Colorado Man Uses Religious Defense

[bobdobalina420]

AVON, Colo. - A Colorado man says marijuana is the main sacrament of his religion and a drug charge against him violates his First Amendment rights.

Trevor Douglas of Avon says he belongs to the Hawaii-based THC Ministry but was cited with marijuana possession after a Colorado state trooper pulled him over for having an expired license plate. The 25-year-old allegedly had less than an ounce of marijuana and a pipe.

Douglas told the Vail Daily newspaper that his religion is similar to Christianity and that the use of pot is sacred to him, just like wine and bread are sacred to Christians.
"The court is basically trying me for my religious beliefs," he told the newspaper.

According to its Web site, THC Ministry has offices in Los Angeles; Bozeman, Mont.; and Boulder, Colo.

"We use Cannabis religiously and you can, too," the site says. "Cultivation and enjoyment of Cannabis sacrament is a fundamental human right provided by God and protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

THC Ministry says it provides "defense to prosecution" to its members who are "sincere practitioners." According to its Web site, a successful religious defense depends on five things, including sincerity; that marijuana be used in private, like in a church or home; and that the drug, or "sacrament," not be sold.
Douglas is due in court March 9.

He maintains he is not a drug abuser.

"If it's part of your religion, you should get security from this prosecution of possession," he said.
___
On the Web:
THC Ministry: http://www.thc-ministry.org

http://www.startribune.com/nation/82856827.html

 

[theJointedOne]

Rastafari!

 

[mrred]

someone create a new religion and if we get enoug members the government will have to recognize us. like they did with the trekkie religion

 

[bobdobalina420]

Pretty interesting defense anyway!! I wonder how well it will work out for the guy, too bad he isn't a ICMer!!!

 

[Zendo]

This will be interesting to watch..

 

[dodo5678]

seems kinda thin, but power in numbers...

 

[fatigues]

Won't happen. As a matter of public policy, the courts cannot allow it to happen, even if they suggest they might have the power to do so. While people point out that peyote is protected - they forget that the protection is inherent in the provision of the statute itself. The Courts have not carved out a constitutional exemption for mescaline based upon "policy grounds".

Indeed, the law which first held that peyote was not protected under religious grounds is settled law. The statutory exemption in favor of peyote was enacted after Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, not before.

The separation of Church and State does not mean that a religion is free to advocate whatever sacraments it wishes to use and condone to be legal.

I do not suggest that marijuana should be criminal; but if it is, I cannot support an exception being made for spiritual or religious reasons only. That policy has few logical limits and leads to a very slippery slope indeed.

The injury done to the Rastafari movement is not an injury done to it by refusing to grant to it a religious "exception"; rather, it is an injury done to it by criminalizing a thing which ought not to be criminal in the first place.

I expect this will be an unpopular comment on ICM and I can well understand why. I'm all for legalization of pot - but I am not in favor of an exception being carved out for religious reasons only. Sorry. Moreover, I cannot imagine a court supporting such an exception for that reason alone. It would appear to have few limits and opens up almost the entire spectrum of criminal activity to such "exceptions" without any particularly strong logical reason for doing so.

 

[theJointedOne]

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

 

[fatigues]

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

Note: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a federal statute, not a recognition of a constitutional exemption in all jurisdictions.

The case under discussion is a state case, not a federal one. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has no application to state law.

Even in the case you cite, the RFRA provided no defense to marijuana importation.

 

[bombadil.360]

fatigues, check post number 5 by Rosy here

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=157176

that proves the defense is valid and all-inclusive, whether federal or state.

it is a matter of human rights.

 

[kmk420kali]

I expect this will be an unpopular comment on ICM and I can well understand why. I'm all for legalization of pot - but I am not in favor of an exception being carved out for religious reasons only. Sorry. Moreover, I cannot imagine a court supporting such an exception for that reason alone. It would appear to have few limits and opens up almost the entire spectrum of criminal acticvity to such "exceptions" without any particular strong logical reason for doing so.

I agree with you here-- I think that if they open up that can o worms...then what next.... "Human Sacrifice is part of my Religion...."
Not that I am against it altogether...but yeah, it could carry much bigger Legal implications than just Cannabis--

 

[wsmith]

you might check out Pr Ntr Kmt...
stumbled across them a couple days ago in another icmag post from a while ago.
http://www.prntrkmt.org
and their successful RFRA case for ayahuasca use, they claim this precedent gives them the protection for a religious defense...the decision if you read it through does seem to support this argument, the Judge stated that in the case of DMT religious freedom did in fact trump the CSA and shot down the gov't case on that point and a couple of others...interesting read at least
http://www.prntrkmt.org/religiousfreedom/ayahuascacase.html
it would take some balls and deep pockets to push that defense unless you have a heaven sent lawyer in love with pro bono work...i'd like to see a case using pr ntr kmt as a defense for pot smoking, anyone know one? admittedly i didn't look much beyond this article myself but if anything immediately comes to mind...

 

[wallfisher]

If marijuana can't stand up in this defense, I think it would be easier to try this; Knowing marijuana is safer and less dangerous than alcohol to the people, then intentionally ignoring that knowledge, isn't that the same as willful and/or negligent endangerment?

 

[daydreamer]

I'm a proud atheist, but this is a church worth considering

 

[snowschool]

Rastafari!

 

[xfargox]

If marijuana can't stand up in this defense, I think it would be easier to try this; Knowing marijuana is safer and less dangerous than alcohol to the people, then intentionally ignoring that knowledge, isn't that the same as willful and/or negligent endangerment?

The government would freak out at the mention of marijuana being safe in any capacity whatsoever.

That'd be a pretty cool spectacle, though.

 

[sailsinthesun]

Agree with you daydreamer. This certainly got my interest more than anything else involving "belief". Haha.