Ganja Law 101 Episode 4

This episode explains why the fed­er­al exemp­tion for reli­gious use of pey­ote is a reg­u­la­tion instead of a statute.

Town v State ex rel. Reno, 377 So.2d 648, 651 (Fla. 1979), “… would, for all prac­ti­cal pur­pos­es, legal­ize the use of cannabis for any­one, mem­ber or non­mem­ber of the Ethiopi­an Zion Cop­tic Church …”

Unit­ed States Depart­ment of Jus­tice, Office of Legal Coun­sel
Pey­ote Exemp­tion for the Native Amer­i­can Church, Decem­ber 22, 1981

Page 405: “… the pur­pose for the pey­ote exemp­tion in H.R. 2 does not appear in the leg­isla­tive his­to­ry …”

Page 406: “Two court deci­sions have been ren­dered in this area in recent years.  One, a deci­sion by Judge Yale McFate in the case of Ari­zona v. Attakai, No. 4098, in the supe­ri­or court of Mari­co­pa Coun­ty, Phoenix, Ari­zona, July 26, 1960; and a Cal­i­for­nia deci­sion, Peo­ple against Woody, decid­ed August 24, 1964, in the Supreme Court of Cal­i­for­nia.  Both these cas­es held that pros­e­cu­tions for the use of pey­ote in con­nec­tion with reli­gious cer­e­monies was a vio­la­tion of the first amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion.

Page 415: “… it must have a sec­u­lar pur­pose …”

Page 418: “… the exemp­tion should not be viewed as hav­ing a reli­gious pur­pose …”

Unit­ed States v. Mid­dle­ton, 690 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1982), quot­ing Leary v. Unit­ed States, 383 F.2d 851, 861 (5th Cir. 1967), “… unlim­it­ed free­dom to vio­late the laws of the land rel­a­tive to mar­i­hua­na …”

Unit­ed States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497, 513 (1st Cir. 1984), “… No broad reli­gious exemp­tion from the mar­i­jua­na laws is con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly required …”

State v Olsen, No. 171/69079, (Iowa Supreme Court, July 18, 1984), “… he asks us on this appeal to afford his reli­gious use of mar­i­jua­na unlim­it­ed con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tion …”

Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1463, 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1989), “… over­whelm­ing dif­fer­ence explains why an accom­mo­da­tion can be made for a reli­gious orga­ni­za­tion which uses pey­ote in cir­cum­scribed cer­e­monies, and not for a reli­gion which espous­es con­tin­u­al use of mar­i­jua­na …”

Employ­ment Divi­sion v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 880 (1990), “Our most recent deci­sion involv­ing a neu­tral, gen­er­al­ly applic­a­ble reg­u­la­to­ry law that com­pelled activ­i­ty for­bid­den by an individual’s reli­gion was Unit­ed States v. Lee, 455 U.S., at 258–261.”