Religious Use Defense Fails, Even With "ID Card"

[jsn9333]

The "THC Ministry: The Hawaii Cannabis Ministry" provides members with ID cards to show police and religious "tags" to put on your stash, plants etc. They claim, "cultivation and enjoyment of Cannabis sacrament is a fundamental human right provided by God and protected by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

While I agree with them, sadly most court systems in the U.S do not. And in the end, it is the opinion of the Court that matters

I am a law student in North Carolina, so I did some research before joining the organization and depending on the ID cards for legal protection. I have found that the "religious kit" would offer me no legal protections in North Carolina under a recent decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court and confirmed by by U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

One case the ministry relies on is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. In this case a Federal Court allowed a group of Native American types to use a special tea, one ingredient of which is an illegal drug. The Federal Court relied on the RFRA (Religious Freedoms Restoration Act), which congress had recently passed. Many drug rights activites saw this as the beginning of true religious freedom in American, but that has not turned out to be the case.

I looked into some of the cases that have followed Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal. In particular, in City of Boerne v. Flores 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), the Supreme Court says that States do not have to follow the RFRA (Religious Freedoms Restoration Act) which Federal Courts have used to allow illegal drug use for religious purposes. Essentially, States get to choose what "freedom of religion" means apart from Federal intrusion (generally) and they don't have to include illegal drug use in that definition. Remember, State courts often don't have to follow precedent of Federal Courts. While "freedom of religion" is a constitutional issue, so is "states rights". The Sup. Court essentially said states rights are more important the religious illegal drug use. My research has shown that some states have been more friendly then others to the RFRA, but most haven't been friendly at all.

North Carolina, my State, has not been friendly. I found a North Carolina specific case that answered my questions about the protections your kit (or my own proof of my cannabis sacramental religion) would offer me in North Carolina. In the North Carolina criminal case, State v. Carignan 178 N.C.App. 562, 631 S.E.2d 892 (Table) N.C.App.,2006. Jul 18, 2006, the state supreme court rejected the defendants defense for his possession of marijuana that he was a religious user. Defendant claimed at trial that for several months prior to his arrest, he had been involved with the "Hawaiian Cannabis Ministry," which, according to defendant, "regards the actual consumption of cannabis as prayer [and] a form of worship." Essentially, the NC supreme court decided that North Carolina was under no obligation to follow Federal precedent under the RFRA, and the NC constitution allowed the police to enforce all drug laws regardless of religion.

I just wanted to make you all aware of this information. As much as it saddens me, the decisions I've listed here mean (as far as i can tell) that the RFRA defense (or any religious defense) for cannabis use will not work in North Carolina Courts. I don't have time to look into every States precedent, and some states may not have approached the issue yet. But I just wanted to let everyone know what I have found out.

Thank you, and God Bless!

[Iyaman]

I think its just plain wrong to try and use something like religion in court. I am an atheist so its actualy annoys me that people could try use something so ill founded to their defence.

[Pepper]

Atheism, like faith, is a decision, a fundamental option, an act of freedom. This religious freedom allows people to pray with poisonous snakes, pray at a more conventional church or not at all.

[stinkyattic]

there is a program for declaring your religious use and defending it in court.While you ask to be taken seriously by the courts, and for people in REAL legal trouble to place their future in your hands, the front page of your website is rather flippant and ridiculously worded... 'HOMIE'.

This is not a game. When the outcome is the possibility of incarceration, it's irresponsible to recommend that the accused put faith in your so-called 'religion' to free them.

I've also already given you one warning about spamming your service. You can heed it, or not, as you wish.

[Iyaman]

You can't justify yourself with a system that relies on an unreal being. I could start the church of xyz and try to justify my many meth labs because my religion relies on it to contact my god. Bull sh*t

[Pepper]

The use of controlled substances for religious purposes has been permitted in some cases. I personally believe marijuana should be legal.

