An Opiate of the Masses: Religious Gerrymandering of Sacramental Intoxication
Mark A. Levine, 31 N.C. Cent. L. Rev. 177 (2009)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
Courts have not consistently applied religious exemptions among differing faiths, which leads an observer to question the distinction between one religion’s permissible accommodations over another’s. In Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims brought by petitioner Carl Olsen, a member of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, who sought a religious exemption from laws prohibiting the use and possession of marijuana. Olsen was distinguishable from the then-unique exemption for Native American ceremonial use of the hallucinogen peyote. The facts and arguments in Olsen, however, bear a stronger resemblance to those presented in Uniao than to the justification granted to the Native American Church. This article seeks to address the discrepancies between Olsen and Uniao, while using the Native American Church exemption and RFRA as foundations from which to draw precedent.
