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!

jsn9333 Reviewed by jsn9333 on 03-09-2008. Religious Use Defense Fails, Even With "ID Card" 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 Rating: 5

[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.