To me, Smith feels like a case stuck in the times. DARE and the continued cultural fears of anything outside of the WASP sphere of influence seemed to infiltrate the minds of policymakers. The idea of drugs as something sacred, especially psychedelic ones, probably grated against the beliefs of multiple members of the Court at the time. (Forget about the place of alcohol in Catholicism). Turning to today where psychedelics are much more prominent in an official manner--medical studies, recreation, etc.--I imagine the Court would reach a different decision and I wish they would work on a new standard rather than carveouts that are going to annoy me when study for the final!
To me, Smith feels like a case stuck in the times. DARE and the continued cultural fears of anything outside of the WASP sphere of influence seemed to infiltrate the minds of policymakers. The idea of drugs as something sacred, especially psychedelic ones, probably grated against the beliefs of multiple members of the Court at the time. (Forget about the place of alcohol in Catholicism). Turning to today where psychedelics are much more prominent in an official manner--medical studies, recreation, etc.--I imagine the Court would reach a different decision and I wish they would work on a new standard rather than carveouts that are going to annoy me when study for the final!
Spot on. A peyote ritual in 1990 landed very differently than it would today when Johns Hopkins is running psilocybin trials.
And yes, the Court’s endless carveouts make the doctrine feel like it’s held together with duct tape - sorry you have to study it all!