This episode explains why the federal exemption for religious use of peyote is a regulation instead of a statute.
Town v State ex rel. Reno, 377 So.2d 648, 651 (Fla. 1979), “… would, for all practical purposes, legalize the use of cannabis for anyone, member or nonmember of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church …”
United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel
Peyote Exemption for the Native American Church, December 22, 1981
Peyote Exemption for the Native American Church, December 22, 1981
Page 405: “… the purpose for the peyote exemption in H.R. 2 does not appear in the legislative history …”
Page 406: “Two court decisions have been rendered in this area in recent years. One, a decision by Judge Yale McFate in the case of Arizona v. Attakai, No. 4098, in the superior court of Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, July 26, 1960; and a California decision, People against Woody, decided August 24, 1964, in the Supreme Court of California. Both these cases held that prosecutions for the use of peyote in connection with religious ceremonies was a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution.
Page 415: “… it must have a secular purpose …”
Page 418: “… the exemption should not be viewed as having a religious purpose …”
United States v. Middleton, 690 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1982), quoting Leary v. United States, 383 F.2d 851, 861 (5th Cir. 1967), “… unlimited freedom to violate the laws of the land relative to marihuana …”
United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497, 513 (1st Cir. 1984), “… No broad religious exemption from the marijuana laws is constitutionally required …”
State v Olsen, No. 171/69079, (Iowa Supreme Court, July 18, 1984), “… he asks us on this appeal to afford his religious use of marijuana unlimited constitutional protection …”
Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1463, 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1989), “… overwhelming difference explains why an accommodation can be made for a religious organization which uses peyote in circumscribed ceremonies, and not for a religion which espouses continual use of marijuana …”
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 880 (1990), “Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual’s religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S., at 258-261.”