Editing Entheogen (section)

== Legal status ==

===By entheogen===
* Psychoactive ''Amanita'' mushrooms: [[Legal status of psychoactive Amanita mushrooms|Legal status of psychoactive ''Amanita'' mushrooms]]
* Ayuahuasca: [[Legal status of ayahuasca by country]]
* Psychoactive cactus: [[Legal status of psychoactive cactus by country]]
* Cannabis: [[Legality of cannabis]] ([[Template:Global cannabis legalization table|Global cannabis legalization table]])
* Ibogaine: [[Legal status of ibogaine by country]]
* Psilocybin mushrooms: [[Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms]]
* ''Salvia divinorum'': [[Legal status of Salvia divinorum]]

===By country or territory===

Some countries have legislation that allows for traditional entheogen use.{{citation needed|date=December 2020}}

====United Nations====
{{Main|Convention on Psychotropic Substances}}

====Australia====
{{Main|Dimethyltryptamine#Australia}}

Between 2011 and 2012, the [[Australian Federal Government]] was considering changes to the [[Criminal law of Australia|Australian Criminal Code]] that would classify any plants containing any amount of DMT as "controlled plants".<ref>{{cite web|title=Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences|url=http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Consultationsreformsandreviews_ConsultationonimplementationofmodeldrugschedulesforCommonwealthseriousdrugoffences|date=24 June 2010|publisher=[[Attorney-General's Department (Australia)|Australian Government, Attorney-General's Department]]|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111107074102/http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Consultationsreformsandreviews_ConsultationonimplementationofmodeldrugschedulesforCommonwealthseriousdrugoffences|archive-date=7 November 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref> DMT itself was already controlled under current laws. The proposed changes included other similar blanket bans for other substances, such as a ban on any and all plants containing mescaline or ephedrine. The proposal was not pursued after political embarrassment on realisation that this would make the official [[List of Australian floral emblems|Floral Emblem of Australia]], ''[[Acacia pycnantha]]'' (golden wattle), illegal. The Therapeutic Goods Administration and federal authority had considered a motion to ban the same, but this was withdrawn in May 2012 (as DMT may still hold potential entheogenic value to native or religious peoples).<ref>{{cite journal |title=Aussie DMT Ban |journal=American Herb Association Quarterly Newsletter |date=Summer 2012 |volume=27 |issue=3 |page=14 }}</ref>

==== United States ====
In 1963 in ''[[Sherbert v. Verner]]'' the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] established the Sherbert Test, which consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:

For the individual, the court must determine
* whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
* whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
* that it is acting in furtherance of a "[[compelling state interest]]", and
* that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

This test was eventually all-but-eliminated in ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'' 494 U.S. 872 (1990) which held that a "neutral law of general applicability" was not subject to the test. Congress resurrected it for the purposes of federal law in the federal [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] (RFRA) of 1993.

In ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'', 521 U.S. 507 (1997) RFRA was held to trespass on state sovereignty, and application of the RFRA was essentially limited to federal law enforcement. In ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'', 546 U.S. 418 (2006), a case involving only federal law, RFRA was held to permit a church's use of a DMT-containing tea for religious ceremonies.

Some states have enacted [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts]] intended to mirror the federal RFRA's protections.

[[Peyote]] is listed by the United States DEA as a [[Controlled Substances Act#Schedule I controlled substances|Schedule&nbsp;I]] controlled substance.  However, practitioners of the [[Native American Church|Peyote Way Church of God]], a [[Native American religion]], perceive the regulations regarding the use of peyote as [[Religious discrimination in the United States#Peyote usage|discriminating]], leading to religious discrimination issues regarding about the U.S. policy towards drugs. As the result of ''[[Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. v. Thornburgh]]'' the [[American Indian Religious Freedom Act]] of 1978 was passed.  This federal statute allow the "Traditional Indian religious use of the peyote sacrament", exempting only use by Native American persons.