[DEFEATED] Entheogens Legalization Act

[Christian Democrats]

PROPOSAL SUMMARY: "Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance" (Wikipedia). Currently, General Assembly Resolutions 27 and 30 protect people's rights to assemble peacefully and to express their religious views; however, no resolution (except for General Assembly Resolution #141, which legalizes male circumcision) protects religious practice, worship, and observance. The Entheogens Legalization Act, if adopted, would expand freedom of worship by protecting the right of people to use entheogens for sacramental purposes. While this proposal would require World Assembly nations to legalize the use of entheogens for religious purposes, it would not prevent regulation by member states. Links to relevant articles are provided below this copy of the proposal.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AT VOTE
Entheogens Legalization Act
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use | Decision: Legalize | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that the consumption of substances that alter the functioning of the mind or body is common practice in many religious groups and

Aware that many member states prohibit certain substances because of their negative health effects or their potential to be abused yet

Convinced that people should be allowed freely to practice their religions, hereby

Declares the following:

Article 1: Definitions

1. An intoxicant is any substance that, when consumed, affects the functioning of the mind or body resulting in changes in perception, emotion, mood, consciousness, cognition, or behavior. Intoxicants, such as alcoholic beverages, often are used recreationally.

2. A religion is a set of beliefs and practices observed by a group of people who worship what they consider a divine power or divine powers; a religion is based on a body of teachings, or doctrine.

3. The definitions of this article are only for the purposes of this resolution.

Article 2: Use of Intoxicants in Religious Rites

1. It shall be legal in all member states and international territory for members of organized religious groups that have verifiable histories of using intoxicants in religious practices to consume such intoxicants in the context of practicing the rituals of such religions.

2. The production, purchase, sale, trade, transport, and possession of intoxicants intended for use by religious communities in such rituals as described in Section 1 of this article shall be legal.

3. It shall be illegal for religious groups to coerce people to use intoxicants.

Article 3: Compliance and Enforcement

1. All member states shall make good faith efforts to abide by the provisions of this resolution. Because there is a potential for abuse, member states may enact domestic legislation to ensure that people do not exploit this resolution in attempts to circumvent domestic laws concerning the recreational consumption of intoxicants.

2. The Entheogens Oversight Commission (EOC) is established and tasked with compiling a database which shall contain a list of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices and the specific intoxicants used by such religious groups. This database also should contain descriptions of the manners in which such intoxicants are used by specific religious groups.

3. The EOC is empowered to settle disputes arising under this resolution. Any religious group within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly may petition this commission.

Article 4: Recreational Drug Use

This resolution does not affect domestic laws concerning the recreational consumption of intoxicants.

REACHED QUORUM ON APRIL 20, 2011

DEFEATED 8,694 TO 2,719 ON MAY 3, 2011

• Religion and drugs
• Entheogen
• Christianity and alcohol
• Religious and spiritual use of cannabis

Umbra Ac Silentium, Going Postal, Dagnia, The Macdonnell Ranges, Extropian Idealists, Indie Lovers, Graavenland, Tara-Romaneasca, Harshhaven, Geraland and Beerland, Jasarite, Gravatrax, Daukulis Country, Hancok, Nullarni, Todd McCloud, Euphennea, Brandington, Drop Your Pants, Karaden, Snake South Amerika, Vrindavana, Darmen, Nuew, Cherisey, Bears Armed Mission, Devoted Decons, Aldonin, Eurabanavia, Lost ones tribesmen, Mikeswill, Tynnia, IIIIIDaoistsIIIII, Albertasby, Hermetic Psychadelia, East Hylia, Ihaben, Trektopolis, Small Green Plants, The Terran Technate, Khoresm, Glorious Equality, Equinoxian Aisli, Socialist Virtue, Mixolidian, Kalimat, Sanguinthium, Northern Bavungria, Rose Madder Blue, Tiger Fist, Quelesh, Glynorhan, San Monteriano, The NCR of New Vegas, Russipines, Randouk, Mewsland, Cadiz Republic, Karak Grund, Wolfhawk, Sermak, Marflo, North Neptune, Portlos, De Ganja, Irish Celtic Warriors, New Howzania, Oliver the Mediocre, Kilkuu, The Child of the Jago, Demphor, Sans frontieres, Xikuang, Juclandia, Oceanic Vakiadia, No leader, Vitius, Semiteland, Yuanda Zhu, Almaniania, Deutchelinde, New Manvir, Minor Prussia, Chomskyania, Vault 01, Sunshine and Kittens, Philotheo, Moses Wilhelm, Queentain, Tim-Opolis WA Puppet, Ascendas, Sas-Pomorski, Venti Americanos, Ricdrem, Malconia Prime, Gaiah, New Auditore, Tyladoria, MagikVanishia, Ubu-Rex, Humanity Everywhere, Alpha Centerui, The Combin, 46566, Wakesburg, Idiotic Idioms, West Williamston, Parallaxium, Afforess, Neo ORB, Remote Land, Alsted, Mexico and its People, Vhaovamer, Die Konservativen, P0ptropica

