Task Force report : narcotics and drug abuse annotations and consultants' papers.
- United States. Task Force on Narcotics and Drug Abuse.
- Date:
- [1967]
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Task Force report : narcotics and drug abuse annotations and consultants' papers. Source: Wellcome Collection.
120/172 (page 110)
![The Other Hallucinogens (Excluding Marihuana) In additon to marihuana which the Subcommittee on Narcotics Addiction of the Public Health Committee of the Medical Society of New York County has described as a “mild hallucinogen” *1° and LSD which the society has characterized as a “highly potent hallucinogen”,®”° there are several other substances which the society characterizes as mild hallucinogens and several which it characterizes as “moderately potent hallucinogens.” The former include nutmeg and morning glory seeds,**1 and the latter psilo- cybin, peyote, and mescaline.**? Mescaline is the active principle in peyote. Professor Blum reports that the use of hallucinogens appears to be increasing.** Thus, he states that “the use of other hallucinogens, peyote for example, has been fairly well confined to traditional (Indian) groups, but their use too is expanding to young urban people.” ** He further reports that mescaline psychosis has been veri- fied.*?° Nevertheless, it is not believed that use of these hallucinogens warrants the same concern as does the use of the more potent LSD.*?¢ It has been impossible, however, to study the problems posed by each of the hallucinogens in the time allotted, and it is recommended that if a simple possession or a‘use offense is to be created for any of them which the FDA has or should designate as a “depressant or stimulant drug” or for any other controlled drug, it should be after study of the effects of and problems presented by indi- vidual drugs. If after such study, it is concluded that a simple possession or use offense should be enacted, it should be created for individual drugs or drugs pre- senting common problems and should not automatically apply to every hallucinogen or class of hallucinogens. Moreover, while the FDA may appropriately furnish guidance to Congress in enacting such legislation, it is believed that the legislation should name particular drugs. Whether or not to punish for use or possession involves issues of such importance that the decision should be made by the legislature. As in the case of LSD, it is believed that possession of other controlled hallucinogens which have no significant nonexperimental medical use in the United States for use of a member of the household or a household animal should not be exempted from criminal liability. Religious Use Peyote has for some time been used in religious cere- monies by the Native American Church. The House ver- sion of H.R. 2 recognized that use by providing “the Sec- pe att C’ty Med. Soc’y Report, 22 N.Y. Medicine, No. 9, 3, 4 (May 5, 1966). id. ie Ibid. The society also characterizes airplane glue as a mild hallucinogen. id. 322 Thid. 323 Blum Report at 22. 324 Ibid. 325 Blum Report at 25. 826 Cf., “In New York the use of [DMT], morning glory seeds, psilocybin, nut- meg, and mescaline is a minor problem * * *.’’ N.Y. C’ty Med. Soc’y Report, 22 N.Y. Medicine, No. 9, 3, 5 (May 5, 1966). 327 Printed in House Report at 35. 8335. Rept. No. 337, p. 3, 89th Cong., Ist Sess. (1965); 111 Congressional Record 14092, col. 1, 14094, col. 3 (Senate) (daily ed., June 23, 1965). 20S. Rept. No. 337, p- 3, 89th Cong., Ist Sess. (1965); 111 Congressional Record 14094, col. 3 (Remarks of Senator Yarborough) (daily ed., June 23, 1965). 330 See the authorities cited in the preceding note. last 111 Congressional Record 15410, col. 2 and 3 (House) (daily ed., July 8, ieee 111 Congressional Record 15410, col. 3 (House) (daily ed., July 8, 883 See 111 Congressional Record 15411, col. 1 (House) (daily ed. July 8, 1965). meet Ki 3 Register, 21 CFR § 166.3(c) (3), Mar. 19, 1966, p. 4679, col. 3. retary shall not designate * * * [as a “depressant or stimulant drug”] * * * peyote (mescaline) but only in- sofar as its use is in connection with the ceremonies of a bona fide religious organization.” **” The provision was deleted by the Senate Labor Committee.*** It was de- leted because the committee deemed it advisable to avoid reference to particular drugs wherever possible.**® The committee contemplated that peyote would be subject to control under the potential for abuse standard to the same extent as any other drug.**° In the debate in the House preceding its acceptance of the conference report on the bill, Representative Harris, chairman of the Commerce Committee, indicated that the FDA had informed him that it would permit use of peyote in connection with the sacraments of the Native American Church (an American Indian church) upon a showing that the church was a bona fide religious organi- zation and used peyote in its sacraments.**! He read to the House a letter from Commissioner Larrick of FDA taking this position.** The House then agreed to ac- cept the conference report.*** Since the enactment of H.R. 2 the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has issued a regulation per- mitting sacramental use by the church.*** The regulation further provides that persons supplying peyote to the church are required to register and keep appropriate records of receipts and disbursements of it.**° Other more recently formed groups using peyote or other hallucino- gens have attempted to obtain exemption from’ the FDA but have to date not been successful. Whether Congress or a State legislature may inter- fere with religious use of peyote or any other drug and whether a particular use or organization is religious are, of course, in the last analysis questions for the courts, because they present questions under the first amend- ment of the Federal Constitution as well as under most State constitutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet passed on ‘these questions. The Supreme Court of Cali- fornia, however, has held that a State statute prohibit- ing the unauthorized possession of peyote could not con- stitutionally be applied to possession for sacramental use by members of the Native American Church, because in light of the fact that peyote worked “no permanent dele- terious injury to the Indian,” the State had not demon- strated a compelling interest which justified interference with such use.*%° On the other hand, just recently, the Supreme Court of North Carolina rejected a first amend- ment claim advanced by a member of the Neo-American Church (in a prosecution for unauthorized possession of peyote and marihuana) on the ground that while the first amendment protects beliefs, it does not protect acts 336 People v. Woody, 61 Calif. 2d 716, 40 Calif. Rptr. 69, 394 P. 2d 813, 818 (1964). The same result was reached in Arizona vy. Attakai, Crim. No. 4098, Coconino C’ty (Ariz., July 26, 1960). New Mexico exempts from its prohibition on sale and possession of peyote “the possession, sale or gift of peyote for religious sacramental purposes by any bona fide religious organization incorporated under the laws”’ of the State. N. Mex. Stat. Ann., § 54-5-16 (1962). A similar exemption is contained in Montana. Mont. Rev. Code, § 94-35-123 (Supp. 1965). In the Woody case the court stresséd ‘‘* * * as the Attorney General * * * admits, the opinion of scientists and other experts is ‘that peyote * * * works no permanent deleterious injury to the Indian * * *.’”’ 394 P. 2d at 818. It also stated that where a claim of religious use is inyoked the trier of fact is to confine its inquiry to ‘‘whether the defendants’ belief in Peyotism is honest and in good faith * * * or whether he seeks to wear the mantle of religious immunity merely as a cloak for illegal activities.’’ 394 P. 2d at 820-21. In In re Grady, 61 Calif. 2d 887, 39 Calif. Rptr. 912, 394 P. 2d 728 (1964), a habeas corpus proceeding decided on the same day as Woody and involving a “‘peyote teacher’? who was not a member of the Native American Church, it read Woody broadly: ‘‘We held in people v. Woody that the state may not prohibit the use of peyote in connection with bona fide practice of a religious belief”? (394 P. 2d at 729). In Grady the court remanded the case for a hearing as to the sincerity of the petitioner’s belief, the scope of inquiry to be that stated in Woody.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32179911_0120.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
