to do so. Are you listening, minority religion folks, and those of you who are burned out on the War on Drugs? Congress and the President of the United States was upset enough about this that they over turned the Supreme Court by enacting Senate Bill S.578, titled `The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993' into law as 42 USC 2000bb. This law is retro-active in its provisions. Because Congress did re-instate the compelling interest argument, the State of Texas must now demonstrate this in my case. So, this case is now awaiting the Criminal Court of Appeals. Also, this act of congress effectively returns the Peyote Way Church of God to its previous statues before the Supreme Court ruled against it. Regardless of the out come, the case will set a constitutional precedent. Some very interesting insight can be shed on this by quoting from a legal brief that is found later in this file. ---------------------------------------------------------------- What Can You Do To HELP? Well, I do have two expensive attorneys who want lots of money and I have lots of other legal expenses. So, to be to the point, I need money for these legal fees. How do you know that I am for real? Well you can write me and I'll send you lots of information that you can verify independently. If you do feel motivated to help, you can become an e-mail partner in this case and I will send you updates as they happen. I do expect this case to go to court within a month or two. So ACT NOW! Send a DONATION! If there is enough interest, we will start a sub- board. Write: Bill Stites, Bill.Stites@insomniac.com P.O. Box 1758 Silver City, NM 88062 ---------------------------------------------------------------- What about the Native American Church? Fortunately their rights to use Peyote is protected so long as they are at least 25% Native American Indian blood and are a part of a `Federally Recognized Tribe'. If your a Native American Indian and you tribe was not `Federally Recognized', in the eye's of the government your not an Indian (?). A reference to the religious use of peyote in Mexico appears in Spanish historical sources as early as 1560. Peyotism spread from Mexico to the United States and Canada; American anthropologists describe it as well-established in this country, during the later part of the 19th century." People v.Woody, 394 P.2d at p. 817. Therefore, according to the government, members of the Indian tribes with the longest tradition of religious use of peyote are not exempt because they are not "federally recognized" while members of tribes that adopted the peyote way much later are exempt. If my case wins on appeal, then all native americans religious rights are protected, even if you are not federally recognized. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quotes from some related legal briefs: The history of the (peyote) exemption is set out in Native American Church of New York v. United States, 468 F.Supp. 1247(1979). The peyote exemption had nothing to do with the "unique legal status" of Indians and everything to do with the "unalienable right' to free exercise of religion. The peyote exemption was first discussed by Congress in 1965, after the executive branch had asked Congress to amend the drug laws. Congressman Harris explained : "Some concern has been expressed...concerning the possible impact..on religious practices protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. "Two court decisions have been rendered in this area in recent years..Arizona v. Attakai...and People against Woody...in the Supreme Court of California. Both these cases held that prosecution for the use of peyote in connection with religious ceremonies was a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. "In view of all this, I requested the views of the Food and Drug Administration and have been assured that the bill...cannot forbid bona fide religious use of peyote." Native American Church of New York v. United States, 468 F. Supp,at 1250. People v. Woody, 394 P2dB13 (Sup.Ct. Calif. 1964), one of the cases mentioned by Congressman Harris involved Indian members of the Native American Church. However, the "federally recognized" status of the Indians played absolutely no part in the decision. The court held: "[T]he right to free religious expression embodies a precious heritage of our history. In a mass society, which presses at every point toward conformity, the protection of a self expression, however unique, of the individual and the group becomes ever more important The varying currents of the sub- cultures that flow into the mainstream of our national life give it depth and beauty. We preserve a greater value than an ancient tradition when we protect the rights of the indians who honestly practiced an old religion in using peyote one night at a meeting in a desert hogan near Needles, California." Id at 821, 822. The DEA did not invoke the "unique legal status" of the Indians, when the Ethiopian Coptic Zion Church sought an exemption for religious use of marijuana. Instead, the DEA justified its different treatment of peyote by pointing out that there was "practically no illegal traffic in peyote...[and] that [the] total amount of peyote seized and analyzed by federal authorities between 1980 and 1987 was 19.4 pounds; in contrast, total amount of marijuana seized during that period was over 15 million pounds." Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 US at 916, dissent by Blackmun. The government had not yet remembered its long standing special relationship when Native American Church of New York was decided. That case held that the peyote exemption was not limited to indian members of the NAC. 486 F.Supp. at 1251. Finally, in Texas, the government found itself in a bind. The DEA could not abandon its indian only policy, without double-crossing the State of Texas, which had relied on such interpretation, in drafting its statutory exemption. The facts of the case clearly established that Peyote Way was similarly situated with the Native American Church. Necessity is the mother of invention. Voila! The government suddenly remembers that "the relation of the indians is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions", and that Congress can regulate 'federally recognized tribes", and members thereof, on the reservation, or "wherever that tribe or member may be." That's why the DEA gave the NAC, "special treatment".3 Peyote Way v. Smith 556 F.Supp. 638. The government pressed its advantage in United States v. Warner, 595 F.Supp. 595 and in United States v Rush 738 F2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984). The Fifth Circuit however, was not impressed. That court in an opinion by Judge Alvin Rubin, remanded the case for compelling governmental interest/least restrictive means analysis. Peyote Way Church of God v. Smith, 742 F2d 193 (5th Cir. 1984). The Fifth Circuit agreed with Peyote Way that the interests of the State of Texas in prohibiting possession of peyote to 200 members of the Peyote Way church seemed less than compelling, in view of the exemption granted to 250,000 members of the NAC. Id, at 201. On remand, the district court would not touch that issue with a ten foot pole. Instead, the court reiterated the special relationship, unique legal status argument, which had under whelmed judge Rubin and the Fifth Circuit the first time around. Peyote Way Church of God v. Meese, 698 F.Supp. 1342(N.D. Tex. 1988) This time, however, the district court had legal authority to cite. The court stated that it was "further directed by the findings made in United States v. Warner" and quoted copiously from that case, Peyote Way v. Meese, 698 F.Supp at 1347, 1348. The court also cited United States v. Rush, 738 F2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984). Incredibly, the district court failed to mention that both of these decisions had been spawned by its own previous decision in Peyote Way v. Smith, the same case it was considering after remand by the Fifth Circuit. Judge Taylor, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, had written the first district court opinion. This time, Judge Maloney heard the case, and he probably did not know that his opinion included the above judicial "boot-strapping". By the time the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case a second time, the Supreme Court had decided Employment Div. v. Smith, which made review of the district court's findings re: compelling governmental interest/least restrictive means, unnecessary. United States v. Thornburg, 922 F2d 1210, 1213 (5th Cir. 1991) Fortunately, Congress restored the religious freedom of indian and non-indian alike. The traditional free exercise test has been resurrected. It will now be applied in my case. Stay Posted.