[stinkyattic]

I suspect that what you refer to is the special dispensation that Native Americans, who by all rights are entitled to quite a bit of autonomy as a First Nation, have to pursue a religion that dates back to pre-Colombian times, and which includes use of a controlled substance in very specific rituals. No doubt recreational use of same would be frowned upon by traditionalists even within the community.

There's a bit of difference between a Native American community continuing on with a tradition thousands of years old, and a 'religion' that was created SOLELY to take advantage of this legal loophole.

If one wanted to do anything, then, it stands to reason that one could simply create a religion whose guiding principles included the sacrament of [fill in currently illegal activity here]. That seems a bit silly, doesn't it? So would you believe that religious sects who refuse modern medical treatment/vaccination for such horrible yet preventable diseases as Polio and TB should be allowed to let their MINOR children suffer permanent disability and even DIE simply because a vaccination is against their religious beliefs?

Obviously I believe cannabis use should be legal- that's one of the reasons I'm here fighting the fight. I just think that trying to get AROUND laws in this rather silly manner is at counter-purposes to getting the unfair laws CHANGED outright.

[Iyaman]

I guess I'm just expressing my hate for religion. But long as they are taking drugs that are naturaly grown and not altered in any way it's fine. But i still think it's wrong to justify it with a belief system. Even though I'm am Iya, I won't justify smoking bud with rastafari practices.

[jsn9333]

I think its just plain wrong to try and use something like religion in court. I am an atheist so its actualy annoys me that people could try use something so ill founded to their defence.

Ill-founded? Religion has been a founding legal principle in this country since the very beginning. The 1st amendment establishes the right for people to freely practice their own religion. Atheism is even a protected belief system. The government is not allowed to deny atheists the right to vote, etc. just because of their religious belief that there is definitely no God.

What department of a college would you take a course on atheism in? What section of a bookstore would you find a book about it in? That's right... the "religion" section. To say there is no God is to make a religious statement... a statement about religions.

I'm not trying to convert anyone and I'm not trying to get the government to promote my religion over atheism or any other belief system. I'm asking that my own religious beliefs and personal rights be respected, and that everyone's religious beliefs (even the belief that there is no God) be respected. That is all. People should be able to practice what they believe, in a personal way. You should have the right to sit in your home and talk about how there is no God. I should have the right to sit in my own home and smoke weed if that is how I commune with and think about God.

[jsn9333]

There's a bit of difference between a Native American community continuing on with a tradition thousands of years old, and a 'religion' that was created SOLELY to take advantage of this legal loophole.


Federal courts have respected the rights of Rastafarian's to possess (not to distribute, but to possess) marijuana in addition to the Native American cases. The problem is that State Courts do not have to respect the Federal decisions, according to the Supreme Court.

If publicly elected officials representing the majority of Americans think that distribution of large amounts of marijuana should be a crime, that is their right. While it is one of the least dangerous drugs out there, and the laws against it are hypocritical considering alcohol is legal... cannabis *is* still a drug that can cause serious mental and motor response changes when used (or abused) in very large quantities.

So while officials elected by the American public should be able to make cultivation of extremely large amounts of the drug and distribution a crime if they want to (with a public health justification, as weak as it is), I don't think they should be allowed make personal use illegal... *especially* if that use is related to religious practices.

I'm not saying you should make up a religion to find a loophole around laws, that would be an abuse of religion. But if anyone honestly believes, as I do, cannabis is a historical part of his religion (Christianity for me) why not ask the government to respect that? It gives a sharper edge to the "personal use" argument, one that has worked in Federal Courts.

[bigfatpothead]

If any of you guys actually read my website (that i can't post or I get banned) how free is that?

