Guardian article - Holy smoke: cannabis churches extol 'sacrament' of marijuana

Obelisk29

Not sure if this is more suited to After Hours or here!

From todays Guardian

“Magic is a sense of enchantment,” said Steven Hager, organizer of the first ever Congress of Marijuana Ministries, sitting in front of a flag of a marijuana-leaf-tailed phoenix. “It comes through Santa Claus or it comes through the Catholic church. It’s the same thing, running on the same rules. It’s how you enchant people.

“Our magic comes from marijuana.”

The first Congress of Cannabis Ministries was organized by Hager in Denver, Colorado, last Sunday as a way to help marijuana users and advocates to start churches of their own.

“My advice to everyone is to band together with your friends and create your own cannabis-friendly ministry,” Hager writes on the GoFundMe page for the Federation of Cannabis Churches. “Suddenly, the powers-that-be will have to start treating all of us with some real respect, or face some major lawsuits.”

Given that Article 44 guarantees freedom of religion and conscience what's to stop anyone here setting up a Church of Cannabis (equally as valid as any other religion/fairy tale/belief system) and challenging the current law regarding cannabis (or for that matter any other currently banned substance).

I know 44.2.1 has a "subject to public order and morality clause" in it but I would have thought that is quite vague.

Cookie_Monster

Freedom of Religion doesn't allow you to override national laws, same way it won't allow Satanists to start sacrificing live goats willy-nilly or allow sharia laws to superseded national law.

It's a pretty lame attempt to try get around the current laws.

Peregrinus

Been there, done that. You'll notice that the "First Congress of Cannabis Ministries" is happening in the US, where of course the Constitution guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. So there's already a whole bunch of cases from the US exploring the interaction between the constitutional guarantee on the one hand, and the war on drugs on the other. And this arises not just in relation to (possibly self-serving) claims of religious justification for the use of cannabis, but also long-established indigenous religions which were ritually employing, e.g., peyote long before there were any laws restricting this. And during the time of prohibition, it also came up in the context of the sacramental use of wine by Christians.

Employment Division v Smith is one of the leading modern cases on the issue. It dates from 1990. Smith was fired from his job for violating Oregon law by using peyote, and the State denied him unemployment benefit on the basis that he had been dismissed for misconduct. He had used the peyote as part of a religious ritual practised by the Native American church of which he was a member. He sued, saying that the denial of unemployment benefit violated his religious freedom. If you read that case, and then all the cases and articles which refer to or discuss it, and look at the legislation which came after it and the cases about that legislation, you'll begin to get a handle on how this conflict plays out.

The_Minister

This would get laughed out of court.

Obelisk29

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Freedom of Religion doesn't allow you to override national laws, same way it won't allow Satanists to start sacrificing live goats willy-nilly or allow sharia laws to superseded national law.

It's a pretty lame attempt to try get around the current laws.

But what if the Satanist was a licensed butcher and the slaughter was being done in an approved premises?

Halal/Kosher slaughter is done in accordance with religious ritual.

Does the Catholic church not give out wine to under 18's during communion - is this a case of religion being allowed to override national law?

I know that Catholics regard the wine as being the blood of Christ but scientifically it's still wine and contains alcohol.

The_Minister wrote:

This would get laughed out of court.

Why?

I agree it's a pretty lame attempt to get round drug laws - will we have a Church of Cocaine or Temple of MDMA but I'm just wondering what makes one belief system any more valid than another and how that is protected under the Irish constitution. The Fifth Amendment removed the special place of the Catholic church and other named religions so who is to say what is or isn't a valid religion?

There are plenty of examples worldwide of religions using substances to "connect" to their deities - Hindu shadhu's for instance often use hashish as part of their rituals. Rastafarianism is another obvious example.

Losty Dublin

Obelisk29 wrote: »

But what if the Satanist was a licensed butcher and the slaughter was being done in an approved premises?

Halal/Kosher slaughter is done in accordance with religious ritual..

An abattoir is a funny place to hold a satanic ritual, don't you think?

Halal and Kosher meats are rendered in approved and licensed abattoirs just under different techniques and procedures. They aren't doing anything illegal.

Jayop

Obelisk29 wrote: »

But what if the Satanist was a licensed butcher and the slaughter was being done in an approved premises?

Halal/Kosher slaughter is done in accordance with religious ritual.

Does the Catholic church not give out wine to under 18's during communion - is this a case of religion being allowed to override national law?

I know that Catholics regard the wine as being the blood of Christ but scientifically it's still wine and contains alcohol.



Why?

I agree it's a pretty lame attempt to get round drug laws - will we have a Church of Cocaine or Temple of MDMA but I'm just wondering what makes one belief system any more valid than another and how that is protected under the Irish constitution. The Fifth Amendment removed the special place of the Catholic church and other named religions so who is to say what is or isn't a valid religion?

There are plenty of examples worldwide of religions using substances to "connect" to their deities - Hindu shadhu's for instance often use hashish as part of their rituals. Rastafarianism is another obvious example.

Giving alcohol to U18's isn't illegal afaik.

Edit:

If you are under 18, you cannot legally buy alcohol. Also you cannot drink it unless you are in a private residence and have permission from your parents. It is also an offence to pretend that you are over 18 in order to buy or drink alcohol. If you are found guilty of these offences, you are liable to a class E fine on summary conviction in a District Court.

I guess "private residence" has to apply to the "house of God" too.