Alsted (280), United Solidarity (31), Vrindavana (21), Small Green Plants (17), Aldonin (16), Socialist Virtue (16), Devoted Decons (15), Esperius (14), Marcheria (13), Syreene states (12), -Apollo- (12), The Western Reaches (11), Umbra Ac Silentium (10), Ah-tn-am-as (10), Nullarni (10), Styx Theta (9), Non Soberia (8), Sepuria (7), BURNINATI0N (7), Beaumontania (6), Poniente (6), Ferghondor (6), Bears Armed Mission (6), Bassmk2 (6), Quenzhou (6), Daukulis Country (6), Verdadia (5), Effimination (5), Mad Reason (5), The NCR of New Vegas (5), Die Konservativen (5), Eurabanavia (5), Crysanthemum Lowlands (5), Yuanda Zhu (5), Abiravuz (5), Jasarite (4), Hogsmberg (4), Thaldora (4), Stanizzistan (4), KonataLand (4), Parallaxium (4), Shinseism (4), Toddsville (4), Cordilocoslovakia (4), The Terran Technate (4), The Bananas Republic (4), Vitius (4), Mixolidian (4), New Saguenay (4), Arcornia (4), De Ganja (4), Nightkill the Emperor (4), The State of New York (4), Orlkjestad (4), Ubu-Rex (3), Kristrup (3), Kalimat (3), Ovisterra (3), Swazville (3), Jamrose (3), Nhortergo (3), Yao Guai (3), Garam Pani (3), Saminsm (3), Olaru (3), Kailua Nui (3), Deggan (3), Uldanor (3), The Mist Valley (3), Agamand (3), Indosias (3), Lawl Sofa (3), Glorious Equality (3), Northern Bavungria (3), Sickles and Hammers (3), Cheese Eating Whalers (3), Dwayne TheRock Johnson (3), Darmen (3), Thespinia (3), IIIIIDaoistsIIIII (3), Chomskyania (3), Northpolistan (3), Brandington (3), Vhaovamer (3), Moses Wilhelm (2), New Howzania (2), Columbus Knights (2), West Williamston (2), Mexico and its People (2), Sas-Pomorski (2), Rws202 (2), Hazamaeia (2), Athada (2), Smiley Bob (2), Oceanic Vakiadia (2), Infogeeks (2), Victorion (2), Tess la mania (2), Floreria (2), NewCalifornia-Republic (2), Janapuri (2), The Long Dong (2), Novi Cetinje (2), Hondua (2), Markus Corvinus (2), Xiantai (2), Venti Americanos (2), Surinama (2), Senihai (2), Ambygwynn (2), Kenstar (2), Sermak (2), Vatea (2), Jemsatra (2), Scarface25 (2), Rainbow sheep (2), Euphennea (2), MagikVanishia (2), Twiggan colonies (2), Lokemburg (2), Caffeinistan (2), Kronenstadt (2), Nuew (2), Bodilphelia (2), Midiga (2), Vanhirian (2), Heldenland (2), Dog Fort (2), Tyladoria (2), Dagnia (2), Greyspire (2), No leader (2), Sanguinthium (2), CLU (2), Baptovia (2), P0ptropica (2), Sratos (2), The shadow acolytes (2), Chrestman (2), Woolaroc (2), Doucheig (2), Rhyaxus (2), CocoaCoa Island (2), Zyndor (2), Tidani (3), Summland (9), 46566 (6), Populus ambedo (8), East Hylia (6), Lost ones tribesmen (3), Subkowski (3), and (1,674) individual WA member nations.

