<P> Oregon also claimed an interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens from the dangers of illegal drug use, but there was no evidence that religious use of peyote actually harmed anyone . The fact that peyote was a Schedule I drug did not persuade Blackmun . The federal government may have placed peyote on Schedule I, but the federal government also tolerated the religious use of peyote . In addition, other Schedule I drugs (such as cannabis) have lawful uses . Religious use was not recreational use; the Native American Church ritual in which peyote is consumed is heavily supervised, thus mitigating Oregon's health and safety concerns . The religious use occurs in a context that harmonizes with the state's general ban . The Native American Church discourages nonreligious use of peyote, and promotes family harmony, self - reliance, and abstinence from alcohol . Research suggests that religious use of peyote can help curb "the tragic effects of alcoholism on the Native American population ." And as for the state's interest in abolishing drug trafficking, Blackmun pointed out that there is "practically no illegal traffic in peyote ." </P> <P> Finally, Blackmun expressed concern for "the severe impact of a state's restrictions on the adherents of a minority religion ." Eating peyote is "an act of worship and communion," a "means for communicating with the Great Spirit ." If Oregon is a hostile environment in which to practice the Native American religion, its adherents might be forced to "migrate to some other and more tolerant region ." Blackmun found it inconsistent with First Amendment values to denigrate an "unorthodox" religious practice in this way . </P> <P> Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, which required the application of strict scrutiny . In response to the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, which declared the RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000, which grants special privileges to religious landowners and prisoners . </P>

Employment division dept of human resources of oregon v. smith