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.
“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.”
Classic.
Wow. This might end up in a battle to prove it is a religion. If so, having a purely secular doctrine without a spiritual aspect (if this is the case) will weigh heavily against it.
Actually – proving it is a religion is the main issue. The doctrine might be somewhat more secular than most religions since it is reality based, but it is hardly a secular religion. Secular makes reality and religion equal in that everyone has the right to believe anything. The Church of Reality requires a dedication to putting reality first.
#3 – Hmmm. What is the main non-secular, spiritual aspect of its beliefs/philosophy?
POSSIBLE JOB POSTING
On the off-chance that all this turns out badly for Marc Perkel, the Dvorak Uncensored blog will be looking for a new sysop while he serves time.
I think I’m going to win this case for 2 reasons.
1) My case agrees with the Supreme Court
2) The Ninth Circuit wants to rule in my favor. The clearly see the medical marijuana decision as dead wrong and this will give them a way to partially fix it
You just need Rush Bimbo (Limbaugh) and Bill Maher (the stoner guy) on your side… what a winning combo that would be..
#6 Your biggest problem is going to be proving that it is indeed a religion.
The SCotUS case sited isn’t relevant to where this case is at right now.
“The Government concedes that this practice is a sincere exercise of religion, but nonetheless sought to prohibit the small American branch of the sect from engaging in the practice, …”
The gov’t conceded in THAT case that it was a religion. The gov’t is challenging this point with you. You better get an atty that has a proven track record of proving something is a bona fide religion.
Otherwise, you are toast.
Thank you Marc.
This might be of help – read / download the Rand Europe Report “Cannabis Policy,Implementation and Outcomes”. It was sponsored by several European governments in 2002 – 2003.
An interesting read with some eye opening conclusions.
Good luck.
Baptisms in Bong Water, this Friday night!
Don’t miss it!
8,
Good use of the word bona fide.
Whats “real?”
Marc…
I’d study these two cases real hard.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Well keep us posted on the blog what happens either way.. on that one ‘documentary’ super high me they had a christian church that used MJ. Don’t know if they ever got any flak over it.
#13 – yes – those are the cases to study.
If they would just legalize it we wouldn’t need to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
So let me get this straight, currently you have to sincerely believe in a government sanctioned fantasy before you can smoke a joint. It that the jist of it? What a crock.
Sorry Marc, but I can not be on your side.
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.
If you want to smoke pot there are two avenues you might take.
1)Convince the California Legislature to legalize ALL pot in California. The law would have to categorically state that no pot in California may be exported or taken out of the State, the State has all jurisdiction over marijuana grown, sold, and used within the State, and that all crimes must be brought in a State Court.
If the State also insisted upon growing it under license and putting a stamp tax on it to control its movement, all the better.
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.
# 17 Mr. Fusion said, “If you want to smoke pot there are two avenues you might take.”
#1 wouldn’t do you any good if the Feds wanted to arrest you…
Love that Church of Reality website. Might even become a member – as long as cash donations aren’t a prerequisite. They seem to espouse the same basic values as I, though in philosophy we don’t coincide. As far as religions go I give it an above average rating and I’ve studied quite a few. They can count on my moral support.
Now I’m gonna go roll the ganja and get spiritual.
I read through the website. Don’t present that if you want a positive ruling that it is a religion.
I love the U.S. Freedom of Religion. well Im now a Church of Reality member, as well as the Church of the Subgenius.
Perhaps the Church of Reality can get some help from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I seem to remember that if one is a member of a certain native American tribe, they can partake in the use of another illegal substance, peyote, as long as it is being used as part of their ritual.
#17, Fusion
Your first option is completely moot as the Gonzales v. Raich decision, relying on the absurd logic of Wickard v. Filburn, concluded that Congress can regulate even non-commercial marijuana since it undercuts the regulated (banned) interstate “market” for marijuana.
“Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”
It’s just more of your precious Commerce Clause in action.
#23 – read this case:
http://udvusa.com/pdf/SupremeCourtDecision.pdf
Raich is medical marijuana. This is religious marijuana. The Constitution doesn’t give you the right not to suffer. But it does give you the right to pray about it.
[Please drop the WWW from URLs as WordPress doesn’t display it properly… plus it’s unnecessary. – ed.]
I want all drugs to be legal because it is a privacy right and because prohibition doesn’t work.
Using the backdoor of religion is a bad idea and should be rejected philosophically. Being religious or a Native should give you no extra privileges.
Period.
#24, The Raich case expands on a decision that was dealing with wheat grown for self-consumption. If the government can restrict your ability to grow your own food if it lets you avoid going to their regulated market, then it surely can stop you from smoking pot, under similar pretense, for reasons less vital than not starving to death.
“The Constitution doesn’t give you the right not to suffer. But it does give you the right to pray about it.”
I don’t need to have an explicitly protected right “not to suffer” when the government has never been granted the power to prevent me from easing my own suffering where there is no danger of me harming anybody else. The ninth and tenth amendments reinforce this notion, yet these clowns in the courts have long abandoned that concept in favor of the more modern “you only have the rights it says you do” nonsense. The powers of the government are enumerated, our rights are not.
Rights predate the creation of the government, and its powers are legitimate only because the people who created it had the right to bestow them.
—
I hope you are successful in this, as I view all of these extensions of commerce regulation as abominations, and contrary to the spirit of a constitution designed around the goal of limiting government power where not absolutely necessary.
#26 – the point you are missing is that RFRA restores the strict scrutiny standard to First Amemdment religious freedom issues. Raich was a medical marijuana case. This is religious marijuana and it’s a completely different standard. Read this case.
#27 Certain US tribes can use peyote as part of their religious ceremonies. Your “nut” is proving you have a religion there. Gook luck with that. I don’t think they are going say believing in proven science is a religious philosophy…
Das right Yo, keep it real!
Paddy – That’s exactly what the ID people claim. “Faith” that science or evolution is correct even when it doesn’t have all the answers.
I’m all for freedom of religion, but now I’m uncomfortable because this argument undermines science.
Marc, I’m curious does CoR agree that science is religion? How does that compare to the ID argument about the fairness of teaching Evolution in school?