The Alaska state constitution strongly supports religious freedom, potentially offering more protection than federal law. However, there is no state-specific RFRA, meaning fewer legal precedents for defending religious use of entheogens. Despite these challenges, Alaska’s robust constitutional support for religious freedom could provide some defense for such practices.


Alaska’s Constitution provides strong protections for religious freedom. Article I, Section 4 states, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This broad protection underscores the importance of religious freedom in the state, potentially offering a strong defense for religious practices, including the use of entheogens, provided they are part of a sincerely held religious belief​.


Federal Protections:

Although Alaska does not have its own Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), residents are protected under the federal RFRA. This federal law requires that any substantial burden on religious exercise must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The precedent set by the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal allows for the use of Schedule I controlled substances in religious ceremonies under the federal RFRA, provided the practice is part of a sincere religious belief​.


Practical Implications

Religious practitioners considering the use of entheogens in Alaska do face legal risks since psilocybin is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance. However, the strong protections under the Alaska Constitution and the federal RFRA offer potential defenses.


Practitioners should be prepared to demonstrate the sincerity of their religious beliefs and the necessity of entheogens for their spiritual practices. Seeking legal counsel and maintaining thorough documentation of religious practices are recommended to support any potential defense.



Alaska Constitution: Article I, Section 4 – Freedom of Religion.


Supreme Court Case: Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006).


Green, S. K. (1988). Freedom of Religion in Alaska: Interpreting the Alaska Constitution. Duke Law Scholarship Repository. 


Post a comment

WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux