vs. the Drug Enforcement Agency…
Over the religious use of Marijuana.
The Church of Reality just received a scheduling order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the final decision of the DEA denying the Church of Reality, a religion based on believing in everything that is real, its application to get a religious exemption for use of Marijuana by church members.
In 2006 the Supreme Court decided a landmark case allowing a religion to use a hallucinogenic tea for religious purposes that contain DMT, a schedule 1 drug, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A few weeks later the Church of Reality applied for a religious exemption based on a similar set of facts to the diversion control division of DEA. DEA took the application seriously and did an evaluation and finally on October 1st, 2008 denied the application. Federal law specifies that the Federal Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction over final decisions of the DEA and Church of Reality founder Marc Perkel (yep – that’s me) filed a petition for review.
The Church of Reality is the first case that the DEA processes under the new rules set out by the Supreme Court in 2006. Unlike other religious use of marijuana cases the Church of Reality is a real religion that wasn’t concocted for the purposes of getting around marijuana laws. The connection between the church of Reality and Pot is that the founder was stoned when he came up with the idea and is often stoned when writing the Church of Reality doctrine. Other than that – the Church of Reality is about reality and is dedicated to the evangelizing of the importance of making reality part of your life.
The Church of Reality is currently looking for assistance and ideas for those who are versed in first amendment law and paralegals to help do research to prepare briefs. People with such skills should contact Marc Perkel. This is also under reported news so spread the word.
bobbo said, “I want all drugs to be legal because it is a privacy right and because prohibition doesn’t work.”
I am such a hypocrite. I do NOT want all drugs legalized. But I do want to see MJ legalized.
In fact, I’d make a trade-off: legalize cannabis and criminalize religion.
Bobo,
No laws “work’ if you define “working” as totally preventing something. From double-parking to murder, people will still do it, despite the laws.
If by “work” one means, “reduce.” Then prohibition works.
#23, SL,
Your first option is completely moot as the Gonzales v. Raich decision, …
That is why I also said that California must also license, explicitly state that none of it may be exported, and claim criminal jurisdiction. That puts it squarely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate commerce for the Federal Government to get upset about as this is now a State responsibility.
In Wickard v. Filburn there was nothing to stop the Farmer from allowing his wheat to enter the commercial stream which was controlled by the Federal Government. By the State asserting control over what is grown, that would preempt any claim the Federal Government might have. The Feds can not claim commerce because there would not be any interstate commerce.
It would also not hurt to add add something explicitly referring to the Xth Amendment.
BTW, this is not MY precious Commerce Clause, it is America’s.
#27–Perkel==interesting factoid there. Strict scrutiny is pretty strict. You should win on that basis if you have a religion that was not formed for the purpose of avoiding the existing drug laws. On that basis, you lose on the name of your religion alone. Change it to “Mother Earth” and all its bountry and you’d have a better shot.
#31–Nimby==not being hypocritical at all. Big difference between MJ and other hallucinogenic/addictive drugs. I just see the “philosophy” the good/bad aspects of law vs freedom mostly the same in these drug issues.
#32–Greg==I accept your definition. Prohibition did not work because it gave birth to organized crime and pushed a vice underground where it could fester rather than be treated as a medical problem. Under that perception, whether it reduced alcohol consumption or not is irrelevant.
Most problems are solved or not depending on how you define them?
#33–Fusion==you are uncharacteristically completely mistaking SL’s valuable information. The whole point of the current stance on the ICC is that the Feds ARE USING IT to regulate completely intrastate and even person use and consumption and activities of all sorts.
States do not pre-empt the Feds unless the Feds allow it.
The Church of Reality …. vs. the Drug Enforcement Agency … Over the religious use of Marijuana. The Church of Reality just received a.
I’m hoping Marc will set a precedent for my church: Our Lady Of Plutonium.
RBG
So just finished studying “The Axioms of the Church of Reality”….
There’s nothing in there I haven’t heard from stoned teenagers on the average saturday night a thousand times before….
I agree with Fusion,
REALITY IS that it’s illegal so if you don’t like the law then don’t whine when you get caught.
# 33 Mr. Fusion said, “There is no interstate commerce for the Federal Government to get upset about as this is now a State responsibility.”
Irrelevant. FDR successfully packed the court and got them to rule on the commerce clause that its NOT about interstate commerce. Bad decision that you are, in this post, seeing the consequences of.
#30 Science is NOT a religion. The Intelligent Design people twist things. We actually don’t have a prohibition on teaching things that religion believes in science class. The issues is teaching things that aren’t science in science class. So if what a religion believes is actually real, then it’s also science.
The ID folks also lack a concept of absolute reality. To them their beliefs and my beliefs are both just beliefs. But the difference is that some things are actually real and some things are actually not real.
Mr. Fusion said:
“Marijuana is illegal to use, possess, or grow under current Federal Law. It should not be “legal” to use for any “religious” purpose just so the partakers can use it legally. Any more than some perverted group should be allowed to take multiple children for their wives under religious pretext, or sacrifice their fallen enemy by ripping out his heart on an alter.”
The difference here is that in the examples you cite others are harmed by the crime. In the case of pot, the only person harmed if they are harmed at all is the user. Thus the name “victimless crime.”
“2)Convince the Federal Government to relax its criminalization of marijuana.
Until then, if you are going to smoke pot, don’t complain if you are busted.”
Doing what you suggest in #2 requires fighting a mostly ignorant, propagandized public and a huge prison and law enforcement industry worth many tens of billions per year. So, what you’re saying is basically “If you are imprisoned for years and your life ruined by some ignorant, unjust law perpetrated by idiots and profiteers, don’t complain.”
41,
Isn’t changing the law what he’s workihng at?
Smartalex – Sort of. What hes really looking for is a loophole for his church. If the law deserves to be changed then it deserves to be changed equally for every one.
Marc – Thank you for the reply; I see the distinction.