[Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?

[Ted Moffett]

Joe wrote:



>  Few people
> think that freedom of religion alone allows them to
> formulate Rastafarian churches so that they can pass
> out joints to their friends. (Apologies to any
> Rastafarians in the audience.)


Peyote, a far more powerful plant than cannabis in its effects, is now legal
for Native American religious use.  It had previously been illegal, even for
Native Americans, but note the information below giving 1994 as the date
this changed, passing both the US House and Senate. So religious freedom has
been used as a basis for allowing the religious use of otherwise strictly
controlled substances:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg25.htm

And with a bit of research, guess what I found?  Cannabis use for religious
purposes by Rastafarian's addressed in the U S Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit:

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm

After litigating the case for more than ten years, the Ninth Circuit ruled
on Tuesday that while the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect
some Rastafarians who *possess or smoke* marijuana as part of their
religious practices, it does *not *protect the *importation* of marijuana,
even if that marijuana was intended for religious use. According to the
Ninth Circuit, while the practice of Rastafarianism sanctions the smoking of
marijuana, nowhere does the religion sanction the *importation* of
marijuana.
-------
And note this interesting policy from Hawaii regarding how police address
claims of cannabis use for religious purposes:

http://www.thc-ministry.org/hawaiipolicerulesreligioususes.html#IX

*INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING THE MEDICAL
AND RELIGIOUS USE OF MARIJUANA
PAGE 6
C. The police shall not decide whether the suspect's claimed religion is a *
*recognized
religion* <http://www.thc-ministry.org/ReligionOfJesusChurchBonaFide.html>*within
the meaning of the First Amendment and not just a belief, as this is
a
**legal question reserved for the
courts.*<http://www.thc-ministry.org/Court_stipulation.jpg>
*D. The police shall not decide whether the suspect has satisified the legal
requirements
espoused in **State v. Blake, 5 Haw. App.
411*<http://www.thc-ministry.org/BLAKE>
*, 695 P.2d 336 (1985), since these are
**legal questions with respect to the determination of fact and burden of
proof,
specifically reserved for the
courts.*<http://www.thc-ministry.org/Court_stipulation.jpg>
---------

It seems every day I discover the world is not what I thought it was...

Applying religious freedom consistently is a very thorny issue that will
challenge anyones ideas of how the law should control peoples lifestyles,
especially when the lifestyles in question are well outside the normative
range of a given society.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070803/648cf561/attachment.html