Legality based on religion--lawyers please weigh in...

[LiverpoolFanatic]

I am not taking the piss here. I'm completely serious.There is a law in place which I feel is unconstitutional because it makes exercising my religious freedom illegal. This law is also being used against me in another way---not jailtime, that I may go into later if this thread generates enough discussion.

I view the Bible as A sacred text (not the only one, I'm a UU.) In it there are several verses, which pertain to the issue at hand.

Genesis 1:11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen. 1:29 (speaking to Man) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/ King James Version

There is a verse in Psalms along similar lines. In the New Testament
1 Timothy 4:1-5 directly relates to verse 29 noted above. I'll not provide the text--feel free to look it up if you like--but you get the idea.

All verses from an established religious text pertaining to a plant--or all plants if you like. The illegal plant is marijuana and it's male counterpart hemp. I'm a firm believer that both are gifts from the Universe/G-d if yu prefer. As evidence--look at all the uses of hemp, and the religious implications of an herb that makes one contemplative, jovial, and hungry...


from the Bil of Rights obviously:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


So is marijuana prohibition actually illegal then based on the above evidence? It seems blatantly obvious to me, but I am not a lawyer. I do have a vested interest in an honest appraisal.

[LiverpoolFanatic]

I'm no lawyer, but unless you're Indian and a practicing a cultural religion, you don't have a leg to stand on, pothead.


What part of the Bible is a religious text do you not understand?

Why do Native Americans get to practice their religions and not me?

[Barbara]

What part of the Bible is a religious text do you not understand?

Why do Native Americans get to practice their religions and not me?


What Christian denominations include marijuana as part of their liturgy? That's what I thought. None of them.

I'm all for legalizing pot but that's one of the weakest justifications I've ever seen.

[YankHibee]

Legal arguments exist, but the battle would have to be fought politically more than legally. Here is a summary of a law review article commenting on a Kansas case where Rastas attempted to use a similar religion argument to the one used by the Indian tribes that succeeded in protecting peyote use.

The free exercise argument was rendered moot because the United States Supreme Court overturned the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which would have required the application of a strict scrutiny standard of review to the court's denial of Appellants' religion-based defense to the drug charges. The establishment and equal protection arguments were denied because the court held that Rastafarians and members of the Native American Church (NAC) were not similarly situated based on three considerations: 1) peyote is used in limited quantities and during specific ceremonies by members of the NAC, whereas Rastafarians' use of marijuana is unlimited; 2) abuse of peyote is far less common than abuse of marijuana; and 3) most importantly, Kansas and federal exemptions for NAC members' use of peyote have been passed and upheld because of the federal trust responsibility, whereunder the political and cultural integrity of Native Americans and Native American tribes are protected. ... To determine whether the government has violated the Equal Protection Clause, either a (1) rational basis test, (2) strict scrutiny test, or (3) intermediate scrutiny standard of review are to be used. ... The McBride court also holds that although Native American Church members are allowed by law to use peyote in religious ceremonies, Rastafarian practitioners cannot make an establishment or equal protection argument as a defense against charges of cultivation of marijuana and failure to affix a drug tax stamp because the two groups are not similarly situated. 38 Washburn L.J. 307

Nonetheless, defendants occasionally try religious freedom defenses, but, to my knowledge, they have failed. Examples: 92 N.M. 622 (A defendant's personal belief as to the use and distribution of marijuana was not a religious belief and did not constitute a free exercise of religion defense to his conviction for possession and distribution of marijuana.); 50 Cal. App. 3d 61 (Defendant's offer of proof that marijuana use was part of a religious practice was properly rejected because he failed to submit evidence that marijuana use was indispensable to the pursuit of his religious faith.); 175 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (Prohibiting prisoner on supervised release from smoking Marijuana was substantial burden on prisoner's practice of religion. However, state's compelling interest in enforcing drug laws justified burden placed on prisoner's religious practice.)

[chaski]

So is marijuana prohibition actually illegal then based on the above evidence? No.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit governments from burdening religious practices through generally applicable laws. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990). But cf. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, No. 04-1084 (Sup. Ct. Feb 21, 2006) (applying Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993).

[LiverpoolFanatic]

What Christian denominations include marijuana as part of their liturgy? That's what I thought. None of them.