[Bears Armed]

"A well-written proposal. 'Freedom of Worship' is a verry important right indeed, one of the few that the people and government of Bears Armed consider to supercede national authority legitimately, and I am sure that Bears Armed will be able to support this proposal when it is submitted."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.
(Regional WA Delegate for the International Democratic Union)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Minoa is currently at a crossroads with this one. I fears that cults or certain new religious movements may, and will likely exploit this resolution to use drugs to indoctrinate their "followers".

[Ardchoille]

What would be an appropriate category for this proposal?

If that's a "have I got the right category?" query, you should know, you wrote the proposal to fit it ... you did, didn't you? Because, of course, all proposal authors know that first they choose the category, then they write the proposal.

If it's a "what other category would mods suggest?" question, then the answer is this, because it's not our job to choose for you.

If it's a "does "Recreational Drugs" do what I've tried to make it do?", I'd say yes, it does. In that category, the rules say,

"Legalize" and "Promote" will remove drug bans. They also have effects on the "Drugs" subcategory of Civil Freedoms ... "Legalize" will relax government control on drugs, and "Promote" will impose zero government control on drugs ...".

So it's not an either/or category, like Gambling -- all control or no control. It's permissible to relax only a portion of control.

Mousebumples' Essential Medication (GA#124) relaxed government control on a subset of recreational drugs (medically useful ones), specifying that the control relaxed only when used for a specific, non-recreational purpose. That seemed to me to be a very broad interpretation -- you can use recreational drugs only when they're not recreational -- but it was still undeniably a relaxation of control in the sense the category described. Yours appears to be trying to do the same thing to the subset "religiously useful".

Note that, as always, this isn't a catch-all ruling that the proposal is legal. Category you asked, category you got; draft on.

[Meekinos]

Religion deserves no special treatment. It's utterly inequitable to grant such privilege to a single group because they'll get on their knees and pray to some mystical sky fairy. There is little reason for special treatment as not all belief systems have the need to employ intoxicants to keep their followers.

Further, it would be far more productive to allow for controlled legalization.

[Darenjo]

Two things:

1. Religious bodies should be required to offer proof beforehand that their practices require drugs.
2. We really need a religious court?

Other than that, it looks good.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I have argued in previous drug proposals about the religious use of what you call intoxicants, and how the World Assembly should protect that use. So, Glen-Rhodes is generally in favor. However, we raise objection to the clauses allowing a committee to create inferior committees. I'm unaware of any precedent, but it may be illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Christian Democrats]

Minoa is currently at a crossroads with this one. I fears that cults or certain new religious movements may, and will likely exploit this resolution to use drugs to indoctrinate their "followers".

I also was worried about this, so I included the word "freely" in Art. 1 §2.

Also, I used the term "histories" in Art. 2 §1 to ensure that new "religions" don't form just to justify recreational drug use.

What would be an appropriate category for this proposal?

If that's a "have I got the right category?" query, you should know, you wrote the proposal to fit it ... you did, didn't you? Because, of course, all proposal authors know that first they choose the category, then they write the proposal.

If it's a "what other category would mods suggest?" question, then the answer is this, because it's not our job to choose for you.

If it's a "does "Recreational Drugs" do what I've tried to make it do?", I'd say yes, it does. In that category, the rules say,

"Legalize" and "Promote" will remove drug bans. They also have effects on the "Drugs" subcategory of Civil Freedoms ... "Legalize" will relax government control on drugs, and "Promote" will impose zero government control on drugs ...".

So it's not an either/or category, like Gambling -- all control or no control. It's permissible to relax only a portion of control.

Mousebumples' Essential Medication (GA#124) relaxed government control on a subset of recreational drugs (medically useful ones), specifying that the control relaxed only when used for a specific, non-recreational purpose. That seemed to me to be a very broad interpretation -- you can use recreational drugs only when they're not recreational -- but it was still undeniably a relaxation of control in the sense the category described. Yours appears to be trying to do the same thing to the subset "religiously useful".

Note that, as always, this isn't a catch-all ruling that the proposal is legal.

Category you asked, category you got; draft on.

Thank you. (I originally was drafting this as a human rights proposal but changed its category to recreational drug use when I noticed GAR 124).

