Holy Smoke: Can You Start a Religion, and Should You?
Religious exemptions, courtroom cautionary tales, and a frank audit of a joke I’m no longer sure was a joke
This month an Iowa church got what every sacramental-plant congregation dreams about: a path to legally import and brew ayahuasca. It took eight years, a lost lawsuit, a sealed agreement with the DEA and a probationary state registration [1]. Reading the story, a question I’ve been circling for a while stood up and cleared its throat. Should we start a religion? Not as a gag, though I’ll admit mine began as one.
What Iowa actually won
The Iowaska Church of Healing formed in September 2018. It applied for federal tax-exempt status in January 2019 and was refused because its sacrament is a Schedule I substance. It sued the IRS in 2021 and lost in March 2023, with the court reasoning that its activities violated public policy while the DEA had yet to grant an exemption. The church’s DEA petition then sat unanswered for more than five years, until Justice Department lawyers told the court in June 2026 that the two sides had signed a memorandum of agreement recognizing the church’s right under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to practice, subject to agreed conditions [1].
The memorandum is sealed. On October 5 the Iowa Board of Pharmacy agreed to register the church, on one year of probation, with a requirement to report any adverse event that needs off-site medical care. That is only step two of a two-step process; federal permits follow [1]. Two lessons. It is possible. And “possible” meant eight years, a lawsuit and a regulator peering over your shoulder. Hold both thoughts.
The legal machinery
In 1990, Employment Division v. Smith held that the First Amendment didn’t shield a Native American Church member fired for ingesting peyote. Congress answered with RFRA in 1993, which restored a “compelling interest” test, and then with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994, which protect traditional Indian peyote use [4][5]. The big modern precedent is Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita (2006). The Supreme Court ruled 8–0 in favor of a Brazilian-rooted church, the UDV, whose U.S. branch had about 130 members, and its ayahuasca tea (hoasca) [2][3]. The government argued that health and safety, diversion to recreational users and a UN drug treaty justified applying the Controlled Substances Act. The Court said RFRA demands that the government justify burdening this particular claimant, that Congress’s Schedule I listing isn’t a categorical answer, and that the long-standing peyote exception undermined the claim that drug law admits no exceptions [2][3].
The graveyard of cannabis churches
Now the cautionary tales. David Meyers declared himself Reverend of the “Church of Marijuana” and claimed his faith commanded him to use, grow and distribute the plant. The Tenth Circuit rejected the defense and built the framework courts still use: is it a belief system rather than a philosophy or way of life, is it sincerely held, and does it show ultimate ideas, metaphysical beliefs, a moral or ethical system and the accoutrements of religion [6][8]. Meyers’s “church” had no sacred texts, clergy, rituals or organized worship [7]. The Church of Cognizance, which teaches that marijuana is a deity and sacrament, fared no better in the same court [8].
Indiana’s First Church of Cannabis opened the day that state’s RFRA took effect and filed suit a week later. In 2018 the judge ruled that an exemption would make the church a target for thieves, gangs and dealers and hinder law enforcement, and said it could remain a church if it stopped using marijuana as a sacrament [9]. The state had called the suit a “political crusade turned legal stunt” [10]. The appeal was dismissed after the church failed to pay for court transcripts [11]. The pattern is not subtle: courts will protect a sincere, comprehensive, community-based practice, and they are allergic to a shield with a steeple painted on it.
So what does it take?
There are really three hurdles, and they’re different. Legal protection for the practice. Under RFRA (a federal law; states have their own versions, as the Indiana case shows) you must show that government action substantially burdens a religious belief, not merely a philosophy, and that you sincerely hold it [8]. Then the government must show a compelling interest, applied to you, pursued by the least restrictive means [2].
Tax status as a church. This is separate. The IRS uses 14 criteria announced in 1978, including a distinct legal existence and a membership not associated with another church, plus the familiar markers such as a creed, a form of worship, an organized ministry and regular services. Courts treat them as a guide rather than a checklist, and “church” is a narrower category than “religious organization” [12][13].
Operational credibility. Iowa’s agreement reportedly covers who handles the controlled substance, how it’s stored and how it’s imported [1]. Regulators will want a safety protocol whether you volunteer one or not.
A correction on Pastafarianism
I started out believing Pastafarianism is an official religion. I was mostly wrong. In 2016 a federal court in Nebraska ruled that the Flying Spaghetti Monster gospel is plainly satire and that reading it as religious doctrine is an error of basic reading comprehension [14]. In Europe, the Dutch highest administrative court and then the European Court of Human Rights found the faith lacked the seriousness and cohesion required [15], and an Austrian bid for recognition as a confessional community failed on the argument that members weren’t religiously active enough [19]. Poland is the bright spot: a court overturned a 2013 ruling, clearing the way for an application to register [16]. So: a patchwork of rejections and one opening, not an official status. The moral is bigger than the pasta. Courts read intent.
Alacartism, stress-tested
Now my own entry. Alacartism: build your belief system à la carte from any tradition, on the premise that nobody can prove which religion is the true source and that every human experience is unique. I dreamt it up one day over a joint. I still like the core idea, and it has some pedigree. A recent legal analysis of Singularism, a Utah psilocybin church, notes that belonging to several religious traditions at once is common worldwide, and the court there applied the Meyers factors to those beliefs [17].
