Plea could send Arizona ‘Marijuana Church’ founders to prison
Thursday, September 4th, 2008 at 6:03 pm | By: Radical Russ
Plea could send Ariz. ‘Marijuana Church’ founders to prison | www.azstarnet.com ®
The founders of an Arizona church that deifies marijuana have pleaded guilty to two criminal charges and are now each facing up to 20 years in prison.But Dan and Mary Quaintance, founders of the Church of Cognizance, remain confident that they will not end up behind bars. Although sentencing in federal court is set to take place within the next 75 days, the Quaintances are confident an appeal will keep them out of prison.
The couple on Aug. 18 pleaded guilty to two counts relating to their 2006 federal arrest — one count of conspiracy with intent to distribute 200 pounds or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana; and one count of possession with the intent to distribute 100 pounds or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, as well as aiding and abetting.
Dan Quaintance believes freedom of religion will prevail, and predicts the case could go as far as the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Quaintances must not have been carrying their $250 Religious Use Get-Out-of-Jail Free card.
Look, I wish Dan and Mary all the luck in the world. I really do hope their case goes to the Supreme Court, but I strongly doubt they will hear the case (they don’t have to, they can let lower rulings stand) and even if they did, I doubt they would rule in favor of cannabis religious freedom. Yes, they should, but this is politics we’re talking about. This is a court that injected itself, without precedent, into the 2000 election in Florida, to decide the presidency contrary to the Constitution’s mandate of state control of elections, and then declared that the opinion in Bush v. Gore was a one-time only decision that couldn’t be construed as precedent for any cases in the future.
Do you really think that a court that will bend the most sacrosanct laws and standards to select our highest officeholder for partisan reasons is going to rule that anybody who calls their home “church” and their stash “sacrament” can smoke, grow, and possess marijuana legally?
I believe that everyone, from most devout believer to most cynical atheist (me), has the absolute natural right to make use of any plant and to put in their bodies whatever they choose. Crafting a religious use exception doesn’t secure that right for me and millions of others; in a sense, it criminalizes non-belief.
I’ve said it before: it is insane to think that if a California cancer survivor and a Jamaican Rasta share a joint with me, you’d have a “patient”, a “believer”, and a “criminal”. It is insane to say I don’t get the right to smoke weed because I’m too healthy and don’t worship.
Topics: Arizona, Church of Cognizance, Dan Quaintance, Mary Quaintance
I agree with the above statement. Any way you look at it somebody is getting the shit end of the stick.
Anybody “should” be able to smoke marijuana with out fear of persecution no matter what they do or no not believe. Unfortunately the world isn’t fair. Why can’t we just make the world fair?!
You’re missing my point. Of course Native Americans deserve the right to use peyote… as do I. I’m not advocating for taking away anyone’s religious right to use drugs, I’m saying that advocating ONLY for a religious right to use drugs tramples on my rights.
I do not have a hard time understanding that people believe strongly in this-or-that. I’m saying that belief in a fairy tale is no stronger justification for one’s natural rights than disbelief.
Look, can you not see the absurdity? A peyote-eating Native American walks into court and says, “I believe that the Great Spirit gave us the sacred cactus so we could each find our spirit guide in the Happy Hunting Grounds,” he’s not a criminal, because he has a sincere First Amendment religious belief. But if a pot-smoking atheist walks in and says, “I believe the Earth evolved cannabis to help us handle the stress of sentience,” that dude is going to prison.
How is it that the religious belief is an excuse to get high, despite the belief being absolutely unprovable in court, while the secular belief is rejected as an excuse to get high, despite the belief being provable in court?
I believe in the appropriateness of human cannabis use as strongly or more strongly than any religious believer, but because I don’t telepathically commune with an Invisible Sky Wizard, my beliefs don’t count?
Do you also feel that Native Americans should not have the right to use peyote in religion because it creates discrimination against non-believers of their faith? Use of peyote outside of religion still remains illegal for Native Americans and members of the Native American Church, could it not stand true that cannabis use IS for religion, but that not all cannabis use is. I think you have a hard time understanding that some people do believe strongly and are not just trying to use the first amendment to defend themselves against the unjust cannabis laws.
You do not need to be in any religion (atheists included) to see clearly when someone with severe muscle spasms (MS, CP) uses cannabis and is severely relieved from their pain and suffering, to the point of visible seeing the person no longer having shaking spasms, to realize that cannabis does provide a healing remedy. If you believe cannabis has any healing property, you are a believer in cannabis healing like it or not.
As cannabis healing is main in these religions (especially Rasta), to say you don’t believe in one level or another is like saying you don’t believe in Christian religion, but do believe that the sacramental wine brings those who drink it in union with Jesus. Doesn’t make much sense that way does it.
it is insane to think that if a California cancer survivor and a Jamaican Rasta share a joint with me, you’d have a “patient”, a “believer”, and a “criminal”. It is insane to say I don’t get the right to smoke weed because I’m too healthy and don’t worship.
Yeap, that really is a good one!!!!!!