There is little reason for special treatment as not all belief systems have the need to employ intoxicants to keep their followers.

True, but many religious groups have long histories of using intoxicants (e.g., Catholicism . . . wine).

(I'm Catholic.)

Two things:

1. Religious bodies should be required to offer proof beforehand that their practices require drugs.
2. We really need a religious court?

Other than that, it looks good.

1. That is why I included the term "histories."

2. I inserted Article 3 at the end of writing this draft. I feared that "religious" movements would use this proposal to circumvent recreational drug laws. Article 3 §2 was inserted to allow nations to crack down on inhabitants abusing this proposal. To balance member states' broad powers of regulation, I added the Committee of Religious Practice and Court of Religious Practice to settle disputes and to ensure religious liberty.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

I have argued in previous drug proposals about the religious use of what you call intoxicants, and how the World Assembly should protect that use. So, Glen-Rhodes is generally in favor. However, we raise objection to the clauses allowing a committee to create inferior committees. I'm unaware of any precedent, but it may be illegal.

- Dr. B. Castro

I agree with Dr. Castro; while we Eggians are permitted to use recreational drugs in all manners, provided that the consumer has reached a certain age, we support other nation's religious right to perform sacrament in whatever manner their faith prescribes.

I must echo Dr. Castro's worries regarding the committee, and it's ability to create inferior committees. We so no real reason why there is a need for lower committees, and we also have reservations about the legality of this particular concept.

Rgds.,

[Embolalia]

I object on public health grounds. There is absolutely no restriction here on drugs that are blatantly dangerous or addictive. I understand this is the point, but I do not think crystal meth should be available to someone because some deity told them they need to use it. For one thing, it may well be the drugs talking, not the deity. I see no reason why laws established under legitimate public health concerns should be circumventable by one discrete group. Embolalia's, and many other nations', drug laws are not enacted out of malice, but out of legitimate concern for the health and well-being of our people.
I had a brief chat with the GYGI, TCHS, and NWCHS, the three public health providers in Embolalia. They informed me that, as yet, they would have no intention of changing their current policy of not covering health issues caused by the use of certain narcotics, and NWCHS will continue its policy of not covering those who use certain narcotics regularly at all (with the exception of addiction services), unless special insurance is purchased, regardless of whether such was done as part of a religious ceremony. I'm not entirely sure they would be allowed to, as to do so would be a form of discrimination (against members of non-drug-using religions) without a compelling practical purpose (as mandated by CoCR).

These are but the most important of my concerns. If this is to continue, you can be assured I will continue to note more.

-E. Rory Hywel

[Darenjo]

Hmm...we still question the need for a relgious court system (and the legality of it).

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Hmm...we still question the need for a relgious court system (and the legality of it).

I'd like to second the concerns expressed by Dr. Park; I fear many of the Ambassadors within these halls "won't be expecting the Inquisition", so to speak.

Saludos,

[Mahaj]

I believe that this may pose a public health concern to citizens. Such a concern is unacceptable. Additionally, Mahaj is flat out opposed to the religious court Idea.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I object on public health grounds. There is absolutely no restriction here on drugs that are blatantly dangerous or addictive. I understand this is the point, but I do not think crystal meth should be available to someone because some deity told them they need to use it. For one thing, it may well be the drugs talking, not the deity. I see no reason why laws established under legitimate public health concerns should be circumventable by one discrete group. Embolalia's, and many other nations', drug laws are not enacted out of malice, but out of legitimate concern for the health and well-being of our people.
These are but the most important of my concerns. If this is to continue, you can be assured I will continue to note more.

Zakath returned to his seat, and dusted off the cobwebs which had accumulated in the years of his absence I find myself in complete agreement with his Excellency from the nation of Embolalia. These courts which you would seek to set up would still regulate the usage of these drugs, meaning the resolution does not actually accomplish anything.
It simply makes more sense for each nation to deal with their own drug laws, rather than having a broad "you may do as you please if it is in the name of God."

[Meekinos]

There is little reason for special treatment as not all belief systems have the need to employ intoxicants to keep their followers.

True, but many religious groups have long histories of using intoxicants (e.g., Catholicism . . . wine).

(I'm Catholic.)

