anotherchance
New Member
what about starting a religion for cannabis. defend it as a sacrament. use all of the legal maneuvering possible. never use lawyers. take a stand.
church of cannabis
- Thread starter anotherchance
- Start date
anotherchance
New Member
ya but who wants to start a new one? - we could all move to india as well where you can have a fiefdom up to 50,000 people and call our own shots
dan-o-tronic
Active Member
ahah can i see this being really fun. espicially when we have to all take the holy sacrament of weed during the "church" service and the church choir can be like a reggae band or something.
anotherchance
New Member
ya mun you are getting in the spirit, hallelujah
Lord Bluntmasta
Well-Known Member
I'll smoke the weed
don't worry I'm pretty good at it
don't worry I'm pretty good at it
"SICC"
Well-Known Member
jsn9333
Well-Known Member
I'm a Christian who feels cannabis is an important part of my religion, honestly, and I've looked into this pretty deeply.
A guy tried this not too many years ago in my state, North Carolina, (see the case State v. Carignan 178 N.C.App. 562, 631 S.E.2d 892 (Table) N.C.App.,2006. Jul 18, 2006). He was a member of the Hawaii cannabis ministry (http://www.thc-ministry.org). The Courts didn't buy it. My guess is that most or all state courts would respond the same way.
Federal law is a different question, though, and is more friendly to religious cannabis use. Congress passed the RFRA (Religious Freedoms Restoration Act) which Federal Courts have used to allow illegal drug use for religious purposes. See the case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal for an example. Generally it has to be a longstanding religion to get protection, though, such as Native American rites or Rastafarianism.
But even if the Feds respect your freedom, States don't have to. In the case City of Boerne v. Flores 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), the Supreme Court says that States do not have to follow the RFRA (Religious Freedoms Restoration Act). Essentially, States get to choose what "freedom of religion" means for themselves, and they don't have to include illegal drug use in that definition. I know it seems crazy, because you would think the Constitution gives all citzens the same freedom of religion. But a lot of what this country does is crazy, of course. And that is just how the Supreme Court has chosen to deal with this States rights versus Federal rights issue.
In the North Carolina criminal case I referred to above, the state supreme court decided that North Carolina was under no obligation to follow Federal precedent under the RFRA. They held the NC constitution allowed the police to enforce all drug laws regardless of religion. And the Federal Supreme Court backs them up on that issue.
So essentially... this issue has been decided. Give it a try if you want, as each state is different and some probably haven't approached this issue yet. I personally think the only way the laws will change is by electing drug law reform-friendly people to congress and other offices. The Courts have their head up their ass on this issue.
Or just move to Alaska, since their Supreme Court has allowed possession in private residences... but damn it gets freakin' cold up there... and you might get eaten by a bear.
A guy tried this not too many years ago in my state, North Carolina, (see the case State v. Carignan 178 N.C.App. 562, 631 S.E.2d 892 (Table) N.C.App.,2006. Jul 18, 2006). He was a member of the Hawaii cannabis ministry (http://www.thc-ministry.org). The Courts didn't buy it. My guess is that most or all state courts would respond the same way.
Federal law is a different question, though, and is more friendly to religious cannabis use. Congress passed the RFRA (Religious Freedoms Restoration Act) which Federal Courts have used to allow illegal drug use for religious purposes. See the case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal for an example. Generally it has to be a longstanding religion to get protection, though, such as Native American rites or Rastafarianism.
But even if the Feds respect your freedom, States don't have to. In the case City of Boerne v. Flores 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), the Supreme Court says that States do not have to follow the RFRA (Religious Freedoms Restoration Act). Essentially, States get to choose what "freedom of religion" means for themselves, and they don't have to include illegal drug use in that definition. I know it seems crazy, because you would think the Constitution gives all citzens the same freedom of religion. But a lot of what this country does is crazy, of course. And that is just how the Supreme Court has chosen to deal with this States rights versus Federal rights issue.
In the North Carolina criminal case I referred to above, the state supreme court decided that North Carolina was under no obligation to follow Federal precedent under the RFRA. They held the NC constitution allowed the police to enforce all drug laws regardless of religion. And the Federal Supreme Court backs them up on that issue.
So essentially... this issue has been decided. Give it a try if you want, as each state is different and some probably haven't approached this issue yet. I personally think the only way the laws will change is by electing drug law reform-friendly people to congress and other offices. The Courts have their head up their ass on this issue.
Or just move to Alaska, since their Supreme Court has allowed possession in private residences... but damn it gets freakin' cold up there... and you might get eaten by a bear.
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
My question has little to do with the thread, but I was thinking about this last week: Is rastafarianism a legitimate term? I thought that one of the major principals of Rastafarai is that they do not acklowledge any "ism"" or "schism"?
Mendojuana
Well-Known Member
Ever hear of Eddy Lepp???
jsn9333
Well-Known Member
You've got to be able to refer to them one way or another (no pun intended). I don't know what they would think of the term, but just to call them "believers" or "Christian" or "folks with dreads who smoke da ganja" or whatever would be way to general for anyone to know wtf you were talking about. Good question though. I have no idea what the correct term would be.
