Buy Magic Mushroom Spores In Louisiana

C. Hallucinogenic substances. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, or salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, or salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, for purposes of this Paragraph only, the term “isomer” includes the optical, position, and geometric isomers:

…

(25) Psilocybin

(26) Psilocyn

https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/rs/title40/rs40-964

Mushroom spores are legal under Louisiana law for microscopy, taxonomy, research, education, and other lawful purposes because spores do not contain psilocybin or psilocin. Do not germinate or cultivate spores unless allowed by current law, and confirm local rules in Louisiana before ordering spores or visiting a retailer.

§5231.  Short title

This Part shall be known as and may be cited as the “Preservation of Religious Freedom Act”.

Acts 2010, No. 793, §1.

§5232.  Legislative findings

The legislature finds and declares that:

(1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right of the highest order in this state.

(2) In 1974, this legislature and the people of Louisiana chose to adopt the exact language found in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America regarding religious free exercise as Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of Louisiana.

(3) At the time of adoption of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to provide the same level of protection for an action of the government that explicitly burdened religious exercise as for an action that indirectly burdened religious exercise through its effect.  In both instances, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in taking a particular action and that it was taking the action in a way that was least restrictive of a person’s right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.  This rule was set forth in the case of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), among other cases.

(4) It was the intent of the legislature and the people of Louisiana in 1974 to provide that level of protection to its citizens.

(5)  In 1990, the United States Supreme Court, in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), reduced the protection available to persons in the exercise of their religious beliefs where a law was facially neutral or generally applicable by holding that the government need only give a rational basis for the action and need not supply the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.

(6) The courts of Louisiana have not adopted the standard set forth in Employment Division v. Smith.  It was and continues to be the intent of this state that the protections afforded by the Sherbert case apply in Louisiana.

Acts 2010, No. 793, §1.

§5232. Legislative findings

§5233. Free exercise of religion protected

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a facially neutral rule or a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:

(1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

(2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Acts 2010, No. 793, §1.

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=725124