It fails to answer why religious groups employing the use of hallucinogenic substances should have such a privilege while general recreational use should remain untouched. How is any one religious group deserving of the privilege while non-religious groups aren't and individuals aren't?

[Moronist Decisions]

Hmm...we still question the need for a relgious court system (and the legality of it).

I'd like to second the concerns expressed by Dr. Park; I fear many of the Ambassadors within these halls "won't be expecting the Inquisition", so to speak.

Saludos,

We are generally in favor, but against having this committee present. We would prefer to see only one committee in charge of both policy and decision-making.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

True, but many religious groups have long histories of using intoxicants (e.g., Catholicism . . . wine).

(I'm Catholic.)

It fails to answer why religious groups employing the use of hallucinogenic substances should have such a privilege while general recreational use should remain untouched. How is any one religious group deserving of the privilege while non-religious groups aren't and individuals aren't?

Because those substances are used as part of sacrament, or they are used to directly perform religious rituals. I think people fail to understand that the resolution isn't promoting drugs for "fun", but is protecting the religious rights of "members of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices"[Article 2. Clause 1.] It's not about 'recreational drugs' per se; this proposal is about protecting citizens' rights of religious expression.

Aside from the religious courts and the committees, I find no problem with this proposal.

Saludos,

[Mallorea and Riva]

It fails to answer why religious groups employing the use of hallucinogenic substances should have such a privilege while general recreational use should remain untouched. How is any one religious group deserving of the privilege while non-religious groups aren't and individuals aren't?

Because those substances are used as part of sacrament, or they are used to directly perform religious rituals. I think people fail to understand that the resolution isn't promoting drugs for "fun", but is protecting the religious rights of "members of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices"[Article 2. Clause 1.] It's not about 'recreational drugs' per se; this proposal is about protecting citizens' rights of religious expression.

Just because something is a religious expression does not mean it is inviolable. Fringe groups recently discovered in Mallorea and Riva have been know to torture a specific species of Narwhal. Why they do this I do not know, but our courts banned the practice, just as they outlawed the use of specific drugs.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Because those substances are used as part of sacrament, or they are used to directly perform religious rituals. I think people fail to understand that the resolution isn't promoting drugs for "fun", but is protecting the religious rights of "members of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices"[Article 2. Clause 1.] It's not about 'recreational drugs' per se; this proposal is about protecting citizens' rights of religious expression.

Just because something is a religious expression does not mean it is inviolable. Fringe groups recently discovered in Mallorea and Riva have been know to torture a specific species of Narwhal. Why they do this I do not know, but our courts banned the practice, just as they outlawed the use of specific drugs.

I suppose I should have been more specific, but when a religious practice violates another being's bodily sovereignty, then it shouldn't be protected. As use of intoxicants is a personal, religious choice and expression - incidentally, not directly causing harm to another individual - it deserves to be protected as a legitimate, civilized means of religious expression.

Saludos,

[Mallorea and Riva]

Just because something is a religious expression does not mean it is inviolable. Fringe groups recently discovered in Mallorea and Riva have been know to torture a specific species of Narwhal. Why they do this I do not know, but our courts banned the practice, just as they outlawed the use of specific drugs.

I suppose I should have been more specific, but when a religious practice violates another being's bodily sovereignty, then it shouldn't be protected. As use of intoxicants is a personal, religious choice and expression - incidentally, not directly causing harm to another individual - it deserves to be protected as a legitimate, civilized means of religious expression.

Saludos,

Note the bold area, which although it is reasonable, is located NOWHERE in the resolution.

[Mousebumples]

It fails to answer why religious groups employing the use of hallucinogenic substances should have such a privilege while general recreational use should remain untouched. How is any one religious group deserving of the privilege while non-religious groups aren't and individuals aren't?

Because those substances are used as part of sacrament, or they are used to directly perform religious rituals. I think people fail to understand that the resolution isn't promoting drugs for "fun", but is protecting the religious rights of "members of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices"[Article 2. Clause 1.] It's not about 'recreational drugs' per se; this proposal is about protecting citizens' rights of religious expression.

What is there in this proposal (or other WA legislation) to prevent the creation of a religious order/belief system solely to allow for the legal use of an otherwise illegal substance?

While I do support religious freedom - to a point - I view this proposal draft, as presently written, as an avenue for drug-seeking individuals to subvert laws already in place by merely needing to claim "It's for my religion!" to justify the use of illegal recreational drugs.

