Contemporary Issues in Law and Society - Essay Example

Contemporary Issues in law and society: ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. O. CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETALET AL. A description of the analysis used in the Supreme Court decision: basically a brief of the published decision. Introduction: The facts of the case relates to whether the provisions contained in the Controlled Substances Act 84, S 1242 (Amend) 21 VSC could be strictly enforceable, in the case of a Schedule I Enlisted Drug, which is used during a mixing of plants for preparation of a sacred potion consumed during religious communion of an American Indian. The Government contended that the plant contained a banned drug, dimethyltryptamine, (DMT), which has been medically proven to be hallucinogenic, and thus banned for use in the country. The Controlled Substances Act, 1984 specifically bans the import, manufacture, distribution and consumption of psychotropic substances under Schedule I of the Act, and DMT also is listed in the First Schedule of this Act for non use except for controlled research purposes.’(Supreme Court of the United States. 2006). The Government contended that DMT has been proven to cause health hazards to the users. Further, it was also of the view that the use of DMT could be used not only for religious purposes, but also for recreational pleasures. Further it was also necessary for the State to comply with the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 which enunciates the international legal strictures governing use of such drugs. The sect, UDV believes that the government decision was a transgression of their religious sentiments and that the brew was used only for religious purposes, and formed an integral part of the cultural setting of the tribe, which could not be compromised. However, according to the Government, an exception could not be granted to the UDV, since in that case, exemptions could be desired by all, which could belie the enforcement of the Act. The fact that DMT, an essential drug found in the sacred portion, constituted a drug found in the First Schedule of the Act was enough reason for its ban and criminal proceedings against individuals or institutions, who, despite the ban, continue to use the drug, whether for religious or other purposes. The UDV maintained that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993, could be invoked in such a case, and that there needs to be a strong reason for the government‘s actions seeking to enforce the ban on use of the drug and seizures was the least interventionist strategy by which the Government could enforce the ban of the drug. The UDV also cited the provision contained in the Act which could” waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturing, distribution or dispension if the finding is consistent with public health and safety” (Supreme Court of the United States. 2006). The Court held that a strict interpretation of the drug used in the brewing of the concoction used could not be termed as infringing the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984. However the government maintained that DMT, was an active ingredient of the sacred concoction used for religious purposes, and the nature of its use, by itself, could not be an excuse for falling outside the ambit of the Controlled Substance Act 1984. However, the preliminary hearing of the Court held that the Government could not prove the compelling interest aspect of the case at the initial injunction stage itself, in banning the use by the UDV of the sacred use of the banned product, hoasco. Thus the Government’s order to prohibit the use of DMT was overruled In the preliminary hearing, the sitting judge, Judge Parkers opinion declared: "In this case, the Court has concluded that the Government has failed to carry its heavy burden of showing a compelling government interest in protecting the health of UDV members using hoasca, or in preventing the diversion of hoasca to illicit use. In addition the Government has not demonstrated that prohibiting the UDVs ceremonial use of hoasca furthers an interest in adhering to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances because the treaty does not appear to extend to hoasca" (Press Summary. 2005). The Court of Appeals also endorsed the views expressed by Parker J that the Government had failed to substantiate that it had strong reasons for seeking to ban the use of hoasca for religious purposes. The Government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the USA. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the verdict passed by the Court of Appeal of the 10th Circuit. “The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion” (Supreme Court of the United States. 2006). Thereby the UDV were granted the liberty to practice their religious faith without any governmental interference. A description of the argument used by the Respondent UDV brief. The respondents, UDV took recourse to the provisions contained in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993. Under 42 U.S.C., it is specifically prohibited by the Federal Government to encroach a person’s exercise of religious expression unless the Government could prove that such encroachment was necessary for enforcement of a strong reason for such encroachment. Under the RFRA, the respondents felt that the drug was being used for a religious reason, and therefore it could not strictly fall within the purview of the banned substances. The banned item was not used for pleasure or commercial exploitation but was a necessary ingredient for the concoction used during communion of the sect. It was not intended to be used as a stimulant or psychotropic drug, but happened to be one of the ingredients, along with other plants, for preparation of the portion used during the religious ceremonies. The intentions and purport of the Government was strict interpretation of the law under statutes like the Controlled Substances Act, 1984 and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. The fact that the item found a place in the Banned Items under Schedule I of the CSA, 1984 was not enough justification for a total ban for its use and the Government had just considered the general characteristics mentioned in the said Schedule, without considering the special needs arising in this particular case. “In the UDV, church members only use the hoasca tea in the context of religious ceremony. The sacrament imbues UDV members with a heightened spiritual awareness that permits them to experience communion with God” (Press Summary. 2005). Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993, a person or agency’s right to religious freedom is guaranteed under the Act, and the Federal Government cannot interfere with this, it unless there is some strong and valid basis for doing so. In the event the Federal government is unable to justify the needs for enforcing such bans, and able to contest it in a Court of Law, it would not be able to enforce it in the country. Your idea of what the argument ought to have been, that is, that prescriptive argument The case hinges on the fact whether the use of the drug, DMT found as an ingredient in the mixture, used for communion could be termed as illegal and a culpable offence. The Courts have often opined that the right to expression of religious beliefs is a fundamental right guaranteed under the American Constitution, and any infringement of such rights by any private or Government official could rightly be termed as unlawful and extra constitutional. Further, the Government has not been in a position to prove that health hazards have resulted in the use of this potion and that, under its influence, its users have had psychtropic effects. All the Government has been able to do is to strictly interpret Schedule I of The Controlled Substances Act, 1984, which lists DMT as a banned item, without considering the situation and circumstantial evidences of the case, or whether it is being used for commercial or recreational needs, which is what the law wished to circumscribe by its enactment and implementation. Further, the Government has failed in its attempt to convince the jury that there is a strong motive for banning the use of the drug, as a direct concern for the health and safety of its users and also potential users. However, the hearing for the preliminary hearing had concluded that there was no infringement of Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993 (RFRA) with respect to invocation of the least curtailment aspects: 1. For the sake of the health and safety of the UDV members 2. In order to obviate the diffusion of the hoasco for non-religious purposes, i.e., for commercial or pleasure inducement reasons 3. In order to ensure compliance with United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. It may be seen that as per the provisions of the UNCPS, the hoasco has not been termed as a banned item. Apart from the legal connotations of the strict interpretation of various laws and statutes, it is also necessary to consider the practical and empirical implications of the laws and how it impinges on the customs and rituals of different cultures. In this case, as rightly verdicted by the Court, the onus of proving that the drug’s use was harmful for its users has to be proved by the prosecution, i.e. the Government, and it has not been able to do so. Works cited Supreme Court of the United States. Alberto R.Gonzales, Attorney General et al, Petitioners v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do vegetal et al. 2006. 5 Dec. 2007 . Press Summary. Background: Uniao do Vegetal. 2005. 5 Dec. 2007 . Your idea of what the argument ought to have been, that is, that prescriptive argument. It relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person.s exercise of religion, unless the Government .demonstrates that application of the burden to the person. represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest. 42 U. S. C. The Controlled Substances Act, 84 Stat. 1242, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. I), regulates the importation, manufacture, distribution, and use of psychotropic substances. The Act classifies substances into five schedules based on their potential for abuse, the extent to which they have an accepted medical use, and their safety. See §812(b) (2000 ed.). Substances listed in Schedule I of the Act are subject to the most comprehensive restrictions, including an outright ban on all importation and use, except pursuant to strictly regulated research projects. See §§823, 960(a)(1). The Act authorizes the imposition of a criminal sentence for simple possession of Schedule I substances, see §844(a), and mandates the imposition of a criminal sentence for possession .with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense. such substances, see §§841(a), (b). O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (UDV not violate RFRA, because applying the Controlled Substances Act in this case was the least restrictive means of advancing three compelling governmental interests: protecting the health and safety of UDV members, preventing the diversion of hoasca from the church to recreational users, and complying with the 1971 United Nations Convention on PsychoCite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 5 Opinion of the Court tropic Substances, a treaty signed by the United States and implemented by the Act. Feb. 21, 1971, [1979.1980], 32 U. S. T. 543, T. I. A. S. No. 9725. See 282 F. Supp The District Court concluded that the evidence on health risks was .in equipoise,. and similarly that the evidence on diversion was .virtually balanced.. Id., at 1262, 1266. In the face of such an even showing, the court reasoned that the Government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest justifying what it acknowledged was a substantial burden on the UDV.s sincere religious exercise. Id., at 1255. The court also rejected the asserted interest in complying with the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, holding that the Convention does not apply Here the burden is placed squarely on the Government by RFRA rather than the First Amendment, see 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb.1(b), 2000bb. 2(3), but the consequences are the same. Congress. express decision to legislate the compelling interest test indicates that RFRA challenges should be adjudicated in the same manner as constitutionally mandated applications of the test, including at the preliminary injunction stage. III The Government The Government presented evidence to the effect that use of hoasca, or DMT more generally, can cause psychotic reactions, cardiac irregularities, and adverse drug interactions. The UDV countered by citing studies documenting the safety of its sacramental use of hoasca and presenting evidence that minimized the likelihood of the health risks raised by the Government. With respect to diversion, the Government pointed to a general rise in the illicit use of hallucinogens, and cited interest in the illegal use of DMT and hoasca in particular; the UDV emphasized the thinness of any market for hoasca, the relatively small amounts of the substance imported by the church, and the absence of any diversion problem in the past. The District Court concluded that the evidence on Read More