Ah, but it could be very interesting, seeing as it is already permissible for members of a different church to legally ingest peyote, and it is permissible for some other church to import some chemical from South America that they use in their religious ceremonies. Why them, and why those products, but not these people and cannabis?

If they fight this all the way, then either the courts will have to reverse the outcomes they've already ruled on, or they will have to allow these people to go free on the same basis as they allow the other religions to use THEIR drugs of choice.

I believe this will be quite interesting, because of the conundrum the courts have created for themselves with their previous rulings.

I don't think the analogy you used is applicable, as these people smoking pot harms no one, whereas bank robberies do. I believe the gist of their argument is likely to be: "You allow these other religions to use peyote and whatever that South American drug is, but you disallow us access to our own god? Isn't that discrimination? Why do you treat our religion differently than others? Should we not all be treated the same?"