[The Rich Port]

ANOTHER good proposal?

Keep it up, C.D.

A third good one, and all of that abortion business will be all but forgiven!

[Christian Democrats]

I object on public health grounds. There is absolutely no restriction here on drugs that are blatantly dangerous or addictive. I understand this is the point, but I do not think crystal meth should be available to someone because some deity told them they need to use it. For one thing, it may well be the drugs talking, not the deity.

What is there in this proposal (or other WA legislation) to prevent the creation of a religious order/belief system solely to allow for the legal use of an otherwise illegal substance?

While I do support religious freedom - to a point - I view this proposal draft, as presently written, as an avenue for drug-seeking individuals to subvert laws already in place by merely needing to claim "It's for my religion!" to justify the use of illegal recreational drugs.

Individuals (by themselves) using drugs for spiritual purposes is not permitted by this proposal. Someone must be a member of a religious group. Furthermore, such a religious group must have a history of drug use in its rituals. Also, such a group must be organized; it must have a doctrine. A "religious order" created "solely to allow for the legal use of" otherwise illegal drugs would not be allowed because such use actually would be recreational, not spiritual. Such a group would have to have a doctrine and a history of drug use in its rites -- a history that couldn't easily be established by a new religious group. Overconsumption of drugs by religious groups also would not be allowed by this proposal because such consumption would exceed the scope of the religious rite and, therefore, would cease to be religious; instead, such consumption would be recreational (e.g., the Catholic Church can provide Eucharistic wine to minors, but it cannot allow minors to become drunk on such wine; that is a crime).

Additionally, nations still would be free to punish people for committing crimes while under the influence of drugs even if such drugs were consumed during a religious rite.

Article 3 §2 was written to ensure that nations could prevent "drug-seeking individuals" from "subvert[ing] laws already in place."

----------------

I am willing to replace the Committee of Religious Practice and the Court of Religious Practice if a better alternative for ensuring compliance is suggested.

[Maroza]

I'm against this. You could make up a religion and say crack or meth is part of your religion or a ritual. It would also be unpopular with nations that have outlawed all recreational drugs. A society that uses a drug in the dominant religion is always legal because that religion will probably have had a terrible time becoming dominant if that wasn't the case and the dominant religion used a drug that was illegal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I object on public health grounds. There is absolutely no restriction here on drugs that are blatantly dangerous or addictive. I understand this is the point, but I do not think crystal meth should be available to someone because some deity told them they need to use it. For one thing, it may well be the drugs talking, not the deity.

What is there in this proposal (or other WA legislation) to prevent the creation of a religious order/belief system solely to allow for the legal use of an otherwise illegal substance?

While I do support religious freedom - to a point - I view this proposal draft, as presently written, as an avenue for drug-seeking individuals to subvert laws already in place by merely needing to claim "It's for my religion!" to justify the use of illegal recreational drugs.

Individuals (by themselves) using drugs for spiritual purposes is not permitted by this proposal. Someone must be a member of a religious group. Furthermore, such a religious group must have a history of drug use in its rituals. Also, such a group must be organized; it must have a doctrine. A "religious order" created "solely to allow for the legal use of" otherwise illegal drugs would not be allowed because such use actually would be recreational, not spiritual. Such a group would have to have a doctrine and a history of drug use in its rites -- a history that couldn't easily be established by a new religious group. Overconsumption of drugs by religious groups also would not be allowed by this proposal because such consumption would exceed the scope of the religious rite and, therefore, would cease to be religious; instead, such consumption would be recreational (e.g., the Catholic Church can provide Eucharistic wine to minors, but it cannot allow minors to become drunk on such wine; that is a crime).

Additionally, nations still would be free to punish people for committing crimes while under the influence of drugs even if such drugs were consumed during a religious rite.

Article 3 §2 was written to ensure that nations could prevent "drug-seeking individuals" from "subvert[ing] laws already in place."

----------------

I am willing to replace the Committee of Religious Practice and the Court of Religious Practice if a better alternative for ensuring compliance is suggested.

The problem that is raised by that is the fact that you discriminate against developing religions. What is a "history"? Many groups in my nation have existed for thousands of years, while a few are still developing. They are all treated the same.