Pot user loses his religion defense (Is this a 1st Amendment issue?)

[icymist]

GEORGETOWN — In what is likely a first-of-its-kind case in Colorado, a judge here convicted an Avon man of marijuana possession Tuesday, despite his claim that the charges violated his First Amendment rights because he needs cannabis for religious purposes.

Trevor Douglas, 25, told the court he uses cannabis as a religious sacrament, similar to the use of bread and wine in Catholic Holy Communion. He holds membership in two churches that espouse such beliefs and said he was trained by his parents to use marijuana in holy ceremonies.

"I believe that, as mentioned in the Bible, cannabis is the tree of life," Douglas, acting as his own witness, said at his two-hour trial. "I hold the plant very sacred to myself. Obviously it is very sacred to my church. I couldn't envision my life or my church without it."

The judge went on to say that Mr. Douglas was practicing his beliefs, not religion. So if a recognized religion holds pot as a sacred plant, then this judge would has the view that that part would not be recognized as a free practice of that religion? Read on:


Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_14643334#ixzz0i0VfeXi6

Also, in the SF Examiner an interesting constitutional question from members of Wicca, a U.S. recognized religion:

<snip>
And Wiccans consider plants like marijuana, peyote and certain mushrooms to be “teacher plants” that can aid the seeker on his or her journey to enlightenment. While using teacher plants is not a requirement of Wicca, their use is allowed, but we do not view these plants as something to take at a party to get high.

Instead, we treat these plants with the utmost respect and insist that anyone using them do so only for sacred purposes and in a safe, supervised environment. So could a Wiccan legally use marijuana as a sacrament?

The “free exercise clause” is the first part of the first sentence of the First Amendment, which makes it seem that the founding fathers placed a pretty high priority on it. The clause states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-40385-Colorado-Springs-Paganism-Examiner~y2010m3d11-Can-Pagans-use-marijuana-legally?cid=channel-rss-Religion_and_Spirituality

[Therellas]

1. of course not...

if god had wanted us to get high ....
he would have created plants that become psychoactive after they have been injested duh.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. This argument holds up for some Native Americans

who use peyote in their ceremonies. I don't know whether it matters that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty over their lands; I'm far from an expert in such matters.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Nope.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

(States are permitted to exempt sacramental use - but not required to.)

[elocs]

3. I don't know. If somebody claimed their religion called for the sacrifice

of puppies and kittens, would that be a First Amendment issue? Would the free exercise of their religion be prohibited?

[Therellas]

5. only if i found puppies and kittens growing in my garden.

which would be awesome.

[icymist]

6. Don't you guys think it's a bit of a stretch to go from honoring a plant to sacrifice?

Lets try and keep this in perspective, honoring or smoking pot in religion does not equal making a live sacrifice.

[Therellas]

8. whoa is that what they meant?

no way
people use it to FEEL closer to "god".
if god want sacrifices factory farms have a line of credit.

[icymist]

10. I'm not sure of what you just said.

"if god want sacrifices factory farms have a line of credit."
What does that mean?

[warm regards]

4. While I believe marijuana should be decriminalized, there is no 1st

Amendment basis for doing so. After all, some religions practice sacrifice.

[Therellas]

7. I'm curious what you mean?

what are you saying?
no flame intended

[warm regards]

9. No flame observed.

What I was trying to say is that the legal status of marijuana should be very similar that of alcohol. I believe that adults have the inalienable right to consume whatever drugs they choose to consume.

I just don’t believe that there is a religious basis for doing so. And in my view, citing religion weakens the argument for decriminalization. For that argument relinquishes the higher ground of inalienable rights.

[icymist]

11. Why should not the use of a plant to change consciousness be prohibited?

Buddhists use meditation and chanting for this. Repeated prayers can also change consciousness as well as just walking into a large cathedral. Why ban pot from this use in a religious setting? I don't see how that weakens the argument for decriminalization altogether.

[warm regards]

14. I don't believe that it should be prohibited.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

12. Genesis 1-29 God also said; "See I give you every seed-bearing plant

all over the earth and every tree that has seed bearing fruit on it to be your food; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[icymist]

13. Yes! That's the part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

eom

[Ms. Toad]

15. First of its kind? Try about 20 years too late for that.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

"It is a permissible reading of the ...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

Edited to add the Smith case involved Native American sacramental use of peyote.

[icymist]

17. First of its kind in Colorado.

"constitutional tradition" also says that corporations are people and the current SCOTUS has ruled that money is free speech. These don't lead towards anarchy? I believe that these are much mo9re damaging to America and the American way of life than someone smoking some pot in a religious ceremony.

[Ms. Toad]

18. First amendment is a federal matter -

so the Colorado courts are bound by the Supreme Court, which ruled on the matter 20 years ago.