If you’ve never heard of ayahuasca, you can forgive yourself for the ignorance. Until recently, it was a time-honored, yet fringe form of psychological medicine practiced by indigenous tribes in South America.
In the past decade, however, ayahuasca has gathered a cult following among westerners seeking enlightenment. No longer confined to South America, “shaman”-led ayahuasca ceremonies began popping up in places like New York and Silicon Valley circa the mid-2010’s. Its adherents swear by the therapeutic properties. Some even describe the experience in religious terms: “the vine that allows the spirit to wander detached from the body, entering the spiritual world, otherwise forbidden for the alive.”
That would all be fine and well except that this talk of therapy and religion ignores an inconvenient reality: the namesake of these ayahuasca ceremonies is a plant-based brew containing DMT – a powerful psychedelic that has been federally illegal in the United States since 1970.
This is, perhaps, a stark reminder that the devil really is in the details. It’s also an interesting example of how psychedelics, like marijuana, are moving from the taboo to the mainstream. Even some employers outside the national security sector are getting on the psychedelic bandwagon, approving state-legalized therapies that show early signs of medicinal potential as a means of controlling ballooning employee healthcare costs.
But neither state legalization nor employer blessing proves relevant for mitigating subsequent security clearance concerns. Individuals seeking to transition from the commercial sector to the national security sector should understand the cultural differences between industries and the risks inherent with violating federal law.
The same is likely true for psychedelic use couched in terms of religious practice – at least when it comes to security clearances. I use the qualifier “likely” because, to the best of my knowledge, no security clearance applicant has litigated this specific issue.
The legal landscape outside of security clearances is complicated: generally, the government can outlaw drug use, but a handful of wrinkles – including the legalization of peyote use in religious ceremonies on Native American reservations, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and a 2006 Supreme Court case involving ayahuasca, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal – have resulted in an unsettled legal détente when it comes to religious use.
Most recently, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration established an administrative process for effectively licensing religious groups to use illegal drugs in religious practices; but the process requires the DEA to determine whether the applicant’s religious beliefs are sincerely held – a slippery slope that has drawn legal challenges and recent criticism from the U.S. Government’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Where things get really complicated is that the free exercise of religion is a constitutionally-guaranteed right, while a security clearance is a privilege within the exclusive purview of the government to grant or deny.
How those two conflicting dynamics would be reconciled in a legal challenge apparently remains an open question; however, a long line of federal court cases unsuccessfully raising other constitutional challenges to the denial of security clearance suggest that it would likely not end well for an applicant.
In other words, clearance holders seeking a spiritual experience may wish to stick with more conventional practices.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
