Cannabis Meets Religious Freedom Restoration Act
In 1986 the Oregon Supreme Court decided that Oregon’s controlled-substance statutes violated the “free exercise” clause of the U.S. Constitution in that they outlawed the use of certain drugs, including peyote, while allowing no safe harbor for their religious/sacramental use. Accordingly, that court told the Employment Division that it could not deny people unemployment benefits if they had been fired for the use of peyote in a sacramental context, as it was used by the Native American Church and its member, Alfred Smith.
The Employment Division appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and in 1990 that court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, reversed. Scalia wrote for the majority that “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability … .”
But Scalia’s opinion ended with words that suggested that Congress and state legislatures could well act in this field. “[A] society that believes in the negative protection accorded to religious belief [in the first amendment] can be expected to be solicitous of that value in its legislation as well.”
Congress soon, and the state legislatures somewhat later, took Scalia up on this suggestion. The circumstance of Native Americans who wanted to use peyote as a religious rite was a sympathetic one, and it inspired the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. So uncontroversial was this for at least a brief moment that the vote in the U.S. Senate was 97 to 3 in favor.
In more recent years, though, the issues addressed through the RFRA have been quite different, and wide-ranging. They have become critical in our national debates aboutwater recycling, mandatory health insurance, and (especially through state-level RFRAs modeled after the federal version) discrimination against homosexuals.
But RFRA has come full circle. The Indiana law in particular may end up applied in a very high-profile way to weaken the war on drugs, especially insofar as that war is still aimed not at peyote but at marijuana.
Enter Bill Levin
On March 30, 2015, Bill Levin told The Huffington Post that he “cannot relate to an antique magic book.” He is creating a non-biblical religion in which the consumption of marijuana will be a sacrament, as it already is for Rastafarians.
Levin is building his church, the First Church of Cannabis, in Indiana, and hopes to take advantage of that state’s new religious freedom law, the law that has become controversial for allegedly encouraging discrimination against homosexuals.
Indeed, Levin reportedly filed the paperwork on March 26 with Indiana’s secretary of state even as Gov. Michael Pence was signing the act.
It seems nearly certain, as nearly as such matters can be in politics, that the government in Indiana will deny the applicability of the RFRA to Levin’s sacramental use of marijuana. Furthermore, this conflict could lead to some very high-stakes litigation, since Indiana has some of the harshest criminal penalties for marijuana use in the United States.
Possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana can lead to a charge of a class D felony with a potential sentence of up to 3 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
Protective Cloak or Sincere Religious Belief
Indiana might well seek to make the case that Levin’s professed religious beliefs are pretextual. In a case that arose under the federal RFRA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “It is not enough in order to enjoy the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to claim the name of a religion as a protective cloak. Neither the government nor the court has to accept the defendants’ mere say-so.”
There is no need for a say-so in the case of at least one high-profile religion: theRastafari movement has been around since the 1930s, and from the start it has regarded the spiritual use of ganja as a soul-healing ceremony. That may not help Levin, though.
To those endowed with only a little bit of legal training but a normal amount of common sense, the whole idea of having governments and courts sit in judgment of the sincerity of an individual’s religious convictions seems unappealing, but that is the predicament into which the law and politics of religion has wormed itself.
All that one can definitively say of Levin’s church at this moment is that in principle he has a case. But a church with a history behind it would have a better prospect for success in the inevitable litigation than any new creation. In the absence of such a history the founder will likely find himself trying to persuade judges, or juries, that the religious content of his church is sincerely held, and not a mere “protective cloak.”
This article was published by CFN Enterprises Inc. (OTCQB: CNFN), owner and operator of CFN Media, the industry’s leading agency and digital financial media network dedicated to the burgeoning CBD and legal cannabis industries. Call +1 (833) 420-CNFN for more information.
Network Partners
About CFN Media Group
CFN Enterprises Inc. (OTCQB: CNFN) owns and operates CFN Media Group, the premier agency and financial media network reaching executives, entrepreneurs and consumers worldwide. Through its proprietary content creation, video library, and distribution via www.CannabisFN.com, CFN has built an extensive database of cannabis interest, assisting many of the world’s largest cannabis firms and CBD brands to build awareness and thrive. For more information, please visit www.cfnenterprisesinc.com.
Disclaimer: Matters discussed on this website contain forward-looking statements that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. CFN Media Group, which owns CannabisFN, is not registered with any financial or securities regulatory authority and does not provide nor claims to provide investment advice or recommendations to readers of this release. CFN Media Group, which owns CannabisFN, may from time-to-time have a position in the securities mentioned herein and will increase or decrease such positions without notice. The Information contains forward-looking statements, i.e. statements or discussions that constitute predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, estimates, or projections as indicated by such words as "expects", "will", "anticipates", and "estimates"; therefore, you should proceed with extreme caution in relying upon such statements and conduct a full investigation of the Information and the Profiled Issuer as well as any such forward-looking statements. Any forward looking statements we make in the Information are limited to the time period in which they are made, and we do not undertake to update forward looking statements that may change at any time; The Information is presented only as a brief "snapshot" of the Profiled Issuer and should only be used, at most, and if at all, as a starting point for you to conduct a thorough investigation of the Profiled Issuer and its securities and to consult your financial, legal or other adviser(s) and avail yourself of the filings and information that may be accessed at www.sec.gov, www.pinksheets.com, www.otcmarkets.com or other electronic sources, including: (a) reviewing SEC periodic reports (Forms 10-Q and 10-K), reports of material events (Form 8-K), insider reports (Forms 3, 4, 5 and Schedule 13D); (b) reviewing Information and Disclosure Statements and unaudited financial reports filed with the Pink Sheets or www.otcmarkets.com; (c) obtaining and reviewing publicly available information contained in commonlyknown search engines such as Google; and (d) consulting investment guides at www.sec.gov and www.finra.com. You should always be cognizant that the Profiled Issuers may not be current in their reporting obligations with the SEC and OTCMarkets and/or have negative signs at www.otcmarkets.com (See section below titled "Risks Related to the Profiled Issuers, which provides additional information pertaining thereto). For making specific investment decisions, readers should seek their own advice and that of their own professional advisers. CFN Media Group, which owns CannabisFN, may be compensated for its Services in the form of cash-based and/or equity-based compensation in the companies it writes about, or a combination of the two. For full disclosure, please visit: https://www.cannabisfn.com/legal-disclaimer/. A short time after we acquire the securities of the foregoing company, we may publish the (favorable) information about the issuer referenced above advising others, including you, to purchase; and while doing so, we may sell the securities we acquired. In addition, a third-party shareholder compensating us may sell his or her shares of the issuer while we are publishing favorable information about the issuer. Except for the historical information presented herein, matters discussed in this article contain forward-looking statements that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. CFN Media Group, which owns CannabisFN, is not registered with any financial or securities regulatory authority, and does not provide nor claims to provide investment advice or recommendations to readers of this release. CFN Media Group, which owns CannabisFN, may from time to time have a position in the securities mentioned herein and will increase or decrease such positions without notice. For making specific investment decisions, readers should seek their own advice and that of their own professional advisers. CFN Media Group, which owns CannabisFN, may be compensated for its Services in the form of cash-based and/or equity- based compensation in the companies it writes about, or a combination of the two. For full disclosure please visit: https://www.cannabisfn.com/legal-disclaimer/.
Copyright © Accelerize Inc. · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Legal Disclaimer