The DEA violates religious freedom through its opaque and arguably illegal process for applicants seeking religious exemptions to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). I've made this point before. But today, I want to look at one of the more nefarious ways in which the DEA's exemption process violates religious freedoms. To do that, I first need to give a bit of background.
《宗教自由恢复法》
若您对后CSA时代宗教迷幻剂使用的悠久历史感兴趣，请参阅此文。以下为极简概述：
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. The Court held that a law banning peyote didn't violate constitutional religious freedom. Even if it interfered with some religious practices, such a law was still neutral and applied generally to all people.
作为回应，国会通过了《宗教自由恢复法案》（RFRA）。该法案旨在为"因政府实施普遍适用的中立法律而遭受实质性宗教活动限制的人士"提供主张权利或进行辩护的途径。
根据《宗教自由恢复法案》，法院在审查法律是否非法侵犯宗教权利时适用标准测试。必须判定该法律是否（1）对（2）真诚的（3）宗教活动构成实质性负担。2006年，在冈萨雷斯诉植物联合慈善灵性中心案中，最高法院运用该法案测试标准，支持了希望使用藤蔓药的宗教团体。
美国缉毒局宗教豁免指南
Following Gonzales the DEA issued Interim Guidelines for seeking petitions to the CSA for religious purposes. I described the petition process here. Anyone with knowledge of the process will tell you it's a complete joke, similar to the DEA process for studying Schedule I drugs. In short, DEA rarely responds to petitions. When it does, it just denies them. One group (in the process of suing a different agency) hasn't been able to get a response to its petition for almost THREE years-- despite having a U.S. Senator ask the DEA to respond to it.
毋庸置疑，政府处理宗教自由这样关乎宪法根本的问题时，本不该采取这种方式。
延迟违反宗教自由
I've already explained why the DEA's guidelines violate religious freedom. Today though, I want to talk about delay and why it's so significant (beyond being irritating). Point 7 of the Interim Guidelines states:
任何申请人不得从事《管制物质法》及其法规禁止的任何活动，除非申请已获批准且申请人已申请并获得美国缉毒局注册证书。根据《管制物质法》法规及《宗教自由恢复法》规定，对申请人授予的注册资格可酌情予以后续暂停或撤销。
换言之，在提交申请与美国缉毒局批准申请（这种情况几乎不可能发生）之间，当事人被禁止服用致幻剂。若当事人参与此类宗教实践，将丧失申请资格。
Let that sink in for a minute. This means that - for an unknown but likely years' long period of time - a person cannot engage in their religious practice. If they do engage in their religious practice, the government will take away their right to continue engaging in that practice.
Imagine the government said that someone couldn't celebrate Christmas or Yom Kippur or any other major holiday without a permit, setup a process to apply that was nebulous and could take years, and would lock up anyone who celebrated while waiting. This is not constitutional, full stop.
The DEA's mission is to regulate dangerous drugs. Its mission doesn't include deciding which religious beliefs are sincere. Yet in effect, it makes that determination every time it denies or refuses to look at a petition. The DEA delay in processing petitions is unconstitutional, and just one more way DEA violates religious freedom.
