Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/stashadm/public_html/wp-content/plugins/hybrid-hook/hybrid-hook.php on line 121
Arizona ruling finds no religious right on marijuana | The NORML Stash Blog

I am the producer of The NORML Network, the host of the NORML SHOW LIVE and The NORML Stash Blog, and NORML's Outreach Coordinator. I'm married, live in Portland, Oregon, and I am a registered medical marijuana caregiver in this state. I've worked days as an IT geek and nights as a professional musician. Previously, I have been the host of my own political talk radio show on satellite radio. I've been the High Times "Freedom Fighter of the Month" and I travel across the country to educate people on marijuana reform. I've dedicated my life to bringing an end to adult marijuana prohibition and re-legalizing cannabis hemp, and I'm honored to be chosen by NORML to give voice to the Marijuana Nation and to speak for those who can't speak up.


Warning: Illegal string offset 'echo' in /home/stashadm/public_html/wp-content/themes/hybrid/library/extensions/custom-field-series.php on line 82

8 responses to “Arizona ruling finds no religious right on marijuana”

  1. Danny

    GLOBAL CANNABIS COMMISSION http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/pdf/BF_Cannabis_Commission_Report.pdf This explaines it.

  2. g3msp4

    You guys are right. This has to be fought and won in the courts. I don’t know if you watched the PBS interview with Andrew Bacevich, but he said “Congress exists for nothing more than re-election”
    Here is the link:
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/09/the_imperial_presidency.html
    I also read that Ron Paul tried to pass a rule that if a Congressmen passed a bill he or she would have to affirm that:
    1: they read and understood it.
    2: they know where the funds are available.
    He failed.

  3. Danny Ray Hardesty

    My lawyer is GREAT He is taking it to the Supream Court of Arizona I will know moor on the 25Th of this month.

  4. Danny Ray Hardesty

    Arizona Constitution Sec 1 The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this state:

    First. Toleration of religious sentiment

    First. Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured to every inhabitant of this state, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship, or lack of the same. Article 2,Sec 2, 2. Political power; purpose of government

    Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

  5. Evil Dick

    Sorry, Tim Leary’s autobiography was called “Flashbacks: An Autobiography.”

  6. Evil Dick

    g3msp4,

    Thank you for your post. An old NACer…I’d love to hear more stories.

    I will have to look into the Boo-Hoo Bible. I don’t really know much about Kleps, or the NAC. High Times had an article about Art Kleps, it might have been an interview, years ago. I don’t remember much from that, except that, I think it said that the church had adopted the song “Row, Row Your Boat” as sort of a theme song. At the time, this caused me to wonder if they were serious about the religious aspect. But now, though it seems light-hearted, it seems to make more sense. “…life is but a dream…” That seems consistent with the Hindu concept of Maya – the grand illusion. It also seems consistent with current science.

    Congress is a show for the prols. It is there to make you think that the people are still the government of the United States. Though they have no authority to prohibit your free exercise of religion (see above), Congress is not the correct forum for the argument. Congress is the beast that must be tamed. The argument must be won in the Supreme Court. Congress never had any authority to prohibit the responsible use of psychoactive substances for religious purposes. The general prohibition laws cannot be applied to religious use, because that is a violation of the first amendment.

    I read, in Tim Leary’s autobiography, “Flashback,” that Tim had testified in Congress, also. Perhaps these were the same hearings attended by the NAC. According to Tim’s book, in those hearings, he actually gave Congress the real solution to the “drug problem.” He suggested the establishment of psychedelic education centers around the country, where citizens can go to learn how to use these substances responsibly and safely, where medical and psychological help is available, if necessary. That is a real and effective market based solution to the “drug problem.” The government does not want this, though. They want control, not growth. The government has no legitimate interest in prohibiting responsible use for any purpose – religion, recreation, education, exploration, incense, or whatever. The prohibition laws were brought in through a campaign of propaganda lies. This is the work of the legislature. Our freedom will never be won back from the legislature. Only the Supreme Court has the power to force the legislature to comply with the constitution. (And, maybe, individual citizens acting as jurors in trials.)

    -ED

  7. g3msp4

    There is a wealth of documentation on this matter in “The Boo-Hoo Bible” of the Neo-American Church, which you can still purchase on Amazon..
    They tried this in the 60s and Chief Boo Hoo Arthur Kleps even testified ( TESTIFY!!!! ) in the Senate but the Government pulled the same BS. Then their argument was “Your religion does not have historical longevity, so go away!!”.
    Never mind that neither does the Native American Church, in it’s current form.
    from an old NACer

  8. Evil Dick

    I don’t think the Supreme Court of the United States has ever heard a strong case based on the free exercise clause of the first amendment. If anyone know of such a case, please post a link. There seems to be a lot of bad feelings about the Smith decision, and rightfully so. The constitution is not at all ambiguous about the matter:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…


    Dang, those are the first words of the bill of rights. Don’t you worry, though, if you do not use for religious purposes. Have another look at the ninth amendment. Just because a right is not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, that does not mean that you do not have that right. Many rights are so fundamental that it would be absurd to enumerate them. Examples of such rights would certainly include the right of any person to defend himself, or herself; and the right to explore one’s own consciousness.

    If this person is a serious religious user, I hope he can get some quality legal talent to help him appeal the case to a higher court. Where are the lawyers with courage and a commitment to justice? This issue must be won in court. The legislature will never acknowledge your rights by surrendering the power it has taken illegitimately.

    -ED

Leave a Reply

:-) :-| :-( :-D :-o 8-) :-x :-P more »