The Justice Department asserts that hoasca is illegal under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and that the United States Government must adhere to this treaty. What is UDVs response?
The United States Government’s responsibility under any international treaty can never be used to justify the denial of a constitutional right, or a violation of a domestic law such as RFRA. The treaty in question was effectively amended with the passage of RFRA, which was written after the U.S. signed and ratified the treaty. By its terms, RFRA applies to all existing federal law. The Official Commentary to the 1971 Convention (which is the equivalent of its legislative history in explaining the treaty’s intent) states that the treaty does not apply to plants and infusions made from plants. It also speaks specifically of “toleration” of the use of “plants growing wild…which contain psychotropic substances from among those in Schedule I, and which are traditionally used by certain small, clearly determined groups in magical or religious rights.” Furthermore, the 1971 Convention contains a provision that excuses compliance if its application in a particular context would violate a cou
Related Questions
- The Justice Department asserts that if UDV is allowed to use hoasca for religious purposes, it would then easily be diverted into the general population and become an abused drug. What is the UDV response?
- Are there specific United States Department of Justice, Immigration and naturalization Service requirements for an F-1 Visa?
- The Justice Department asserts that hoasca is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. What is UDVs response to this?