Our defense is not just a religious defense, it works for everyone.
What we are doing is challenging the VENUE and JURISDICTION of the court. Our program follows the rules of the court to the T.
and the way it works is by means of a PRE-PLEA demand served on the DA. This demand must be answered before I enter a plea, that is a protected right in all constitutions, (read your constitution).
You are not required to enter a plea in arraignment, because you have the right to UNDERSTAND the NATURE and CAUSE of the charges against you. You have the right to demand the DA explains these things by answering the demand.
You people can all keep going to jail for pot if you want, but as for us,, WE ARE FREE!!!
If you want the info go to google and search for brothers for mercy.

i hope I am allowed to say do a google search...







While you ask to be taken seriously by the courts, and for people in REAL legal trouble to place their future in your hands, the front page of your website is rather flippant and ridiculously worded... 'HOMIE'.

This is not a game. When the outcome is the possibility of incarceration, it's irresponsible to recommend that the accused put faith in your so-called 'religion' to free them.

I've also already given you one warning about spamming your service. You can heed it, or not, as you wish.

[boaz]

Federal courts have respected the rights of Rastafarian's to possess (not to distribute, but to possess) marijuana in addition to the Native American cases. The problem is that State Courts do not have to respect the Federal decisions, according to the Supreme Court. ...

that is interesting, i did not know that. kinda makes sense, i guess, that the fed courts would be more open to what i'm guessing, was a first ammendment right arguement, than the state courts may be.

i have no personal opinion about right or wrong to use this defense, but i think its interesting to see how the courts rule.

[stinkyattic]

Yes, thank you. Google is better.
All I have asked is that you contact the site admin here if you intend to continue linking to an off-site vendor or service.
Please keep personal messages PERSONAL. That discussion is not meant to spill over onto the boards. Basic forum etiquette.

[CultureCherryPopper]

While I haven't yet gotten into the site docs and what not, I did watch the 7 part video series 'Run from the Cure'. Good stuff indeed. It's interesting that Canadians still fight the same battles that we in the US are. More should know this story. This man, from what I could discern, receives no renumeration for his oil, or at least does not profit from his works, but rather, only acts out of a concious choice to do what's right, and is still punished. (Sorry 'bout the quasi run-on.) Ya gotta ask yourself, when will it end, and how? The how is really the biggest question. I've written papers on why cannabis was prohibited in the first place, and still I struggle to understand why it continues to be.

[Iyaman]

Ill-founded? Religion has been a founding legal principle in this country since the very beginning. The 1st amendment establishes the right for people to freely practice their own religion. Atheism is even a protected belief system. The government is not allowed to deny atheists the right to vote, etc. just because of their religious belief that there is definitely no God.

What department of a college would you take a course on atheism in? What section of a bookstore would you find a book about it in? That's right... the "religion" section. To say there is no God is to make a religious statement... a statement about religions.

I'm not trying to convert anyone and I'm not trying to get the government to promote my religion over atheism or any other belief system. I'm asking that my own religious beliefs and personal rights be respected, and that everyone's religious beliefs (even the belief that there is no God) be respected. That is all. People should be able to practice what they believe, in a personal way. You should have the right to sit in your home and talk about how there is no God. I should have the right to sit in my own home and smoke weed if that is how I commune with and think about God.

- The right to vote shouldn't have anything to do with religion. People are supposed to be treated equally no matter how different they are in any way.

- There is theism and atheism. religion has to do with theism, which is a totaly different thing to atheism. Atheism isn't a belief system. I don't believe, I know.

- Where else would they put atheism anyway. It has to do with contrasting religion, so thats the closest thing it's assosiated with.

- Sorry if i disrespected you

[bigfatpothead]

For the life of me I can't figger out how to send personal mesages on here...

Pot is still illegal because,

You get 1800 gallons of fuel from an acre of pot.
Everything you can make from oil can be made from pot
30% of all medicines would be replaced with pot.
1 acre of pot makes more and better paper than trees
I could just repost the contents of the Emperor.
read it for free at jackherer.com





While I haven't yet gotten into the site docs and what not, I did watch the 7 part video series 'Run from the Cure'. Good stuff indeed. It's interesting that Canadians still fight the same battles that we in the US are. More should know this story. This man, from what I could discern, receives no renumeration for his oil, or at least does not profit from his works, but rather, only acts out of a concious choice to do what's right, and is still punished. (Sorry 'bout the quasi run-on.) Ya gotta ask yourself, when will it end, and how? The how is really the biggest question. I've written papers on why cannabis was prohibited in the first place, and still I struggle to understand why it continues to be.

