Topic awaiting preservation: peyote, the constitution, and parental rights (Page 1 of 1)

http://www.record-eagle.com/2002/nov/23pey.htm

The linked story is about a month old, but my local newpaper is running an updated version tomorrow because in a few days there will be some more testifying.

For one, I don't think this is a constitutional matter. The father says it is, but I just don't buy it. This seems more of a problem with opposing parental views and desires.

The mother is worried about potential harm resulting from using the drug. I haven't found anything that says peyote can be harmful, though. I think mom is just holding a grudge against dad and so is trying to cause problems. Just my between-the-lines reading of this story.
http://www.drugabuse.com/drugs/peyote/

The reason I bring this up is that the big, bold headline above this story in the paper is "Religious Freedom?" I think the whole story is very skewed beyond what the real issue is. Silly, really.

Cell Number: 494

[This message has been edited by BeeKay (edited 12-26-2002).]

It's a bit complicated, IMO. I think the mother has some genuine concerns, however, I think she is blowing it a bit out of proportion.

However, I do not think it's a constitutional matter either, and I agree it's more a case of opposing parental views. Insert Coffee for peyote and you can see somewhat what I'm talking about. Caffeine is a stimulant and is especially potent in coffe. Although not recommended for children under the age of six, giving a 4-year old a sip of coffee isn't exactly grounds for prison time.

The catch is that the active in peyote is a mild hallucinogen. It adds a bit of spice to the mix, but not enough to warrant a constitutional case.

Hmmm...wonder if this would be a problem in court, if the child was to be in the Catholic church, to eat that wafer, and sip wine...

The father in question is not forcing the child to ingest peyote, just to receive a cross of some liquid with the peyote in it, on the forehead...actual ingestion is left to the child...

I actually had a similar case here in Germany...with my daughter. I didn't want her to go through Confirmation until she was older, and could decide for herself...but my ex-wife wanted her to go through it. It landed in court, and the Judge ruled on the side of my ex-wife, because it is a common thing for children here in Germany to go through, and she would be negatively handled without it. I was, and still am, pretty pissed over it...but my daughter has not been harmed by it. So, whatever...as long as the child is not being harmed...isn't that, and shouldn't that, be the main point?

I would be against the ingestion, until the child was old enough to decide, personally. But that is all. As to whether or not it would be protected under the constitution, largely depends on the definition of Adult. As it is a child, I would hope that ingestion of any drug, not just peyote, would be...very strongly controlled, and avoided, when possible. Therefore, I would strongly be against actual ingestion...4 years, is not old enough for such a ritual. Leave it until later...14 or so. And then let the child decide.

Still, I don't think the government has the right, one way or another, to decide this...the parents do, though. It's a tough call. Personally, I think the Judge handled it fairly well...though allowing a cross on the forehead should be allowed...I can't see any harm done, there...just not actual ingestion, until later...

Well for one thing, it's hard to say from the article excactly how much of this issue is actually based on indian heritage. It seems that some of this is stretching that reason a bit beyond reality.

Secondly, as has been said, a 4 year old child simply does not have the mental capacity to understand - for good or bad - the consequences of taking a hallucinagenic drug.

And of course, regardless how much or how little evidence there may be for peyote causing harm, I would certainly be very opposed to my child being exposed to it. I've taken mescaline, among other hallucinagens, and while it may be mild compared to something like LSD, it's still something far beyond what a child should be going through (and *far* more than a sip of wine....). IMHO.

Don't see it as a constitutional issue in the least.