Drugs and religion and art

I found Psychedelic Society an interesting perspective on the world as a whole, and it tied in quite nicely with the conversation on language we began in class last Thursday. Terence McKenna was very adamant about breaking down language barriers, not in the sense of learning the same language, but to disregard language completely because the use of a spoken or written language convoluted the message. In a sense, his approach is very similar to what Huxley said about the painting of the chair; the painting is just a symbol of the chair, the artist's interpretation, and it will be interpreted by each and every viewer, and that painting will never be anything but a shadowy reflection of that chair.
Another thing I found interesting about McKenna's article was his belief that the Internet as a communication device is a feminine approach, not in an insulting sense, but that it is softer and more humanistic than the cold calculation of a more masculine engineering approach. With very little background knowledge myself, I seem to remember hearing that societies were begun as matriarchal (ie, Mother Earth) before organized religions became the power players and the societies became patriarchal. Is it possible that we are, in a sense, reverting again to a matriarchal society? If we feel that the masculine engineering approach was not effective, and if we feel that the more humanistic approach of communicating directly for each individual situation might be worth an attempt, then it sounds as if we are bringing the past full circle.
Sterling's opinions on religious persecution are understandable, but at the same time, I think it is easy to understand why law enforcement officials would use a blanket law. After all, it is far easier to persecute everyone who is using a certain substance that it is to determine who is using which substance for private use versus religious means. I do agree, as Sterling mentioned near the end of the article, that a more specific law to do just that would be the best option if lawmakers are going to insist on naming the drugs illegal.
On the other hand, illegal is illegal. Religious ceremony or not, is it fair to say that a drug is legal for one person but not for another? Sterling used the example of virgin sacrifice; he mentions that those leaders would be charged with murder, but so then would any citizen who murdered a virgin. He used a blanket example in his attempt to advocate favoritism. From what we learned in class -- that the natural substances are not physically harmful, that they are not addictive, that they are useful for altered experiences -- I do believe that the use of these drugs should be legal, but I would take it one step further than Sterling and say that they should be legal for all if for some.