<div>Joe wrote:</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> Few people<br>think that freedom of religion alone allows them to<br>formulate Rastafarian churches so that they can pass
<br>out joints to their friends. (Apologies to any<br>Rastafarians in the audience.)</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg25.htm">http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg25.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm">http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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 <u>possess or smoke
</u> marijuana as part of their religious practices, it does <u>not </u>protect the <u>importation</u> 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
<u>importation</u> of marijuana. </font></div>
<div><font size="2">-------</font></div>
<div><font size="2">And note this interesting policy from Hawaii regarding how police address claims of cannabis use for religious purposes:</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"><a href="http://www.thc-ministry.org/hawaiipolicerulesreligioususes.html#IX">http://www.thc-ministry.org/hawaiipolicerulesreligioususes.html#IX</a></font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"><strong>INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING THE MEDICAL<br>AND RELIGIOUS USE OF MARIJUANA<br>PAGE 6<br>C. The police shall not decide whether the suspect's claimed religion is a </strong><a href="http://www.thc-ministry.org/ReligionOfJesusChurchBonaFide.html">
<strong>recognized<br>religion</strong></a><strong> within the meaning of the First Amendment and not just a belief, as this is a<br></strong><a href="http://www.thc-ministry.org/Court_stipulation.jpg"><strong>legal question reserved for the courts.
</strong></a><br><strong>D. The police shall not decide whether the suspect has satisified the legal requirements<br>espoused in </strong><a href="http://www.thc-ministry.org/BLAKE"><strong>State v. Blake, 5 Haw. App. 411
</strong></a><strong>, 695 P.2d 336 (1985), since these are<br></strong><a href="http://www.thc-ministry.org/Court_stipulation.jpg"><strong>legal questions with respect to the determination of fact and burden of proof,<br>
specifically reserved for the courts.</strong></a><br>---------</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">It seems every day I discover the world is not what I thought it was...</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">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.
</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Ted Moffett</font></div>
<div> </div><br> </div>