[jsn9333]

- The right to vote shouldn't have anything to do with religion. People are supposed to be treated equally no matter how different they are in any way.

- There is theism and atheism. religion has to do with theism, which is a totaly different thing to atheism. Atheism isn't a belief system. I don't believe, I know.

- Where else would they put atheism anyway. It has to do with contrasting religion, so thats the closest thing it's assosiated with.

- Sorry if i disrespected you

No problem, and sorry if I disrespected you as well.

It is sad that a Federal Court could let someone off for cannabis possession because he is Rasta, but would not do the same for an atheist. I'll give you that. But given that sad reality, if religious freedom is something that has been respected in Courts I would be happy to use what I believe for my benefit (namely that the ancient Hebrews and even Christ himself used and/or approved of the use of cannabis in spiritual ways). I would not see that as an abuse of religion. If the Court wants to give me a pass on some unjust laws because of my faith... I'll let them give me the pass. I don't think it is right that an atheist could not get the same pass, but I would still take the pass if they wanted to give it to me.

Plus, if many Courts were persuaded to allow personal use or possession for religious purposes on a large scale (like State Courts as well as Federal Courts) then eventually the public and the system would start to see that cannabis users are not harmful. It could be the start to total decriminalization, since Courts haven't just outright allowed it. Also, once religious exceptions were the rule of law an atheist like yourself could then argue that the law is discriminating against him because of his spiritual beliefs (or the lack thereof depending on how you define atheism). It could work...

You say you "know", and you don't just "believe." Yeah, I mean no disrespect to you and all, but a theist could say he "knows" too. We could argue all day about whether or not there is a God and how sure we each are. There is no point really. You have your experiences, I have mine. We both believe what we believe. Neither of us actually knows for sure 100%. You might be 99.9999999999999% sure there is no God... but there is only one way to know with absolute 100% certainty what happens after you die.

[stinkyattic]

For the life of me I can't figger out how to send personal mesages on here...

Pot is still illegal because,

You get 1800 gallons of fuel from an acre of pot.
Everything you can make from oil can be made from pot
30% of all medicines would be replaced with pot.
1 acre of pot makes more and better paper than trees


We don't have a PM function here actually.
It's true about the oil/timber/medicine lobby, and can I also add that the alcohol and tobacco industries would stand to lose significant profits were cannabis to be decriminalized due to the sheer simplicity of producing one's own recreational substances? And of course the government can't tax something that isn't sold- so all the tax revenue from those industries would be severely impacted!

[jsn9333]

Since I am a law student, I have free access to extremely large and expensive legal databases. Please give me the citation for one case in which you just challenged venue/jurisdiction and ended up getting out of the charge completely, or asked for the nature of the cause of action to be explained, or whatever you're talking about. I'd like to see even one case where this worked for you. Please post the citation (either Lexis Nexus or Westlaw).

Let me guess... there is some conspiracy where the Courts don't report your cases because they don't want your secret to get out!

I'm not a lawyer (yet), but I am in law school and I know for a fact that it is the Court that gets to decide if it has jurisdiction over you, and what the proper venue is. The court decides that, not you, and the rules are very straightforward. They both basically depend on what state or district the crime occurred in and where the defendant was when it happened. If you were in the right State and/or District when you were caught possessing or whatever crime it may be, then the Court has jurisdiction and proper venue. If venue or jurisdiction is not proper, the Court transfers your case to the right district, state, or venue. Period.


If any of you guys actually read my website (that i can't post or I get banned) how free is that?