Peregrinus

Obelisk29 wrote: »

Does the Catholic church not give out wine to under 18's during communion - is this a case of religion being allowed to override national law?

I know that Catholics regard the wine as being the blood of Christ but scientifically it's still wine and contains alcohol.

This mostly isn't an issue in Ireland, where communion in Catholic churches is normally taken in the form of bread only (except by the celebrant).

It might be a theoretical issue for Anglicans, who do distribute both bread and wine. SFAIK, there is no explicit exemption in the Irish licensing laws for the sacramental use of alcohol. However in the unlikely event of an Anglican minister being prosecuted for supplying wine to an under-18 communicant, I suspect the courts would try to read such an exemption into the Licensing Acts, no doubt invoking the doctrine of "harmonious interpretation" with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, or alternatively would hold that the Licensing Acts were unconstitutional to the extent that they prohibited the sacramental use of wine.

This does raise the possibility of a similar challenge to laws restricting the use or supply of cannabis. But I don't think the issue would be "whether one belief system is more valid than another". The constitutional guarantee is not one of freedom of belief systems, but of freedom of religion, and a religion is much more than a belief system. So the issue would be persuading the court that the Church of Hey Man This is Good Shlt (or whatever) was a religion. And, again, while the question of "what's a religion?" hasn't come up a huge amount in Ireland due to our not very diverse religious landscape, we are not the only country to have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. If the question ever does come up, there's a whole bunch of cases from the US, Australia and several European countries that the Irish courts can look at for ideas as to how to approach this. Some of them even involve cannabis.

Jayop

Peregrinus wrote: »

This mostly isn't an issue in Ireland, where communion in Catholic churches is normally taken in the form of bread only (except by the celebrant).

It might be a theoretical issue for Anglicans, who do distribute both bread and wine. SFAIK, there is no explicit exemption in the Irish licensing laws for the sacramental use of alcohol. However in the unlikely event of an Anglican minister being prosecuted for supplying wine to an under-18 communicant, I suspect the courts would try to read such an exemption into the Licensing Acts, no doubt invoking the doctrine of "harmonious interpretation" with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, or alternatively would hold that the Licensing Acts were unconstitutional to the extent that they prohibited the sacramental use of wine.

This does raise the possibility of a similar challenge to laws restricting the use or supply of cannabis. But I don't think the issue would be "whether one belief system is more valid than another". The constitutional guarantee is not one of freedom of belief systems, but of freedom of religion, and a religion is much more than a belief system. So the issue would be persuading the court that the Church of Hey Man This is Good Shlt (or whatever) was a religion. And, again, while the question of "what's a religion?" hasn't come up a huge amount in Ireland due to our not very diverse religious landscape, we are not the only country to have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. If the question ever does come up, there's a whole bunch of cases from the US, Australia and several European countries that the Irish courts can look at for ideas as to how to approach this. Some of them even involve cannabis.

The law is quite specific regarding alcohol and minors. It's not an equatable situation at all. Supplying them with alchohol isn't an offence providing you're not selling it to them and it's with their parents consent in a private place.

If I wanted to give my 13 year old a small glass of win with a meal I'd break no laws.

Peregrinus

Jayop wrote: »

The law is quite specific regarding alcohol and minors. It's not an equatable situation at all. Supplying them with alchohol isn't an offence providing you're not selling it to them and it's with their parents consent in a private place.

If I wanted to give my 13 year old a small glass of win with a meal I'd break no laws.

Sure. But a church is not "a private place". Christian worship services are normally open to all comers, and attendance by one and all is warmly encouraged. You don't have to be Christian to attend, still less to have an invitation.

So if somebody is giving your 13-year old wine at a church service, on the strick wording of the law there does seem to be an issue there.

Victor

Losty Dublin wrote: »

An abattoir is a funny place to hold a satanic ritual, don't you think?

Well, are they complying with hygiene and animal welfare rules?

The_Minister wrote: »

This would get laughed out of court.

Would eveyone then go looking for munchies?

Jayop

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But a church is not "a private place". Christian worship services are normally open to all comers, and attendance by one and all is warmly encouraged. You don't have to be Christian to attend, still less to have an invitation.

So if somebody is giving your 13-year old wine at a church service, on the strick wording of the law there does seem to be an issue there.

I'd argue that it is a private place for this definition. My house is open to loads of people and I don't invite Christians.

Losty Dublin

Victor wrote: »

Well, are they complying with hygiene and animal welfare rules?

You'd need to ask the Veterinarian Inspector/Warlock on hand; that's his gig

InTheTrees

Peregrinus wrote: »

Been there, done that. You'll notice that the "First Congress of Cannabis Ministries" is happening in the US, where of course the Constitution guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. So there's already a whole bunch of cases from the US exploring the interaction between the constitutional guarantee on the one hand, and the war on drugs on the other.

This is also happening in the state of Cororado where marijuana is already legal for recreational use.

the dark phantom

Does anybody remember Father Hash from Cork ?

Peregrinus

Jayop wrote: »

I'd argue that it is a private place for this definition. My house is open to loads of people and I don't invite Christians.

A church that is open to the public is definitely not a "private place". "Private place" doesn't mean "privately owned". (If it did, then all pubs, clubs, hotels, shops, off-licences, restaurants, etc would be "private places" for the purposes of the licensing Acts, and they definitely aren't.) "Private place" means "place that is not open to the public, or a section of the public". So your home is a private place; pubs, hotels, churches, shopping centres etc are not.