ECHO PARK, Calif. (KABC) — For the third time in a week, the Los Angeles Police Department has raided a medical marijuana facility.
Police arrested three people during the raid Thursday night at the Royal Temple of Zion in Echo Park.
Authorities say the facility has not applied for a hardship permit like all the other medical marijuana dispensaries, so selling the marijuana is illegal. About two pounds of marijuana were seized.
Oh my gosh! A whole two pounds of marijuana! Here in Oregon, that’s 2/3rds the amount of medical marijuana two registered patients may possess. Even at ridiculously-inflated black-market-dictated California dispensary prices that’s less than $10,000 worth of marijuana. I wonder how much it costs the city of Los Angeles to execute and prosecute such a raid? Wanna bet it’s more than $10,000?
Those associated with the temple say it is a Rastafarian ministry, and it has the legal right to sell marijuana to the sick.
“This is a church run medical marijuana club providing medical marijuana for sick people, but we do it as a church,” said Pastor Craig Rubin.
Pastor Rubin believes police are targeting those that have been vocal about legalizing the drug.
Pastor Rubin, as you may remember, is the man who was offering patients a free eighth ounce of marijuana if they would come testify at the LA PLUM hearings two weeks ago.
“They seem to be particularly picking out people who have applied for these hardships who speak out,” said Pastor Rubin.
Members say because this is a place of worship they have not done anything illegal.
“It’s because we believe a cannabis from Revelations 22 is a plant for the healing of all nations and that people should have access to this plant. It’s not only benign, it’s benevolent,” said Pastor Rubin.
Yes, and I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster brought forth cannabis from his noodly appendages to give to humanity so they may savor His Succulent Meatballs, so I shouldn’t be arrested for my pot smoking, either.
Sorry, I know many reading this have sincere religious beliefs and some have sincere beliefs that treat ganja as sacrament, but as an atheist I continue to be offended by the notion that because I treat all books as written works of men, not gods, I deserve to be arrested and jailed for my use of cannabis. I completely support the right of religious folks to use ganja because I completely support the inalienable right of ALL folks to use cannabis, but when religious folks think they have a special and unique right to not be arrested for cannabis because they picked the right god, they are discriminating against me for my lack of a god.
Religion is not a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. We don’t let certain religious folks get away with abusively beating their kids because some book says “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.” We don’t let certain religious folks get away with marrying ten virgin brides because some book says “And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.” We don’t let certain religious folks get away with murdering people because some book says “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”
Yes, we do have a First Amendment that prohibits Congress from enacting laws suppressing religion, but that is tempered by the compelling interest of the state in maintaining secular law. To date, that has meant that certain religions get to use Schedule I ayahuasca and peyote, but not cannabis:
(Erowid) First, it is important to understand a little about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the legal standard by which First Amendment religious cases were decided with regard to “laws of general applicability”. For laws that apply generally and are not intended to ban a particular religious practice, there are Constitutional questions about what the US Government can and can’t do. Just because someone claims that their religion requires that they drive faster than the speed limits, the generally applicable laws regarding traffic safety still apply to those members of the fanciful “100 Mile-Per-Hour Church”.
(RFRA) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it determines that application of the burden to the person
1. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
2. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
While the RFRA tests have not been applied at the Supreme Court level, they were considered in a Hawai’i case in which the state supreme court rejected the appellant’s claim that his religious use of cannabis was protected under RFRA and the First Amendment:
(Hawaii: State v. Sunderland) The government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, “cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.” Lyng[ v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439, 451 (1988)]. To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is “compelling”–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, “to become a law unto himself,” Reynolds[, 98 U.S. at 167]–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.
The closest the federal courts have come to ruling on this is the Guerrero case in the Ninth Circuit out of Guam, but the court had only to address Guerrero’s importation of marijuana, not his religious use of it:
(Cognitive Liberty) After litigating the case for more than ten years, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Tuesday that while the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect some Rastafarians who possess or smoke marijuana as part of their religious practices, it does not protect the importation of marijuana, even if that marijuana was intended for religious use. According to the Ninth Circuit, while the practice of Rastafarianism sanctions the smoking of marijuana, nowhere does the religion sanction the importation of marijuana.
Basically the government’s argument is that ayahuasca and peyote are used by so few both religiously and recreationally that letting a few First Peoples use them religiously doesn’t substantially burden the government from stopping others from using them recreationally. But cannabis use is so prevalent that the minute you let some people use it religiously, everybody who uses it recreationally will suddenly find religion and that substantially burdens the government from keeping people from using cannabis recreationally.
In other words, Rastafarians are punished for their god picking too popular of a sacrament.
Respectfully, I’d have to argue that the use of cannabis in religion or spirituality is completely subjective.
