Judge to rule on pot laws vs. religion

23536

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
TORONTO -- It's judgment day Monday for a Toronto church -- the "Church of the Universe" -- that has asked a Superior Court judge for an exemption to the country's marijuana laws for religious reasons.

If Madam Justice Thea Herman grants the exemption, it would strike down the laws prohibiting the possession, cultivation and distribution of marijuana.

"It would effectively legalize marijuana because every pot smoker would find a new religion," argued Nick Devlin and Donna Polgar, of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which opposes the bid.

They urged the court to weed out frivolous claims.

"The Church of the Universe ... offers marijuana -- however and whenever individuals want it," the lawyers stated in their factums filed in court.

"Simply put, the mere fact that one profoundly enjoys using marijuana does not beget a constitutional right to traffic it commercially."

full @ http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/06/17175406.html
 
Hey man, maybe the judge is an ex-hippie that's lookin for a way to smoke pot and still be a sitting judge, answer, join the religion you said can have it!

Wootage.
 
Yeah, that's a realistic thought.

The argument for religious exemption is a strong one. In the US they'd automatically side with the state because the guy's right, all of a sudden pot heads without legitimate religious belief will convert.

In Canada or other European countries (yeah yeah, Canada has more in common with Europe than the US or Mexico!) tend to favor making allowances for the individual with true religious belief over the state's concern about illegitimate religious claims.

It was once said that it's better to let 99 guilty people go than imprison one innocent person. In the US we profess to believe it, but don't practice it. The Europeans seem more inclined to practice it.
 
Making drug law exemptions for "religious reasons" is religious discrimination, pure and simple. No one religion is any more legitimate than another; if I say that my religion (let's call it "Psychotropicism") involves me being allowed to take any drug I want, why should that be disallowed while some other bullshit religion (e.g. the Native American Church, or this Church of the Universe) gets an exemption to this just because they get together in a group and give themselves a fancy name?
 
Making drug law exemptions for "religious reasons" is religious discrimination, pure and simple. No one religion is any more legitimate than another; if I say that my religion (let's call it "Psychotropicism") involves me being allowed to take any drug I want, why should that be disallowed while some other bullshit religion (e.g. the Native American Church, or this Church of the Universe) gets an exemption to this just because they get together in a group and give themselves a fancy name?
Click to expand...

No it isn't. These exemptions are allowed when there is a sincere religious belief, when the religion is truly based in belief, not merely a path to get high legally.

The court isn't discriminating on the basis of validity for one religion or another, it's discriminating on the basis of sincerity. There's a major difference.

If there's any discrimination, it's between the sincere religion and the sincere atheist. However, it would be very hard for an atheist to argue that they're being discriminated against because the believer is able to smoke marijuana as part of an attempt to connect to god, when an atheist, by virtue of being an atheist, doesn't believe in doing anything to connect to god. You can't be prevented from doing something when you don't even believe in doing that something!
 
for perspective: Santeria took animal sacrifice to the US Supreme Court and won. In my city you'll find headless goats dumped on sidewalks every so often.
 
Hammilton said:
No it isn't. These exemptions are allowed when there is a sincere religious belief, when the religion is truly based in belief, not merely a path to get high legally.
Click to expand...

How could a court possibly prove whether someone's stated religious beliefs are sincere or not?
 
How could a court possibly prove whether someone's stated religious beliefs are sincere or not?
Click to expand...
I think every province in Canada (except maybe Quebec) does not allow just any "minister" to officiate over a wedding. You have to be a "minister" of a recognized church and a somewhat long standing member of a community. The criteria of recognized church is patrons, beliefs, regular meetings, physical building, practices etc. Many of the online internet religions are therefore excluded.

Whether or not sincerity is actually a term used by law, clearly Canada has been saying what is and isn't a real religion for a while now.
 
The constitution allows freedom of religion, but nowadays ppl dont seem to care that much about what it says. But hopin Canada can show the US and the UK how to do this shiznit!
 
Mora Fiend said:
Im gonna craft a religion called 'Heroinisim' in which I would shoot dope 5 times a day in hopes of seeing God.
Click to expand...

me and a friend have been a practicioner of this religion for quite sometime now, but i usualy only go to church 2 or 3 time a day. I guess your just more devoted to the faith then me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top