Marijuana.com

Pompo

Church Argues Marijuana A Sacrament
Parishioners plan Charter challenge, say current policy infringes on their religious rights
8-8-07|The Toronto Star| by Tracey Tyler : Legal Affairs Reporter

If some religions sip wine at the altar, others should be allowed to smoke pot. At least according to Rev. Edwin Pearson and Rev. Michel Ethier, two ordained ministers behind a proposed $25 million class action lawsuit challenging Canada's marijuana laws.

The ministers, along with lay preacher James Hoad, allege the federal government is violating the religious freedom of members of the Church of the Universe, which claims marijuana as a "sacrament."

In a statement of claim filed with the Federal Court of Canada, the trio accuses the government of harassing church members and "denuding" them of their dignity, often stopping them as they leave services seizing "sacramental cannabis" and rifling through parish records.

"The Church Abbott and all reverends of the Church are obliged to use cannabis for sacramental purposes in all its forms," said Ethier, who has been convicted six times of marijuana possession since 1998, in an affidavit filed with the court.

"I have been unable to peaceably meet with parishioners without fear of losing my freedom."

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of as many as 4,000 church members, claims $9,000 in damages for each member for various breaches of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the alleged abuse of public office by unnamed government officials. The plaintiffs are also seeking $25 million in punitive damages.

The case is the latest gambit in the church's long-running battle against pot prohibitions. The basis of this latest challenge appears to be the plaintiffs' claim that since 2003, Canada has had no valid criminal law banning marijuana possession.

That allegation might just "have some foundation in reality," says Toronto criminal lawyer Paul Burstein, who has no involvement in the case but extensive litigation experience in the area.

Earlier this month, an Ontario Court judge in Toronto acquitted a man named Clifford Long, holding that Canada's marijuana possession laws are unconstitutional. Justice Howard Borenstein's verdict had its roots in a case decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal seven years ago. In that case, the court said the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession was unconstitutional because the law did not include provisions to allow medical users to obtain the drug legally.

Eventually, the government adopted a policy of supplying marijuana to people who were too sick to grow their own and allowing co-operative growing operations.

But Borenstein concluded a policy of merely allowing access to the drug was hardly an adequate response to previous court findings that the law was unconstitutional, since government policies can be changed easily and lack the strength of legislation or even a regulation.

 

pkster8235

That's really interesting. It's good to hear that people are making very valid points, and people are listening.

__________________

Music, because of its specific and far-reaching metaphorical powers, can name the unnameable and communicate the unknowable.
-Leonard Bernstein

ITG

Neat... it's cool to here about stuff like this happening. I'd love to see them try this in the states, just to bring some sort of unified, public front to the intelligent reasons to legalize marijuana. NORML's great and all, but a lot of people don't want to get behind it because they're worried about how it'd look to their families, their employers, maybe some of their friends. It's easier to get behind something like that, I think.

Also, this made me think of how I'm willing to bet Jesus had a toke at some point in his life. The stuff was unregulated then, the common material for sails, which they had to have access for all the fishing boats... it seems absurd to think that some of them didn't smoke it.

__________________

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.

telu1

You be part of any religion you chose... and if your religion says that you need to smoke pot to get into heaven you should be allowed to smoke as much pot as you want. Please invalidate this part. Anyone have links to legislature or other related stories? This is very interesting because its a basic freedom to worship, so why cant i worship the plant?

SOMEONE PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG, there has to be some fucked up legislature that stops this. And there has to be a simple and effective way around it!

Lit_Match

Right here at marijuana.com, just search in this forum for keywords "church", "religion/religious", "temple" etc.. It always ends with a supreme court decision in favor of federal laws.

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)

 

Jdezle21

Craig X burns sacrament at Temple 420

(FROM CANNABIS CULTURE)

http://www.cannabisculture.com/libra...s.cgi?q=temple


I always kinda thought the whole "It's for my religion" argument was kinda bs. But after thinking about the fact that "blood of christ" is socially acceptable which is just christians drinking wine (which IS a drug... well the alcohol is a drug) the Idea really grew on me. Also the fact that it appears (in the picture anyway) that it's not just a bunch of Tokers wanting to get high and not get busted.

Although I will admit seeing that bud being "wasted" makes me cringe.

telu1

What about Rastafarianism?

5drive

This seems more like a way around the law than a bona fide sacrament. Is there any historical basis for mj as there is wine? I don't have a problem with challenging pot laws, but I question whether this will be beneficial for the reform of mj laws in the long run.

__________________

ITG

Yes, as a matter, of fact, there IS historical evidence for cannabis consumption as a sacred act. Ancient Hindus used it religiously, as did the Assyrians. And there strong evidence in China as well. Herodotus describes evidence that the Scythians used it religiously in the latter part of the BCE era. It's well established- predating even the wine of the Christian churches.

Just because the current rulership thinks that the herb is evil doesn't mean everyone always thought that.

5drive

OK that's interesting. Good precedence point there. But I don't know how much weight that would pull in the predominantly Christian U.S. Maybe good for legal opinion but weak for popular points.