I am a religiously educated atheist but even I can admit I experience a form of spirituality when I partake. I feel more connected to family, to friends, to the earth. It’s a very peaceful experience for me and I can understand how some who may have the tendency to latch on to religious concepts can confuse the two.
Growing up I was led to believe that a relationship with g(G)od would somehow make me feel different or would somehow have a physical presence or manifestation inside me; it didn’t. It never did. Puff puff puff, however, and I can feel the power of the lord coursing through my veins, my brothers and sisters!
It’s okay to be religious, it’s okay to have faith in some higher power, I won’t poo poo on anyones right to that, I’m just saying, there’s g(G)od and then there’s pot and they are mutually exclusive.
Nice find!
Here’s an interesting read http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion . Skimming it I found this interesting sentence – “The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.” Besides, if Scientology can be classified as a religion, I don’t see why Weedology can’t be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weedology
I’m one of those “broadest sense” atheists.
Your final paragraph says everything that needs to be said on the subject of religious use.
I don’t claim to know much about atheism. I have heard some claims that equate it to religion. Wikipedia states:
As an atheist, you have a right to not worship any deity. That is how you exercise your right to freedom of religion. It is the same right that permits those whose religious beliefs include the sacramental use of cannabis to use cannabis in their religious practice. It is not a special right. We will probably continue to disagree about this.
The religious use of cannabis involves more than just the act of smoking a joint, or consuming cannabis in some other way. The distinction between religious use and non-religious use can be very subtle. In some cases, it may not be possible to distinguish between religious and non-religious use when considering only observable behavior. Religion is a very personal matter. The real distinction is the internal motivation for the use. This cannot be observed.
Nevertheless, the government should not concern itself with the citizens’ motivation for using cannabis. Smoking a joint is an act which, given the legality of drinking alcohol or eating cheeseburgers, the government has no legitimate interest to prohibit. As it is common for users of cannabis to enjoy its effects with no harmful effects external to themselves, they should be allowed the freedom to do so. The really sinister thing about the prohibition of drugs is that the government is asserting an authority to control your consciousness. No one, right-wing or left-wing, should consider this to be acceptable.
-ED
Agree with you here. To me, the First Amendment use of the word “religion” is really more a question of “freedom of thought”. You were also spot-on with the Ninth Amendment, which should render all this religious argument moot anyway; Congress has no authority to regulate flowers.
That sounds a lot like “you gay fellas have just as much a right to marry as woman as anyone else!” I have as much right to pick a religion that worships cannabis – that’s the problem!
They are, too, claiming a right I wouldn’t have – the right to smoke a joint because they have different thoughts than me. They are claiming that if me and a Rasta came upon a marijuana plant, the Rasta should be free from arrest for smoking that bud because he thinks Jah provided it to us, but I should be arrested because I think it evolved from a lower form of plant life. The notion that I should change my view of the plant from one of botanical appreciation to one of sacred worship in order to share the bud with my Rasta friend is one of discrimination against (lack of) religion.
I dislike any laws that give people special rights on account of their religion. I’ve always found it ironic that courts of law will afford special protection to some based on something (religion) that cannot be proved in a court of law.
Personally, I agree – I see no reason why government should be sanctifying any marriage unless they recognize all marriages. If sixteen consenting adults want to co-marry as a commune, I’ve got no issue with that.
Of course, polygamy as it is practiced in America is rarely between consenting non-coerced adults, that’s the problem.
Unfortunately, the courts have all sorts of tests they use to determine whether a religion is sincere enough to qualify as a religion for legal purposes. Saying “Smoking weed is my religion” just won’t cut it.
The First Amendment protects my choice not to embrace or create a religion. It deems that in affairs of state, religion is a neutral and moot point. Getting the protection to smoke my herb as an enticement to embrace or create a religion seems a bit like government sponsorship of religion.
Beware of Dogma.
It is religion, even in it’s most benign form which create much misinformation and cause downright stupidity among people.
The link below is a Sam Harris lecture from a few years ago when the book “The End of Faith” was released. Hope it’s active(?) and you enjoy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM
Religion is without a shred of evidence yet folks easily fall for it and then tolerate others with a more radical take on it. This thinking won’t help us in the long run.
belief systems and move forward using science, logic, and reason. Anyone still praying 
to Zeus? Some people did and they were serious about it too.
that it is best to leave religion OUT of our fight for legalized 
and just use the good and readily available science to turn the tide.
We as a people must grow past our primitive and
I hope I have enough grated cheese around should the Great Spaghetti Monster show up just in case.
It is MY
The religious angle can’t stand under real scrutiny.
I think Russ’s position is correct.
Religion is just so….