Our defense is not just a religious defense, it works for everyone.
What we are doing is challenging the VENUE and JURISDICTION of the court. Our program follows the rules of the court to the T.
and the way it works is by means of a PRE-PLEA demand served on the DA. This demand must be answered before I enter a plea, that is a protected right in all constitutions, (read your constitution).
You are not required to enter a plea in arraignment, because you have the right to UNDERSTAND the NATURE and CAUSE of the charges against you. You have the right to demand the DA explains these things by answering the demand.
You people can all keep going to jail for pot if you want, but as for us,, WE ARE FREE!!!
If you want the info go to google and search for brothers for mercy.

i hope I am allowed to say do a google search...

[boaz]

It's true about the oil/timber/medicine lobby, and can I also add that the alcohol and tobacco industries would stand to lose significant profits were cannabis to be decriminalized due to the sheer simplicity of producing one's own recreational substances? And of course the government can't tax something that isn't sold- so all the tax revenue from those industries would be severely impacted!

good point, i might also add prisons, too, as a for profit high growth industry with a vested interest in cannabis prohibition. :(

[jsn9333]

good point, i might also add prisons, too, as a for profit high growth industry with a vested interest in cannabis prohibition. :(

I agree with the notion that oil, timber, medicine lobbies benefit from cannabis being illegal. But how do prisons earn a profit from cannabis being illegal? Certainly prisons grow because of cannabis laws being enforced, but prison growth does not make the government more money, rather it takes away money from the government because it has to feed and house all those people.

Maybe they get profit because they get get free workers to make license plates... but that's about all I can think of.

[boaz]

^ yes it takes away money from the gov't but makes money for the owners of the prison, in a private "for profit" prison. i'm not saying this is the ONY reason, or even a big one really, i mean how many people are really locked up for weed in comparison to all other crimes, but i'm just saying it is one more factor. (one more cow) :rastasmoke:

[boaz]

^ i didn't mean to sound rude if i did (there was really no need for me to shout in CAPS) :stoned: i prolly wasn't clear i was talking about the private for profit industry, or as i am trying to coin, The Prison Profiteers but i can't get the media to bite . . . yet. :jointsmile: peace out bros and sista's i am on the road again as Willy says. :smokin: see you on the other side.

[jsn9333]

^ i didn't mean to sound rude if i did (there was really no need for me to shout in CAPS) :stoned: i prolly wasn't clear i was talking about the private for profit industry, or as i am trying to coin, The Prison Profiteers but i can't get the media to bite . . . yet. :jointsmile: peace out bros and sista's i am on the road again as Willy says. :smokin: see you on the other side.

No problem, I didn't take offense... though from what I hear it is a good idea to avoid caps if possible. Anyway, yeah, I found your post insightful. I, for one, did not know there even existed private prisons for profit. Very interested.

While perhaps the number of people in jail for weed is low, I'm sure it is not so small as to count for nothing. Every dollar counts in a corporation is trying to make a profit or impress stockholders. Also, drug offense in general (weed plus other drugs) make up a huge percentage of the profit these guys would be making. I'm all about not just legalizing weed, but legalizing harder drugs too... not because I want to use those drugs, but because I think we as a society should help addicts, not put them in jail.

[boaz]

^ Thank you, I guess I first heard about the private prison industry while reading about how Hillary Clinton is a large shareholder in some large prison company. I can't remember the name off hand. I don't know if that was just internets:D rumor or not but I guess it would all be on the SEC filing site. I might have to do a quick search tommorow at work. :smokin:

Best of luck with Law School. I keep promising myself I will get my JD someday, too.

[jsn9333]

Best of luck with Law School. I keep promising myself I will get my JD someday, too.

Thanks. And yeah, do the J.D. thing. I love it, it is a very interesting program. Just lay down a few thousand for the Kaplan LSAT preparation course nearest you. Work your ass off on it for a few months... then you should be able to get a high enough LSAT score to get into a good school.