But I’d be a lousy columnist if I skipped where Alacartism is exposed. It must be a system, not a menu. Courts have looked to familiar religions as models and distinguished comprehensive systems from isolated teachings [18]. The Seeger-era doctrine is generous, since a sincere belief that fills the place God holds in someone’s life can qualify, but it still excludes a merely personal moral code [18]. A fully individualized menu risks that label. The “tying bond” I mentioned has to be more than a slogan: written core tenets, rites, regular gatherings, trained ministers. Origin stories get subpoenaed. If the founder says it began as a stoner joke, the state’s lawyer will print it out. Mine is on the internet now. Sorry, future me.
Open source, not cult
Religion has real problems: dogma that can’t be questioned, power concentrating in one person, schism, and hostility to doubters. Cults tend to share three traits in my reading, which is analysis rather than citation: control over members’ lives, isolation from outsiders and financial extraction. An open-source faith can design against all three.
Public, versioned doctrine. Anyone can propose a change; anyone can fork. No living prophet. Rotating stewards, and no one holds the keys to salvation or the bank account. Free exit. No shunning, no penalty for leaving. Open books. Published finances and no required tithes. A sacrament safety code. Screening for medical contraindications, trained facilitators, emergency plans and incident reporting; Iowa’s adverse-event requirement is a ready-made template [1]. A conduct code for gatherings. Consent, boundaries and a way to report abuse.
Notice the contrast with the Iowa deal: the memorandum is sealed, justified by privacy and public-interest concerns [1]. An open-source religion can keep members’ identities private while publishing its safety protocols for anyone to audit.
So, should we?
My honest answer: only if the sincerity is real and you’re willing to do the slow, boring work of building a community, a practice, a paper trail and a relationship with regulators. If the goal is a loophole to light up, don’t. Courts have shown they can smell it [9][10], and every failed stunt hands judges more language about why exemptions threaten enforcement, which hurts sincere claimants too. The skeptic’s argument deserves its due as well: governments say drug-law exemptions are hard to police and invite abuse, which is exactly the compelling-interest question courts weigh case by case [2].
If sacred plant medicine is the heart of it, say so plainly and build the theology around it, with safety protocols you’d be proud to publish. And since I’m not a lawyer, talk to a religious-liberty attorney before you file anything, print a pamphlet or buy a single robe.
Sources
[1] Clark Kauffman, “Psychedelic Church’s Secret Agreement With DEA And Approval From Iowa Officials Allows Import And Manufacturing Of Ayahuasca,” Marijuana Moment / Iowa Capital Dispatch, Oct. 17, 2026 https://www.marijuanamoment.net/psychedelic-churchs-secret-agreement-with-dea-and-approval-from-iowa-officials-allows-import-and-manufacturing-of-ayahuasca/
[2] Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), opinion text, Cornell LII https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1084.ZO.html
[3] Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita (2006) case summary, SAGE Edge https://edge.sagepub.com/node/184572
[4] American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994, Pub. L. 103-344 https://usc-cdn.house.gov/statutes/pl/103/344.pdf
[5] Great Plains Studies Center on Employment Division v. Smith, RFRA and the 1994 AIRFA amendments https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly/2023
[6] United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1996) https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/095/95.F3d.1475.95-8079.html
[7] Casemine commentary, “Defining ‘Religion’ under RFRA: United States v. David Meyers” https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/defining-‘religion’-under-rfra:-united-states-v.-david-meyers/view
[8] United States v. Quaintance (Church of Cognizance), Tenth Circuit opinion https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01018448739.pdf
[9] WPTV, “Judge rules First Church of Cannabis can’t use marijuana as ‘holy sacrament’” https://www.wptv.com/news/national/judge-rules-first-church-of-cannabis-can-t-use-marijuana-as-holy-sacrament-
[10] WXYZ, “First Church of Cannabis files religious freedom lawsuit; State of Indiana claims suit is a stunt” https://www.wxyz.com/news/national/first-church-of-cannabis-files-religious-freedom-lawsuit-state-of-indiana-claims-suit-is-a-stunt
[11] WFYI, “Indiana Court Of Appeals Dismisses First Church Of Cannabis Lawsuit,” Jan. 4, 2019 https://wfyi.org/news/articles/indiana-court-of-appeals-dismisses-first-church-of-cannabis-lawsuit
[12] Congressional Research Service, What Is a “Church” for Federal Tax Purposes? (IF12520) https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF12520.html
[13] Church Law & Tax, “Definition of ‘Church’” https://www.churchlawandtax.com/legal-developments/definition-of-church/
[14] Religion News Service, federal court rules Pastafarianism is satire, not religion https://religionnews.com/?p=184538
[15] The Freethinker, on Dutch and ECHR rulings regarding Pastafarianism https://freethinker.co.uk/?p=5469
[16] UCA News, “Spoof religion edges closer to official recognition” (Poland) https://www.ucanews.com/news/spoof-religion-edges-closer-to-official-recognition/70705
[17] Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law, “What a Psychedelic Church Reveals about Religion and the Law,” Nov. 28, 2025 https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2025/11/28/what-a-psychedelic-church-reveals-about-religion-and-the-law/
[18] Hoots, “The Legal Definition of Religion in the Context of Modern Religious Movements,” Harvard CSWR https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum4346/files/2025-02/Hoots%2C%20Legal%20Definition%20of%20Religion.pdf
[19] The Freethinker, on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Austria https://freethinker.co.uk/?p=7741
CANNABIS OR AYAHUASCA, READ ON…