I am a patient and a member of the Royal Temple of Zion, and I am devastated that they were raided as such. I do not myself subscribe to their religious backing, and I feel that in no way have any of the staff ever expressed that they felt that they deserved the right to safe access to cannabis any more than any other patient, or any person for that matter. I agree that it seems that the LAPD is targeting activists and those who “speak out”, which ironically is going to only leave the shadier, less compassionate dispensaries in the area to thrive. With over 600 dispensaries in LA to choose from, of which Ive visited very many, the Temple was where I felt the most kinship with other members and staff. I hope that they can get back on their feet and will be able to continue their work towards the expansion of safe access to cannabis.
Let us not allow our differences in ideology, beliefs, and religions work to separate us from our goal. Remember that it is the anguish of those persecuted for the use of marijuana, and their friends and families who also suffer, regardless of beliefs, and the dreams of we who believe legalization right that keep us on track. Get back on track. Get back to the dream. The goal is within reach.
Russ,
As an atheist, you may not mind that the government tries to dictate the religious beliefs and behaviors of citizens. However, as an American, you should be questioning why the government ever thought it had the authority to dictate the religious beliefs and behaviors of citizens. The government has never been given such authority. The US Constitution forbids such intrusions into the personal affairs of citizens.
So, the government is going to prohibit the right of citizens to use cannabis for religious purposes because some people might use cannabis for recreational purposes? The government has no legitimate authority to do so. This is a very fundamental question of freedom in America. Do you, as a citizen, have the right to choose and follow your own religious beliefs, or must you submit to the government’s dictates about what you may believe and how you may practice your religion?
I could fertilze my garden with that kind of reasoning. If the Rastafarians practice the sacramental use of cannabis, then prohibiting the Rastafarians from importing cannabis for sacramental use would be (is) an unjust, and unreasonable interference with their religious rights. The question that needs to be answered is: “What authority does government have to prohibit the importation of cannabis for religious use?” Our constitution answers this question clearly, the government has no such authority.
-ED
Russ,
Your Radical atheism seems to be encumbering your reason. They are not claiming a right that you do not have. You have the same right as any American citizen to have religious beliefs, including a belief in the sacramental use of cannabis. It is your choice. You, apparently, have chosen a set of beliefs that does not include the sacramental use of cannabis. That does not nullify the right of others to hold sincere beliefs about the sacramental use of cannabis. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the religious use of cannabis. Congress has never had the authority to make the religious use of cannabis illegal. That would take a constitutional amendment.
Choosing atheism does seem to make it hard to argue for the religious right to use cannabis. Maybe you could try arguing that the use of cannabis is a sacred act in your atheism. There are many varieties of Christianity. I don’t see why there can be only one form of atheism. Good luck with that.
Anyway, the Ninth Amendment still protects the right of you unbelievers to use cannabis responsibly. You just have to stand up and insist that the governemnt respect that right.
-ED
ummmmm… Amen.
Also Russ about this point:
” We don’t let certain religious folks get away with marrying ten virgin brides because some book says “And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.””
In response. I think it is WRONG for the government to impose any such moral standard to commitments between two (or more) consenting ADULTS. Why should the government be able to tell people who (or how many) they can or can not marry? What reasoning justifies this type of law? I haven’t figured that out yet, and I totally disagree with polygamy for myself. I just think constitutionally this kind of liberty shouldn’t be an issue. Some how we as a ‘democracy’ (farce) let stupid things become prohibited. 51% decides the fate of the rest of the 100% of the people. It’s total bullshit.
We’re a republic and we already have a f*&%^$# constitution. (excuse my outbust)
Ok, I feel better. Typo-terretts..
There is this Aaron Russo guy, some movie producer. I found his little show “Mad As Hell” and he makes a lot of great points on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfxCPpTrAT0
Just ranting, not at anyone in particular. This is just a sensitive subject for me I guess.
I made videos on this at my http://www.UtahPirateRadio.com website.
Religion is a constitutional right, and no one can tell someone that their religion is legit or not, that is part of what the 1st Amendment is about, practicing our religion as we see fit.
I have to share two videos that I made.
#1. Is a video that I just made 2 days ago and posted it on YouTube, and its about a religious question asked of me at HempFest this year.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B757bqVClkY
#2. Is a response that I made for Barack Obama in regards to the speech that he recently made in Cairo Egypt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa8Q2I4TpZI
Freedom of Religion, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1999 are important points of those who use cannabis. Because your religion is YOUR religion, and no one should be able to tell you what YOUR religion is. Similar to how the government should have no right to tell you what to put in your body if it’s not harming anyone else.
I see the wisdom in your statements about you somehow being punished for not choosing a religion. But that is your choice to not embrace or create a religion. IMHO