Ariz. ruling finds no religious right on marijuana | www.azstarnet.com ®
There’s no constitutional right to use marijuana for religious purposes, according to a new Arizona court ruling.The state Court of Appeals’ ruling upholds the conviction and sentences of Danny Ray Hardesty in Yavapai County for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Hardesty’s appeal contends that he’s entitled to use marijuana under religious freedom protections of the state and federal constitutions.
The Court of Appeals acknowledges that courts have ruled that use of peyote for a bona fide religious belief is a defense to prosecution.
But the court’s ruling says marijuana use is more pervasive and that the uniform ban on possession and use is a legitimate restriction imposed by government.
Wow. So, if too many people use a particular sacrament, it can’t be holy anymore and protected under religious freedom? Whoops, tough for you, Rastafari, your God told you to use the wrong sacred plant!
If enough people began using peyote, then, that would be reason enough to enact a uniform band and rescind the rights of Native American worshippers to use it?
This insane hair splitting over “sincere” or “bona fide” religious uses of ganja miss the whole point. The meaning of “freedom of religion” in our Constitution is really a measure of Freedom of Thought – the sovereignty over your own free will, your soul, your spirit, whatever you call it. It doesn’t matter whether you believe a divine Creator made that burning bush for your sacred enlightenment or whether you believe this fantastic plant co-evolved in a symbiotic relationship with humanity or whether you believe you’ll just wake’n'bake today, reasons be damned!
The point of freedom of religion is that it is your right to believe what you wish; no one is master of your mind but you. How you alter your consciousness, whether you call it “communing with God”, “alleviating stress”, or “gettin’ high, dude!”, is your business so long as you don’t interfere with others’ rights.
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
GLOBAL CANNABIS COMMISSION http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/pdf/BF_Cannabis_Commission_Report.pdf This explaines it.
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.
My lawyer is GREAT He is taking it to the Supream Court of Arizona I will know moor on the 25Th of this month.
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.
Sorry, Tim Leary’s autobiography was called “Flashbacks: An Autobiography.”
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
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
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:
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