religion + pot + legalities

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by Plato, Feb 25, 2002.

  1. Plato

    Plato TRIBE Member

    so i fell asleep for a good part of the evening after watching that towlie episode of southpark, and when i woke up i had a question in my head; why not just make a religion in which smoking marijuana is part of practicing it?
    wouldnt it have to be tolerated? since we have freedom of religion and such, or is there some sort of clause existing to stop the possibility of such a thing?

    i went to ask.com but that was worthless, so now im asking the collective tribe brain.
    where are the lawyers?

    i wonder where i left my legal code book last year...damn.

    p[l]a+0
     
  2. Bumbaclat

    Bumbaclat TRIBE Member

    Certain Native American tribes can consume peyote in New Mexico.

    I don't think you can just create new religions. You'd have a tough time proving that you smoking dope in your living room is a valid religion.

    Bumbaclat
     
  3. smile

    smile Well-Known Member

    i think timothy leary tried that in the 70's with LSD, i'm not sure if it worked or not...
     
  4. seeker

    seeker TRIBE Member

    isn't this a basic tenet of rastafari?
     
  5. Plato

    Plato TRIBE Member

    no ones answering my question...booo!!
    :(

    p[l]a+0
     
  6. kyfe

    kyfe TRIBE Member

    The Rastafari faith praises the plant but it is still illegal in Jamaica and Rastafarian's must also abide by the law. Jamaica is currently conducting legal procedings to make it legal.

    Kyfe
     
  7. roo

    roo Well-Known Member

    well... you could always go out and catch AIDS. then, not only will you be allowed to smoke marijuana, it'll be paid for by the government!!
     
  8. deep

    deep TRIBE Member

    Isn't there that church in guelph, church of the universe or something like that, that's already doing this?
     
  9. Jazz

    Jazz TRIBE Member

    Last edited: Feb 25, 2002
  10. PosTMOd

    PosTMOd Well-Known Member

    I had this idea a while ago, and shelved it.

    It ain't really defined what a religion is, but when I figure out the legal loopholes, I'm back in... my idea encompassed making a brand new religion, and using it for making (complete with tax breaks) "churches" where every friday and saturday there would be certain "ceremonies" with the body-of-fucking-some-fictional-character in pill form consumed while ritualistically dancing to the beat of a shamanic drum.
     
  11. subuser

    subuser TRIBE Member

    Yeah, the Church of the Universe has been trying to convince the government that they should legally be allowed to smoke weed for many years now - unsuccessfully. I believe the founders Michael Baldasaro and Wally Tucker are two ex-lawyers with a great deal of knowledge surrounding laws, politics, and drug prohibition. They also smoke "copious amounts of ganj."

    They lived in an old factory with surrounding land in Guelph, until they were booted out, or something along those lines, and last I heard they were living somewhere between Hamilton and Guelph.

    They used to have the best weed.....

    I even voted for Michael Baldasaro when he ran for mayor.

    LONG LIVE THE CHURCH OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!

    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go pray.
     
  12. Plato

    Plato TRIBE Member

    hey postmod, will there be hymns sung by heavenly 303's??

    mmm..church of goa :)

    further pondering on the subject made me think of parrallels, between a stoner religion, and a satanic religion.
    can the law stand in the way of some neo-satanic pagan church sacrificing living animals/people to their dark overlord??
    they have the freedom to practice, but to what point does this freedom become a felony???
    :confused:

    kinda like those german vampires from 2 months ago...sure they killed and drank that guys blood...but they were practicing their religion...

    p[l]a+0
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2002
  13. subuser

    subuser TRIBE Member

  14. Wunderbar

    Wunderbar Well-Known Member

    Legalization of Marijuana through religous justification

    Essentially, in order to challenge the constitutionality of legislation you have to prove that....

    I. A breach of a Charter right, in this case s.2(a)--freedom of religion and conscience

    Does the law which forbids possession of marijuana infringe on the Charter right on freedom of religion and conscience? Freedom of religion is a fundamental right of the Charter , meant to insulate citizens from a state religion and to allow citizens to practice whatever religion they want, no matter how absiludicrous it may seem.
    You would have to prove that smoking marijuana is an element of your religion, and that is all in order to get past this stage. Even if you were the accused in a murder case and you are pleading that it's part of your religion, you would get past this stage.


    II. The breach of the charter right is not saved by s.1 of the Charter--all rights are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society [In this case, you would have to prove that restricting the use of marijuana in accordance with]


    Here is the very difficult part. Laws which forbid the possession and trafficking of drugs are designed to prevent harm to society. The counsel for the defendant could adduce medical studies, witnesses and other evidence to demonstrate that the laws against possession of marijuana are unreasonable. [If there was a law which criminalized the possession of crosses or turbans, obviouslyhthe provision would be unreasonable because crosses are merely a religious symbol and harm nobody]. Marijuana, as much as we all love it, does have deletrious effects [loss of memory, cognitive impairment, decrease in production etc.] If you can convince the court on a balance of probabilities that criminalizing the possession of marijuana is an unreasonable infriningement on your basic fundamental right to freedom of religion [perhaps through a cost /benefit analysis] then you will likely be in very good shape.


    III The impugned legislation is not connected to the objective of the legislation in a way that minimally impairs the rights and freedoms of individuals


    At this stage a defendant's counsel would have to prove that the objective of preventing harm to society is not met by the current marijunana possession legislation in a way that really protects our basic, supreme rights and freedoms. The Crown will argue that the legislation meets the objective in a way that minimally infringes the rights: criminalizing the possession of marijuana is meant to deter potentially harmful behaviour and it is a very minor infringement on our freedom of religion and conscience

    I'm not sure if there has been a case like this before any of the courts, but in all honesty I think it would be difficult to get through this three pronged test. There's a higher probability that the Narcotics Act will be ammended before someone is able to make a s.2(a) argument.
     

Share This Page