I'm all for legalizing pot but that's one of the weakest justifications I've ever seen.

the verses are from the Christian Bible. How does that make the argument weak?


http://christiansforcannabis.com/e107/news.php

[Caesar]

No.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit governments from burdening religious practices through generally applicable laws. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990). But cf. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, No. 04-1084 (Sup. Ct. Feb 21, 2006) (applying Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993).
http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/mcmahon/48/smackdown.jpg

[Barbara]

the verses are from the Christian Bible. How does that make the argument weak?


http://christiansforcannabis.com/e107/news.php


Because there is no tradition - none at all - of marijuana being part of the practice of Christianity. Therefore, your argument is weak.

[chaski]

Because there is no tradition - none at all - of marijuana being part of the practice of Christianity. What about the parable of the stems and the seeds?

[LiverpoolFanatic]

Because there is no tradition - none at all - of marijuana being part of the practice of Christianity. Therefore, your argument is weak.


Barbara--you may or may not have a valid point. I am not a Christian historian. I grew up a Christian and was married to a minister for over 12 years, so I do have some basis of Biblical knowledge.

So if the Christain Bible says in 1 Timothy 4:5 "Everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer," then it is obvious to me that it SHOULD be included. Now whether or not American Christians chose to believe this is not up to me. I believe the Constitution is protecting individual freedoms, not the freedoms of denominations.

Like I said, this is a personal belief. A strict reading of the first amendment guarentees my right to practice it.

[nicephoras]

Barbara--you may or may not have a valid point. I am not a Christian historian. I grew up a Christian and was married to a minister for over 12 years, so I do have some basis of Biblical knowledge.

So if the Christain Bible says in 1 Timothy 4:5 "Everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer," then it is obvious to me that it SHOULD be included. Now whether or not American Christians chose to believe this is not up to me. I believe the Constitution is protecting individual freedoms, not the freedoms of denominations.

Like I said, this is a personal belief. A strict reading of the first amendment guarentees my right to practice it.

There are naturally occuring poisons. Should we let you keep highly poisonous snakes unsupervised in your condo? They are God's creatures, aren't they? Good, etc. etc.? What's to stop me from forming a religion that worships napalm tipped grenade launchers?
Chaski answered your question from a legal perspective. The rest of your posts are:
1) Evidence of why laymen shouldn't try to practice law; and
2) Your attempt to somehow legalize pot.

Sorry.

[chaski]

A strict reading of the first amendment guarentees my right to practice it.Your "strict" reading of the First Amendment would guarantee everyone the right to do whatever they want, wherever they want.

[chaski]

There are naturally occuring poisons. Should we let you keep highly poisonous snakes unsupervised in your condo? They are God's creatures, aren't they? "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." Mark 16:18

[Chicago1871]

Does marijuana grow in the Middle East?

[nicephoras]

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." Mark 16:18

A new Christian sect based on poisonous snake worship? I like it!


Mostly because it'd be the shortest lived cult ever.

[YankHibee]

A new Christian sect based on poisonous snake worship? I like it!


Mostly because it'd be the shortest lived cult ever.


There is a special breed of redneck snakehandling pentecostals I can show you if you are ever in my neck of the woods.

[nicephoras]

There is a special breed of redneck snakehandling pentecostals I can show you if you are ever in my neck of the woods.

Handling snakes while drunk is not a cult, its a weekend at Florida State.

[nicephoras]

I'm almost tempted to ask if that's from the Onion or real. The sad (and funny) thing is that I'm not completely sure.

[yossarian]

I'm almost tempted to ask if that's from the Onion or real. The sad (and funny) thing is that I'm not completely sure.

It's all too real, I'm afraid.

[YankHibee]

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. —Mark 16:17-18

For serpent-handling churches, these verses hold no symbolism—they are the literal words of the Lord that have inspired worshiping believers to handle poisonous snakes for a hundred years. Serpent handling is always controversial and in many areas illegal, yet it shows no signs of disappearing from its traditional home in Appalachia, the mountainous regions of the Southeastern United States stretching from Georgia to Pennsylvania.

Junior G. McCormick is a serpent-handling pastor from Georgia. He explains that, for him, handling snakes is simply following the gospel to the letter. "Other folks don't do this because their churches don't believe, or it's just something they're scared of," he said. "They come to that scripture but want to jump over that part because it's a deadly thing."

(Practitioners, or self-described sign-followers, prefer the term serpent-handling to snake-handling noting that they incorporate poisonous reptiles not common snakes into religious worship.)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html