If we assume for the sake of argument that MichaelGG is a Native American who is a member of a recognized tribe, I believe that "If tonight I get a vision that mandates I must use this chemical with my followers, I don't qualify." would still be true. I believe that if he started a new religion in his tribe, he wouldn't automatically have a right to use peyote as other 'recognized' Native American religions do.

From wikipedia:

"Congress passed an amendment to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. § 1996), i.e., the American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994 (42 U.S.C. § 1996a), pertinent excerpts of which are given below: Use, possession, or transportation of peyote Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation, including, but not limited to, denial of otherwise applicable benefits under public assistance programs. —42 U.S.C. 1996A(b)(1)."

Note that "bona fide" and "traditional" language.

There is no list of "recognized" religions kept anywhere. "Bona Fide" means "honestly or sincerely", and is in there to prevent people who are caught with peyote from insincerely claiming a religious exemption as a get out of jail free card.

You are probably going to ask who decides if use of peyote is actually protected under this act or not. The answer seems to be a jury of one's peers. Laws are often written to provide guidance for how one's actions should be judged, and do not provide a detailed "if-then" case for their application.

Whether or not peyote should just be fully legalized across the country is a different question.

> There is no list of "recognized" religions kept anywhere.

Recognition of your religion would likely be determined at the time of your trial.

Should that be the courts right? I would argue no.

No. It would not. The court has no right to decide if your religion is legitimate or not. The IRS and the government does recognize certain religious _organizations_ (e.g. churches for tax exemptions), but the state cannot pass any judgement on the underlying belief system when they recognize these institutions. This is what the Establishment Clause clearly protects.

Sources: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-003.html#d0e1146 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

If the exemption came from the sovereignty of the Native states/tribes, why would it be narrowed down to just peyote? Versus letting those nations simply decide for themselves their own "scheduling" of medications?

I'm going off a few quick searches, but the peyote bit seems to exclude it for any "bona fide ceremonies" for the Native American Church, regardless of race. I didn't see any mention that they must be on reservations either. Wikipedia also notes that some states have a "bona fide religious" exemption that's not related to the NAC (which is at least somewhat more consistent, but "bona fide" is still silly to apply in this scope).

Nations are not necessarily tied to land, nor is the sovereignty of the Native nations full sovereignty.

I don't understand the full ramifications of the treaty and legal status myself. My point was just to indicate that the flippant remark about "some religions can use peyote" leaves out a lot of historical, political, and legal context.

OK, what about Sikhs and the dagger they are "required" wear at all times? I can't up and decide I must wear a knife (even if I put glue on it), then expect schools and the TSA to allow me to do so. The fact is that my "flippant" remark, while mentioning peyote specifically, applies to other such cases. Another example: conscientious objector status (which now has the religious part removed, but required a supreme court case to do so, AFAIK).

> but required a supreme court case to do so

That's the point of the Supreme Court, which did it's job and confirmed that the government is not supposed to determine what constitutes a religion.

The Sikh kirpan (knife) issue hasn't been argued before the supreme court. When it is, I expect a school's right to ban that weapon will be affirmed on the same grounds.